Cosmopolitanism+Pro

// Why are societies seen as // // ‘somehow rooted in the land, as if they needed the soil’? // Ulrich Beck
 * __Cosmopolitanism: Paradigm of a World Society__**

__**Definition:**__ **“**The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, are (or can and should be) citizens in a single community. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. In most versions of cosmopolitanism, the universal community of world citizens functions as a positive ideal…” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013) “According to Hansen, Burdick-Shepherd, Cammarano, and Obelleiro (2009), cosmopolitanism is a name for the ever-shifting, ever-vibrant space in which persons fuse reflective openness to the new with reflective loyalty to the known. Cast in other terms it is a name for a **dynamic way of leaving and remaining at home**. (p. 592)” (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011, p. 253).



 Cosmopolitanism can be linked to a societal shift, termed 2nd age Modernity (1st age modernity: nation-states society & 2nd age modernity: global society). With this societal shift came a new version of society, “social processes that are indifferent to national boundaries…people shop internationally, work internationally, love internationally, marry internationally, research internationally, grow-up and are educated internationally (that is, multi-lingually), live and think transnationally, that is, combine multiple loyalties and identities in their lives” (Beck, 2008, p.325). 2nd age modernity is a result of the shift away from traditional modernism, where there was rigid structure and master-narratives that guided much of our lives and experiences; the nation-state can be seen as one of these master-narratives that is comforting and provides structure and ideology, but is undoubtedly experiencing change…what does this mean for the individual? How do we come to define ourselves, our identities, and our communities? “In the second age of modernity everyone has to locate himself in the same global space and is confronted with similar challenges, and now strangeness is replaced by the amazement with similarities” (Beck, 2008, p.329).

 Three criteria emphasize this movement toward a more global society: indifference to national boundaries, space-time compression, and an increasing network-like interconnectedness between national societies a primarily seen through economic globalization (Beck, 2008, p.326).

This fundamental shift in society from a nation-state emphasis to a global/cosmopolitan emphasis raises some important questions:  *Have politics and the state become zombies- dead long ago but still haunting people’s minds?  *How is it that the theorists of the nation-state invariably identify society with a piece of land, like animals identifying with their territory…?” (Beck, 2008, p.326).

 The UN as a Bridge: Example provided by Beck: United Nations conflicts and a shift of priorities. While traditionally the UN prioritized respecting the sovereignty of nation-states (1st age modernity), there has been a new priority, human rights, which precedes international law and state boundaries (2nd age modernity). The idea that we all share a similar human morality, regardless of nationality and that the problems many people and cultures are experiencing transgress boundaries (e.g., environmental concerns, social and economic inequality, mortality & illness…etc.)

 But this unity and similarity that we all share does not suggest that there is no difference, in fact this difference and uniqueness is celebrated, and with Cosmopolitanism this idea is centered around the individual and overcoming the boundaries that may traditionally be applied as a result of the nation-state. (Androids: Be Together, Not the Same: []

 Now with a new global society that transcends nation-state boundaries, it would be logical to believe that conflict and disagreement would be minimalized, but Beck asserts that this is not the case… “the one world society, at once individualized as well as globalized, conceived as cosmopolitan order of human rights—clash and spark a worldwide intellectual and political conflict. From which there emerges, one way or another some element of a world public, some degree of conscious globality…we are dealing with a specific system of world power” (Beck, 2008, p.328). Along with this global consciousness comes a “weakening of state sovereignty and state structures” (Beck, 2008, p.328)



 Within the 2nd age of Modernity, there is less of a focus on the connections between nation-states and instead a focus on the “internal quality of the social” (Beck, 2008, p.329). This separation of cultures by way of nation-states with rigid boundaries is dissolved and there is a questioning of what constitutes society and politics, the differences between highly developed and under-developed countries are ‘collapsing’ (Beck, 2008, p.329).

 Beck emphasizes that cosmopolitanism, unlike traditional globalization, includes a consideration of not only economic changes, but also political changes (a new political structure), among others (p.330). Furthermore, the traditional views of mobility and migration change from increasing inequalities, and outsourcing, to transnational job-sharing; where individuals are encouraged to be mobile and to transcend traditional limitations and boundaries that may have kept them from pursuing opportunities (Beck, 2008, p.331).

