Education For Cosmopolitanism?

A RT I C L E
JRIE
Education for JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN
I N T E R N AT I O N A L E D U C AT I O N
& 2 0 0 4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
cosmopolitanism? B A C C A L A U R E AT E O R G A N I Z A T I O N
(www.ibo.org)
and S A G E P U B L I C AT I O N S
Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity ( w w w.s ag ep u bl ic a ti o n s. co m )

VOL 3 (3) 251–275 ISSN 1475-2409
DOI: 10.1177/1475240904047355
model for and within international education
KO N R A D G U N E S C H
University of London, UK
This article presents a model of Cet article présente un modèle de cosmopolitisme, tiré de la partie
cosmopolitanism, taken from the conceptuelle du travail de recherche de l’auteur intitulé ‘La relation
conceptual part of the author’s research entre multilinguisme et cosmopolitisme’. L’identité culturelle
study into ‘The Relationship between cosmopolite est traitée comme étant présente, à la fois sur le plan
Multilingualism and Cosmopolitanism’. mondial et local, et comprenant des interrogations quant à la
Cosmopolitan cultural identity is maı̂trise culturelle, la métaculturalité, la mobilité et les voyages,
le tourisme, les attachements à son pays et à l’État-nation.
introduced as straddling the global and the
Le cosmopolitisme, qui comprend et complète la notion
local, encompassing questions of cultural
d’internationalisme, pourrait offrir, en théorie et en pratique, une
mastery, metaculturality, mobility and
alternative ou un complément à ‘ l’éducation internationale’, et
travelling, tourism, home and nation-state plus particulièrement au travers de son concept d’internationalisme.
attachments. Cosmopolitanism, containing En outre, la référence explicite au cosmopolitisme pour le
but also furthering the notion of développement personnel présente une plus grande utilité pour
internationalism, could constitute an l’éducation internationale, contrairement aux cadres
alternative to or complement for institutionnalisés.
‘international education’ in theory or
practice, especially via its element of Este artı́culo presenta un modelo de cosmopolitismo extraı́do de la
‘international/ism’. The explicit reference parte conceptual del estudio de investigación realizado por el autor
of cosmopolitanism to the development of sobre la relación entre el multilingüismo y el cosmopolitismo
the individual, in contrast to (The Relationship between Multilingualism and
institutionalized frameworks, opens up Cosmopolitanism, 2002). El artı́culo trata la identidad
further usefulness for international cultural cosmopolita como una identidad a medio camino entre lo
education. global y lo local, y abarca cuestiones de dominio cultural,
metaculturalidad, movilidad, turismo, hogar y sentido de pertenencia
K E Y WO R D S cosmopolitanism, cultural identity, a un paı́s o nación. El cosmopolitismo, que incluye y al mismo
global and local, international education, tiempo amplı́a la noción de internacionalismo, podrı́a ofrecer, en la
internationalism, world citizenship teorı́a y en la práctica, una alternativa o un complemento para la
ˆeducación internacional¤. En especial, la relación directa entre
cosmopolitismo y desarrollo del individuo presenta una mayor
utilidad para la educación internacional, a diferencia de los marcos
institucionalizados.
251
Journal of Research in International Education 3(3)
Introduction
Background
Within the literature, current concerns over international education appear
to centre on definitions of the field and of international schools, the nature
of an international curriculum and the organization and management of
international schools. As an indication of this we can analyse the content
of four major books on international education that have appeared in
recent years, perhaps the most significant concentration of writing that
there has ever been in the field. One of these books (Blandford and
Shaw, 2001) focuses explicitly and exclusively on management issues, as
its title indicates. The remaining three, all edited by Hayden and Thompson
(1998, 2000) or Hayden, Thompson and Walker (2002), cover a wider
range of issues but their focus remains primarily on institutional and cur-
ricular matters, rather than on the learners in international education. Out
of a total of 52 contributions to these three volumes, just three have the
learners as their explicit focus, all appearing under the section heading,
‘Students in international education’, in Hayden and Thompson (1998).
Undoubtedly, the aims and outcomes of international education in terms
of desirable developments and transformations in the individual learner
are implicit in much of this writing, but remarkably little is directed at
clarifying and theorizing their nature. Richard Pearce (1998) writes on
the key concept of students’ identity in international schools and George
Walker (1998) deals with the issue of the meaning of ‘home’ for ‘dis-
oriented children’, both of which concepts appear centrally in the analysis
of cosmopolitanism presented here. There is, however, no single coherent
picture of the ‘internationalism’ or ‘international mindedness’ within the
individual that, presumably, international education aims to develop. It is
interesting that the so-called ‘third-culture kids’ attract much interest
within the international education literature (Langford, 1998). Here we
have a particular group identified partly as a ‘problem’ for international
education and partly as an ‘ideal model’ of desirable individual outcomes.
The discussion of third-culture kids is empirical and pragmatic rather than
conceptual or theoretical and has the disadvantage as a model of drawing
on the circumstances and experiences of a relatively tiny group that are
atypical in relation to the majority of the world’s young people.
I would argue, therefore, that there is a need for a clearer account of the
nature of the ‘international’ individual that international schools – and
international education in national schools – may be aiming to promote.
Without this clear a priori understanding of the aims of international edu-
cation for the individual learner, it is difficult to judge the discussions of
252
Gunesch: Education for cosmopolitanism?
curricular, organizational, or managerial concerns. We must ask, ‘What

