Whose cosmopolitanism?: Genealogies of cosmopolitanism
The question ‘whose cosmopolitanism?’ is also a question about the complex genealogies and dynamics of cosmopolitan discourses and practices. It is imperative to broaden the field of theoretical enquiry and examine the origins of modern discourses of cosmopolitanism in conjunction with the origins of capitalism. I believe that current theoretical work on cosmopolitanism largely brackets off this contradictory genealogy.
The article identifes ethical issues and risks associated with the tendency to cosmopolitanism in the modern world. The policy of tolerance towards national minorities is considered in the context of educational policy on the example of France and Russia.
The term cosmopolitan is increasingly used within different social, cultural and political settings, including academia, popular media and national politics. However those who invoke the cosmopolitan project rarely ask whose experience, understanding, or vision of cosmopolitanism is being described and for whose purposes? In response, this volume assembles contributors from different disciplines and theoretical backgrounds to examine cosmopolitanism's possibilities, aspirations and applications-as well as its tensions, contradictions, and discontents-so as to offer a critical commentary on the vital but often neglected question: whose cosmopolitanism? The book investigates when, where, and how cosmopolitanism emerges as a contemporary social process, global aspiration or emancipatory political project and asks whether it can serve as a political or methodological framework for action in a world of conflict and difference. © 2015 Nina Glick Schiller and Andrew Irving. All rights reserved.
This book is the first study to engage with the relationship between cosmopolitan political thought and the history of global conflicts. Accompanied by visual material ranging from critical battle painting to the photographic representation of ruins, it showcases established as well as emerging interdisciplinary scholarship in global political thought and cultural history. Touching on the progressive globalization of conflicts between the eighteenth and the twentieth century, including the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic wars, the two World Wars, as well as seemingly ‘internal’ civil wars in eastern Europe’s imperial frontiers, it shows how these conflicts produced new zones of cultural contact. The authors build on a rich foundation of unpublished sources drawn from public institutions as well as private archives, allowing them to shed new light on the British, Russian, German, Ottoman, American, and transnational history of international thought and political engagement.
This chapter is prompted by the need to locate a methodological tool that would assist us in addressing the open wounds of transition, the ruptures and apertures of difference channelled through the experiences of border crossing. Equally, I should like to talk about exile as creativity, not just suffering.
Liberal political and legal theory has enjoyed a remarkable resurgence since the mid-twentieth century. The emergence of global constitutional thought is closely coupled with its rise to prominence. Yet many theorists of global constitutionalism are wary of acknowledging their ‘liberal’ commitments. This chapter makes the case that at the deepest level of interpretation, prominent theorists of global constitutionalism are ‘liberals’ in all but name. Through a double critique of the liberal foundations of their thought, an argument is advanced that there are unanswered questions about the best way of understanding and grounding a global constitutional order beyond liberal theory.
The first in-depth analysis of media &cosmopolitanism that engages critically with existing theories and addresses new case studies in order to question the tendency of a number of scholars to reproduce the fallacies of globalisation research by viewing the relationship between cosmopolitanism and media from an almost exclusive Western perspective;
The British socioemotional economy is marked by a tension between cosmopolitan humanitarian sentiments and the denial of sympathy for geographically close, but socially distant, strangers in need. The essence of this tension can be captured by the Dickensian notion of 'telescopic philanthropy'. A proper understanding of this tension would benefit from examining both short-term and secular trends - proximate and distal causal mechanisms. The paper is not explanatory in nature, but aims to generate sensitizing concepts, while at the same time seeking to steer the altruism, morality, and social solidarity literature towards a more active engagement with history, power, and ideology.
This chapter will discuss the role of journalists in forming a global culture of responsibility by presenting a case study on how Ukrainian reporters perceive their cosmopolitan ‘duty’. The chapter will show that, contrary to the normative expectations of many Western theorists, non-Western journalists may remain indifferent to global problems just because they do not perceive themselves as members of the global community. The chapter will argue that the inability or unwillingness of local journalist to relate local issues to global concerns is an important problem of the globalized world. For, if journalists do not see global issues as problems of their communities, how can they orient the member of those communities to a cosmopolitan outlook?