Education for cosmopolitanism?
Education for
cosmopolitanism?
Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity
model for and within international education
KONRAD GUNESCH
This article presents a model of cosmopolitanism, taken from the conceptual part of the author’s research study into ‘The Relationship between Multilingualism and Cosmopolitanism’. Cosmopolitan cultural identity is introduced as straddling the global and the local, encompassing questions of cultural mastery, metaculturality, mobility and travelling, tourism, home and nation-state attachments. 251
The article introduces and proposes ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a personal cultural identity form 251
This study developed working definitions of both cosmopolitanism and multilingualism, both hitherto not existing in that form, by means of a critical analysis of literature. This analysis led to the development of a ‘cosmopolitan matrix’, representing the key components of cosmopolitanism. The empirical part of the study analysed how a group of 11 students, selected for their multilinguality, revealed themselves in terms of cosmopolitan cultural identity according to the developed matrix of cosmopolitanism. 253
These three ideal types were later labelled ‘Advanced Tourist’, ‘Transitional Cosmopolitan’, and ‘Interactive Cosmopolitan’. 253
Instead of discussing the novelty or essentiality of yet another element of ‘international’ or ‘internationalism’, I will propose cosmopolitanism as an alternative or complementary element. 254
literature openly admits cosmopolitanism to be lacking a sharp and detailed definition, and to be an identity form 255
Cosmopolitanism can usefully be pre-defined by the catchword phrase reoccurring in the literature, of ‘feeling at home in the world’ 256
This feeling at home in the world could be specified as interest in or engagement with cultural diversity by straddling the global and the local spheres in terms of personal identity. Straddling in this sense means having one foot in each sphere, and finding a balance in which the global is decisive without necessarily dominating all the time. 256
between cosmopolitans and locals. For Hannerz, both forms are part of what he calls ‘world culture’, which is ‘created through the increasing interconnectedness of varied local cultures, as well as through the development of cultures without a clear anchorage in any one territory’256
The interdependence between cosmopolitan globalism and localism is central to Hannerz’s writing. He suggests that both cosmopolitans and locals ‘have common interests in the survival of cultural identity’. They are just biased towards different extremes, thereby complementing each other and in the end depending on each other as in an ecosystem, in which the cosmopolitan is interested in the survival of diverse cultural identities. For the local, cultural diversity, ‘as a matter of personal access to varied cultures, may be of little intrinsic interest . . . For the cosmopolitan, in contrast, there is value in diversity as such’. But the cosmopolitan cannot come into contact with this diversity, ‘unless other people are allowed to carve out special niches for their cultures, and keep them’ Hannerz’s conclusion ‘that there can be no cosmopolitans without locals’ 256
[It is] a search for contrasts rather than uniformity. To become acquainted with more cultures is to turn into an aficionado, to view them as art works. (1990: 239, original emphasis; similarly 1996: 103) 258
If one thinks of cultures remaining located geographically, one might require mobility, in order to experience and feel at home in them. This raises the question of whether and to what extent physical mobility is essential for cosmopolitanism. 258
Dictionary definition: Cosmopolitan: Adj. 1. With features of different countries: composed of or containing people from different countries. 2. Well-travelled: familiar with many different countries and cultures. 3. Un-prejudiced: free from national prejudices. 4. Knowledgeable and refined: showing a breadth of knowledge and refinement from having travelled widely . . . N. Well-travelled person: somebody who has travelled to many different countries around the world. (Rooney, 1999: 427; similarly 2002: 189) 258
Often the term [cosmopolitan] is used loosely, to describe just about anybody who moves about in the world. But of such people, some would seem more cosmopolitan than others, and others again hardly cosmopolitan at all. A more genuine cosmopolitanism entails a certain metacultural position. There is, first of all, a willingness to engage with the Other. (Hannerz, 1992: 252; similarly 1996: 102–3) 259
Hannerz compares cosmopolitans with other groups of people who can also be described as mobile, ‘footloose, or on the move in the world’, as for example tourists, exiles, expatriates, transnational employees and labour migrants. He makes clear that mobility alone is no guarantee of cosmopolitanism, but rather the (sole) characteristic of the typical tourist. For him, tourists are ‘not participants, but mere spectators’ and thus ‘incompetent’ (1990: 240–2; 1992: 246–8; 1996: 105) 259
In this context aword could be said about those individuals referred to in the literature interchangeably as ‘Global nomads’259
Hannerz goes somewhat deeper in maintaining that the cosmopolitan person can easily disengage from his culture of origin 262
While the borders between cultural or political permeation are often impossible to delineate clearly, the general salience of the nation state for identity issues is reflected in literature, which does not consider cosmopolitanism, but which describes national identity and the nation (state) as still the globally most prevalent single identity frame or reference point, compared to other possible identity frames or reference points 262
Cosmopolitans are, almost by definition, people who regret the privileging of national identities in political life, and who reject the principle that political arrangements should be ordered in such a way as to reflect and protect national identities. (Kymlicka, 2001: 204; similarly Buzan et al., 1998: 388–9; Friedman, 1994: 204–5; 1995: 78–9) 163
To sum up the relationship between cosmopolitanism and the nation state: while models opposing nation states seek forms of attachment and identity only beyond the nation state, models that reconcile cosmopolitanism and the nation state argue for forms of attachment and identity within as well as beyond the nation state. The decisive point is that, for both strands of cosmopolitanism, identity and attachment forms beyond the nation state are a matter of course. The whole discussion hinges on the desirability of forms of attachment and identity within the nation state.164-265
The following are the main areas of personal concern or engagement for a cosmopolitan person according to the synthesized literature:
a straddling of the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ spheres, with a decisive impact of the global (‘world citizen’);
a ‘connaissance’ with respect to (local) cultural diversity wherever possible, otherwise an interested ‘dilettantism’;
a general willingness and openness towards engagement with cultural diversity, which yet allows for ‘dislike’;
the mobility to travel, with a discussion about whether this is sufficient;
an attitude not of the ‘typical tourist’, while the ‘occasional tourist’ accommodates fewer concerns;
a notion of ‘home’ that can be extremely varied, while it is no longer undisputedly the ‘home culture’, it also is not ‘everywhere’; and
a critical attitude towards the (native) nation state, which can range between ‘rooted’ and ‘unrooted’ identity expressions. 265
differentiate between globalization andcosmopolitanism by claiming that ‘the first signifies an empirical phenomenon whereas the second denotes an ideal’ (Papastephanou, 2002: 75),265-266
it should not be cosmopolitanism against internationalism, but cosmopolitanism as part of internationalism 268
Gunesch, Konrad. “Education for cosmopolitanism?” Journal of Research in International Education, vol. 3, no. 3, 2004, pp. 251-275. Sage Publications, DOI: 10.1177/1475240904047355