 Empirical Indicators of Cosmopolitanization:  1) Cultural commodities (developments in the import and export of cultural commodities; more diversification and circulation of media)  2) Dual citizenship (how are ‘foreigners’ defined)  3) Political intensities (to what extent are various ethnic groups represented and present in the centers of national power?)  4) Language (who speaks how many languages?) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 5) Mobility (different types of relocation, temporary and permanent) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 6) Routes of Communication (international systems of communication) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 7) International Travel <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 8) Activity in Transnational initiatives and organizations (e.g., GreenPeace, WWF) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 9) Criminal Activity (development of international (organized) criminality <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 10) Transnational ways of life (diaspora communitiesà ‘hybrid’ cultures) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 11) Transnational News Coverage <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 12) National Identities (Does cosmopolitanism cancel national identities?) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> 13) Ecological Crisis (global world crises, environmental legislation and regulation) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> []

__**Productiveness:**__

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> This article focuses on the different forms and types of Cosmopolitanism and narrows in on ways of framing the cultural and social experience of Cosmopolitanism. With a reference to Manuel Castell’s notion of ‘Networks,’ a basis for social & cultural Cosmopolitanism is built, “the notion of networks as open and flexible structures suggests a basis for a cosmopolitan sociology (Castells, 1996). For Castells society exists today in the form of networks rather than territorial spaces.What is significant about the network are the modes of connectivity by which different things are related. Networks are open structures connected by nodes rather than hierarchical structures…” (Delanty, 2006, p.31).
 * Cosmopolitanism à Sociology & Methodology:**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> “Critical cosmopolitanism is an emerging direction in social theory and reflects both an object of study and a distinctive methodological approach to the social world. It differs from normative political and moral accounts of cosmopolitanism as world polity or universalistic culture in its conception of cosmopolitanism as socially situated and as part of the self-constituting nature of the social world itself. It is an approach that shifts the emphasis to internal developmental processes within the social world rather than seeing globalization as the primary mechanism” (Delanty, 2006, p.25).
 * Critical Cosmopolitanism:**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> While Cosmopolitanism is heavily linked to globalization, which in relation to media is nothing new, there is a new emerging field of media studies and questions of morality, framed within cosmopolitanism. Here is a recent example of what studies using cosmopolitanism to approach media can look like, “The cosmopolitan is a figure that has emerged in media and cultural studies alongside the new literature on media and morality. The cosmopolitan – literally, ‘citizen of the world’ – is, for instance, sought out by Chouliaraki (2006) in the spectatorship of suffering. In her groundbreaking analysis of a series of news narratives of suffering, she theorizes that one can acquire an identity of cosmopolitanism (moral) or communitarianism (less moral) based on the type of news that is viewed. ‘Adventure news’ and ‘ecstatic news’, she argues, employ a communitarian logic in their representations of suffering; adventure news blocks ‘the option of pity for the suffering of people who are not like “us”, whereas ecstatic news enacts the communitarian logic by expanding globally a demand for action on suffering that is “our” own’ (2006: 196)” (Ong, 2009, p. 450).
 * Cosmopolitanism & Media:**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> “Social media, including discussion boards, online community groups, and social network sites (SNSs), create unique opportunities for the discursive construction of hybridized cultures. Given the proliferation of social media, virtual cosmopolitanism and the construction of virtual third cultures provide an intriguing new area of research” (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011, p. 252). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> “Cultural capital involves culturally defined assets (e.g., knowledge, education, and skills). These may afford individuals greater social status within a particular culture, and may be correlated with an individual’s economic standing but are not necessarily affiliated (Bourdieu, 1986). Hannerz (1996) linked cosmopolitanism and cultural capital, calling the cosmopolitan a traveler who will deploy ‘‘decontextualized cultural capital,’’ including professional skills, network connections, and consumer behavior as a ‘‘bridgehead for entry into other territorial cultures. . . to make contact with the meanings of other rounds of life and gradually incorporate this experience into [his or her] own cultural capital’’ (p. 108)” (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011, p.254). The specific example looked at in this study was INTASU (INT-ernational Arizona State University) is a Phoenix-based organization representing individuals from over 25 countries (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011).
 * Cosmopolitanism & Social Media:**
 * []**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> This article explores the importance of considering cosmopolitanism as a framework for issues related to gender-inequality and education, especially since these are international concerns that require international collaboration and change, but both of these rest on one of the assumptions of Cosmopolitanism, that it is rooted in morality and ethics, “Thus, it is concerned with how justice regarding schooling is secured for individuals in every country of the world and how this might be achieved across different political settings by people who may not share obvious ties of affiliation. Cosmopolitanism raises a number of demanding questions for comparative education, which has been so strongly framed by the boundary of the nation or locale. The approach suggests that assessments and comparisons with regard to global social change should be made by asking questions regarding what makes one form of education more just or gender equitable than another, how we can make assessments of this and how we can bring about change that makes gender equality a practice, not just an ideal” (Unterhalter, 2008, p.540).
 * Cosmopolitanism à Global Problems & Social Change:**