ends, precisely, are these discussions addressing?’ This article attempts to
provide a model for a potentially desirable individual outcome of an inter-
national education, but rooted in the concept of cosmopolitanism, rather
than internationalism, for reasons that are discussed below. The article
introduces and proposes ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a personal cultural identity
form for and within the rather institutionalized setting of ‘international edu-
cation’. It specifically proposes a complementary model to the notion of
‘internationalism’ within ‘international education’. The conceptualization
of cosmopolitanism is taken from the author’s study of ‘The Relationship
between Multilingualism and Cosmopolitanism’ (Gunesch, 2002). This
study developed working definitions of both cosmopolitanism and multi-
lingualism, both hitherto not existing in that form, by means of a critical
analysis of literature. This analysis led to the development of a ‘cosmopo-
litan 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.
In this article, the cosmopolitan aspect of that research, i.e. that matrix,
will be presented and related to ‘international education’ and specifically
‘internationalism’. This presentation will be theoretical in that the concep-
tual framework of cosmopolitanism is based on a comprehensive literature
synthesis.
The implications of this conceptualization and its presentation are, how-
ever, also practical, since the model of cosmopolitanism itself was already
tested for its robustness and real-world applicability with the group of
multilingual students. First, the 11 students confirmed each of the pre-
sented categories of the literature matrix as relevant to their personal
cultural identity. Second, since the students did this to a varying extent
and degree within each category, it produced a pattern of ‘cosmopolitan
responsiveness’ for each student and for groups among the 11 students.
In the end, this enabled me to synthesize three ‘cosmopolitan ideal
types’ across the student group. These three ideal types were later labelled
‘Advanced Tourist’, ‘Transitional Cosmopolitan’, and ‘Interactive Cosmo-
politan’. With these ideal types previously not existing in the literature,
and with ‘individual multilinguality’ as the decisive selection criterion
for the student group in the first place, this allowed me to relate multi-
lingualism and cosmopolitanism by adding to and refining the existing
literature categories of cosmopolitanism. It must however be stressed
that due to the exploratory character of this research I had to stop short
of all kinds of ‘causality’ implications. For these reasons, I claim that the
253
model of ‘cosmopolitanism’ can also hold its own in the world of inter-
national education.
Presenting ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a form of

‘internationalism’
The motivation for presenting ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a form of ‘internation-
alism’ is manifold:
. First, there is an ongoing discussion of what constitutes