__**Relevance:**__


 * Playing for Change:**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> “As a human race we come together for birth, and welcome together for death. What brings us together in between is up to us, stop and listen to the universal language of music and bring that positive energy with you everywhere you go.” The goals of this organization emphasize some of the core beliefs of cosmopolitanism; that we are all connected on a larger, global scale, that we have shared morals and values that incline us to act on behalf of one another, and that there are ways that we can connect, as people, outside of the nation-state boundaries.
 * []**
 * []**

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">
 * The World Wildlife Fund (WWF):**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">“We seek to save a planet, a world of life. Reconciling the needs of human beings and the needs of others that share the Earth, we seek to practice conservation that is humane in the broadest sense. We seek to instill in people everywhere a discriminating, yet unabashed, reverence for nature and to balance that reverence with a profound belief in human possibilities. From the smallest community to the largest multinational organization, we seek to inspire others who can advance the cause of conservation. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> We seek to be the voice for those creatures who have no voice. We speak for their future. We seek to apply the wealth of our talents, knowledge, and passion to making the world wealthier in life, in spirit, and in living wonder of nature” (WWF, 2015).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">“For conservation to last, the integration and interconnectedness of WWF’s approaches must be of equal measure to those of nature and to the forces that threaten our future.” (Carter Roberts, President & CEO). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The WWF is an organization that is centered on educating citizens of the world so that conservation related to issues of: climate, food, forests, fresh water, oceans and species can make a difference. This organization does partner with governments (nation-states) but let’s not forget its overall goal of recognizing and emphasizing global problemsà researching and striving for a global solution. Many of their concerns are rooted in a belief that the environment (climate, food, forests, water, oceans, and species) is a shared human space and should be a shared human interest; as a global society these are our shared values.
 * []**




 * Contingency:**

While this theory is incredibly optimistic and truly helpful, there are some important considerations that relate to its contingencies and assumptions, many of which can be seen as its weaknesses. 1) It is very idealistic (it envisions aspects of Cosmopolitanism leading to a euphoric ‘global society’…slippery slope?) 3) Its moral and ethical underpinnings are assumed to be the same across cultures, that all humans have a similar values and morals…which may not be the case 4) It assumes a type of equality, where individuality and communities that form (regardless of geography) will all have agency, power, and inclusivity (would some form of hierarchy eventually form?) 5) Cosmopolitanism and issues related to communication & technology (assumes that now, or eventually, that everyone will have equal access…to information, technology, education, transportation…etc.) (termed elitist)

[] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Works Cited
 * Multimedia Illustration:**

Beck, U. (2008). The Cosmopolitan Perspective. In S. Seidman & J.C. Alexander (ed.), //The New// // Social Theory Reader // (2). New York: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital.(1986). //Cultural theory: An anthology//, 81-93.

Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Volume I: The rise of the network society.

Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The aestheticization of suffering on television. //Visual communication//, // 5 // (3), 261-285.

Ong, J. C. (2009). The cosmopolitan continuum: Locating cosmopolitanism in media and cultural studies. //Media, Culture & Society//, //31//(3), 449-466.

Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory. // The British journal of sociology //, //57//(1), 25-47.

Hansen, D. T., Burdick-Shepherd, S., Cammarano, C., & Obelleiro, G. (2009). Education, values, and valuing in cosmopolitan perspective. //Curriculum Inquiry//, //39//(5), 587-612.

Hannerz, U. (1996). //Transnational connections: Culture, people, places//. Psychology Press.

Kleingeld, P. & Brown, E. (2013). Cosmopolitanism. //The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.//

McEwan, B., & Sobre-Denton, M. (2011). Virtual cosmopolitanism: Constructing third cultures and transmitting social and cultural capital through social media. //Journal of International// // and Intercultural Communication //, //4//(4), 252-258.

Unterhalter, E. (2008). Cosmopolitanism, global social justice and gender equality in education. // Compare //, //38//(5), 539-553.