‘internationalism’ or the element of ‘international’ in the context
of international education. Unsurprisingly, the literature that tries
to come to grips with the definition of the element ‘international’
in the concept of ‘international education’ is vast (see just Allen,
2003: 83; Gellar, 2002: 30; Hayden et al., 2000: 107–21;
McKenzie, 1998: 243–4; Mackenzie, 2000: 42, 48–50; Skelton,
2002: 44; Thompson, 1998: 278). 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.
. Second, there are writers in the literature on cosmopolitanism who
regard internationalism, although a component of
cosmopolitanism with a specific meaning discussed below, as
being no longer sufficient and wish to transcend the idea of
internationalism as being based on nation states (Rée, 1998: 88;
Sarup, 1996: 142).
. Third, cosmopolitanism is investigated as an individual identity
form, and it does not (yet) have any comparable significant,
widespread, or traditional institutional attachments, like schools or
associations. This removes the need to put my proposed model of
cosmopolitanism in an institutional setting like international
schools or organizations, whereas ‘internationalism’, ‘being
international’, ‘international-mindedness’ or ‘international attitude’
seem to belong to a much more institution-bound area of
investigation within such frameworks as ‘international schools’
(see Allen, 2003: 83; Hayden et al., 2000: 107–12), ‘international
education’ (see Hayden and Thompson, 1995: 394) or
‘international curriculum’ (see McKenzie, 1998: 243–44;
Mackenzie, 2000: 42, 48–50; Skelton, 2002: 44–53; Thompson
1998: 278–81).
. Fourth, and having said that, my proposed model of
cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity form can of course
254
be applied and used, theoretically and also practically, by

international educators, globally mobile people, as well as anyone
else who thinks he or she could benefit from the theoretical and
practical implications of cosmopolitanism:
The fact that the world is small, fragile, and its inhabitants increasingly
dependent on one another . . . has also made it imperative that inter-
national educators . . . focus on issues and problems that are trans-
national and trans-cultural. (Gellar 2002: 32)
I will present cosmopolitanism as a model for such transnationalism and

transculturalism, being an original model not least because, as mentioned,
it wishes in parts to transcend the idea of internationalism.
Conceptual framework
The definition of cosmopolitanism
Since ‘cosmopolitanism is a protean term with a complex history’ (Mehta,
2000: 620), this article focuses on contemporary literature on cosmopoli-
tanism. However, roughly summing up two millennia, there seem to be
three periods when the concept of cosmopolitanism was especially inten-
sely debated: first, the time of the Greek Stoics of the 1st and 2nd centuries
B C , second, the 17th/18th century and, third, the early 1990s (see Carter,
2001: 1; Derrida, 1997: 47–8; Edwards, 2001: 34; Heater, 2000: 179–80;
2002: 11, 26, 40; Kristeva, 1988: 84, 202). Regarding that third period,
the literature openly admits cosmopolitanism to be lacking a sharp and
detailed definition, and to be an identity form sui generis (see Anderson,
1998: 267; Brennan, 2001: 76; Clifford, 1998: 365; Eagleton, 2000: 63;
Mehta, 2000: 621; Pollock et al., 2002: 1; Robbins. 1998b: 12; Waldron,
1995: 110, 112). Moreover, cosmopolitanism has ‘appeared as a subject of
interdisciplinary debate’ (Dharwadker, 2001: 1). For these reasons, a litera-
ture matrix of cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitan cultural identity will be
presented, with writings from several disciplines, because what is decisive
was not a particular school or style of writing but the way somebody has
decided to write about cosmopolitanism. Occasional references to histori-
cal sources will be made if these are taken up by recent writings.
Recent literature frequently refers to Hannerz, especially his essay
Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture (1990), which appears slightly modi-
fied and shortened in his book Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places
(1996: 102–11). Many ideas from these two sources also appear in his
book Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organisation of Meaning (1992), and
255
all three sources often contain identical passages. The reason for such fre-
quent reference especially to Hannerz seems to be that he attempted to pro-
vide both a concise yet comprehensive model of cosmopolitanism as well
as concrete definitions of various issues within it. Such attempts at concrete
definitions are either lacking in the more recent writings, are just implied
by reference to Hannerz or are reproduced without substantial expansion
of his core meanings and ideas.
For all these reasons, the definition of cosmopolitanism here is not
merely a literature review, but a literature synthesis that has been, in
turn, subjected to substantial critical thinking. Cosmopolitanism can use-
fully be pre-defined by the catchword phrase reoccurring in the literature,
of ‘feeling at home in the world’ (see for instance the title of Brennan’s
1997 book At Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism Now). 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.
The cosmopolitan straddling of the global and the local

Part of the literature distinguishes between cosmopolitanism and localism,
or 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 develop-
ment of cultures without a clear anchorage in any one territory’ (1990:
237, 249; 1996: 102). 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’ (1990: 249–50). Hannerz’s conclusion ‘that there can
be no cosmopolitans without locals’ (1990: 250; 1996: 111) seems then
logical. Others come to the same conclusion: ‘The opposition between
cosmopolitan and local is a simple deduction from the meaning of cosmo-
256
politan itself, a notion that presupposes the existence of at least two local
cultures’ (Friedman, 1994: 204–5; 1995: 78–9; similarly Pollock, 2002:
17). Other literature amends the global and local existences with a notion
such as ‘living in between’ or ‘a balancing act’ (Anderson, 1998: 276;
Clifford, 1992: 108; 1997: 36; Rabinow, 1986: 258). In sum, one could
follow either Hannerz’s rather black-and-white conception of cosmopolitan
globals and locals, or the literature that takes into account spaces in between,
shades of grey, and especially the balancing act between the global and the
local. One could also think of a continuum between the global and the
local, so that a development process of the individual cosmopolitan from
the local can be taken into account. The idea of a continuum is used several
times in this literature synthesis.
Cosmopolitan competence or mastery

Linking up with the relationship between the global and the local spheres,
Hannerz describes local competence as a characteristic of cosmopolitanism,
namely as ‘not a way of becoming a local, but rather of simulating local
knowledge’ (1990: 247). He specifies different grades of expertise
within that simulation of local knowledge:
Cosmopolitanism tends also to be a matter of competence, of both a general-

ised and a more specialised kind. There is the aspect of a state of readiness, a
personal ability to make one’s way into other cultures, through listening, look-
ing, intuiting, and reflecting, and there is cultural competence in the stricter
sense of the terms, a built-up skill in manoeuvring more or less expertly
with a particular system of meanings. In its concern with the Other, cosmo-
politanism thus becomes a matter of varieties and levels. Cosmopolitans can
be dilettantes as well as connoisseurs, and are often both, at different times.
Competence with regard to alien cultures for the cosmopolitan entails a sense
of mastery. (1992: 252–253; similarly 1990: 239–40; 1996: 103)
In view of the number and differentiation of alien cultures, the cosmo-

politan is a connoisseur regarding some alien cultures, and a dilettante
regarding probably the great majority of the other existing cultures.
Again, one could think of a continuum here, from the state of a dilettante
to the state of a connoisseur, so that a development process can also be
taken into account. So the idea of a continuum might apply on two
levels: first, the differentiation between cosmopolitan globals and locals;
second, the competence or mastery aspect of cosmopolitans in relation to
particular local culture(s).
257
Hannerz’s metacultural position

Hannerz describes the core meaning of his notion of cosmopolitanism as
follows:
A more genuine cosmopolitanism entails a certain metacultural position. There
is, first of all, a willingness to engage with the Other, an intellectual and ethic
stance of openness toward divergent cultural experiences. (1992: 252; similarly
1990: 239; 1996: 103)
[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)
This core meaning has been adopted by recent writings: some quote it and
link it to the historical dimension: ‘Hannerz’s . . . exposition of the cosmo-
politan ideal harmonises well with the Hellenic conception of the world
citizen which gave rise to the term’ (Kaufmann, 2000: 1091; similarly
Abbas, 2002: 211). Others describe the notion almost verbatim (Mehta,
2000: 622), or refer to some of its key features such as engagement with
the Other (Papastephanou, 2002: 69–70) or open-mindedness (Fullin-
wider, 2001: 341). Although Hannerz does not say so explicitly, it is quite
clear that his ‘metacultural position’ is the subjective side and requirement
of a cosmopolitan, while his ‘cosmopolitan mastery’ outlined earlier is the
objective side and requirement.
The question of mobility or travelling

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. Some dictionaries offer a definition of
cosmopolitanism with a central mobility (travel) aspect:
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)
Also for a part of the literature the travel experience seems to be a central
aspect of cosmopolitanism, either by mentioning it directly (Appadurai
and Breckenridge, 1998: 5; Beck, 2000: 96; Clifford, 1992: 103; Kelsky,
258
1996: 175; Morley, 1996: 332–3), or by describing the mobility that

enables travel experiences (Brennan, 1997: 19; Clifford, 1998: 362; Ong,
1999: 13; Wilson, 1998: 352; Zachary, 2000: 1). But Hannerz contrasts
simply moving around in the world with his metacultural position:
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; simi-
larly 1996: 102–3)
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). This description
can be seen as an antithesis to the cosmopolitan state of mind. In Tomlin-
son’s critique, ‘Hannerz’s anthropological eye is useful in reminding us that
the sheer increase in mobility . . . is not in itself sufficient to engender a
cosmopolitan disposition’ (1999: 186; similarly Robbins, 1998a: 254).
Hence this more critical part of the literature does not see mobility or
travelling as sufficient for real cosmopolitan experiences.
In this context a word could be said about those individuals referred to in
the literature interchangeably as ‘Global nomads’ or ‘Third Culture Kids
(TCK)’ (Ezra, 2003: 124; Langford, 1998: 29–30). The literature defines
them as follows:
A Third Culture Kid (TCK) is a person who has spent a significant part of his or
her developmental years outside the parents’ culture. The TCK builds relation-
ships to all of the cultures, while not having full ownership in any. (Pollock and
Van Reken, 2001: 19; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2003: 165; similarly Langford,
1998: 30, citing Schaetti)
Not having full ownership either in the passport or the host culture would
not by definition impede these children from feeling at home in the world
in the cosmopolitan sense, especially since ‘they portray characteristics that
transcend a single culture and nationality, and . . . adopt aspects of not one
but many cultures into their sense of self’ (McKillop-Ostrom, 2000: 74;
similarly Allen, 2002: 134; Langford, 1998: 30). But the process that
259
defines them as Third Culture Kids took place in the period of their ‘devel-
opmental years’, defined as ‘from birth to 18 years of age’ (Pollock and Van
Reken, 2001: 19, 27), at least during that period maturity and reflexivity
issues with respect to the cosmopolitan matrix could apply. All this means
that while they might have a head start with respect to the formation of a
cosmopolitan cultural identity, the mere characteristic of being a Third
Culture Kid or Global Nomad does not yet make them cosmopolitan.
The relationship between cosmopolitanism and tourism

One could see the relationship between cosmopolitanism and tourism as an
aspect of mobility or travelling, or vice versa. However, various writers
seem to attach special importance to the example of the tourist, although
not all of them clearly distinguish the tourist from the cosmopolitan. It
seems that the tourist is an interesting case in as much as the typical tourist
is largely excluded from cosmopolitan status, but tourism and cosmopoli-
tanism in general do not seem to exclude each other. The tourist is also the
personal embodiment of mobility or travelling mentioned earlier, but the
focus is now less on the means or extent of travel than on the motives.
Hannerz’s definition of tourists as ‘not participants, but mere spectators’
and as ‘incompetent’, given in contrast to the cosmopolitan, can be found
in a variety of other literature sources, which primarily address language
teaching, European politics, cultural identity or culture in general, and
even encompass the travel writing and the novel genre, even if cosmo-
politanism is in most cases not directly referred to. Tourists are thus
described as:
. Just keeping to beach holiday stereotype experiences. (Curtis and

Pajaczkowska, 1994: 201; Featherstone, 1993: 182; 1995: 98)
. Staying only a short and hurried time in contrast to the traveller
who dwells over a longer time before moving on. (Bowles, 1990:
13; Curtis and Pajaczkowska, 1994: 201; Fischer, 1996: 73–4;
Todorov, 1986: 21)
. Avoiding close encounters and deep involvement with the target
culture. (Baumann, 1996: 29; Bruckner, 1996: 247, 249; Carter,
2001: 77; Curtis and Pajaczkowska, 1994: 202; Featherstone,
1995: 98; Shore, 2000: 229; Todorov, 1986: 21)
. Projecting their home experience onto the target culture, gaining
only exotic fringe benefits from cultural differences. (Theroux,
1986: 133); Or vice versa
. Having unreasonably high expectations of exotic differences to
their home experiences. (Rée, 1998: 81)
260
. Remaining in the end without substantial challenge or change
contributed to or received from the target culture. (Byram, 1997:
1–2; Fischer, 1996: 74–6)
Hannerz’s critique of Theroux’s writing is very useful to sum up all these

categories: ‘Such travel is not for cosmopolitans, and does little to create
cosmopolitans. Much present-day tourism is of this kind’ (1990: 241;
1992: 247; 1996: 104–5).
In sum, the literature unanimously excludes the tourist from the
connoisseur status and from feeling at home in the place and with the
locals. However, it is difficult to imagine that a cosmopolitan cannot be a
tourist as well, at least from time to time. Indeed, Appiah says about cul-
tural tourism that it is something ‘which the cosmopolitan admits to enjoy-
ing’ (1998: 91). Consequently, one can assume that the other literature has
basically the cliché of the ‘typical tourist’ in mind. Since part of the litera-
ture defines the difference between cosmopolitanism and tourism in terms
of ‘not being the other form’, it is probably fair to say that the counter-
image one gets is then the ‘typical cosmopolitan’. This means that the over-
whelming majority of the literature sees cosmopolitanism and tourism as
a black-and-white cliché, a polarity, and does not suggest either any varia-
tion in these extremes, nor any possible forms or stages of development
between them. My empirical research with multilingual people strongly
suggested such a rigorous and even tautological view was too limited,
and that a flexible continuum model once more was useful (Gunesch,
2002: 263–4, 273). However, to keep things simple and within the bound-
aries of applicability for international education, here I will keep rather
strictly to the ‘cosmopolitan’ and not the ‘tourist’ model.
Hannerz’s ‘home’ for the cosmopolitan

Having dealt with the issues of mobility or travelling as well as tourism, the
question remains of where ‘home’ is for the cosmopolitan, because home
in a ‘classical’ sense is somehow understood as a counterpart to mobility.
This classical sense might or might not be a part within the cosmopolitan
shorthand definition of ‘feeling at home in the world’, since the cosmo-
politan home can now be located literally anywhere within or between
the local and the global. Hannerz is the only literature reference discovered
to explore this question. The only two other voices found merely point out
the alleged ‘homelessness’ of the cosmopolitan in one single instance,
(Eagleton, 2000: 63; Iyer, 2000: 136), while some deal with reverse
culture shock of cross-cultural travellers who re-enter the area of their
261
cultural departure, however without reference to cosmopolitanism (Storti,

1990: 99).
Hannerz goes somewhat deeper in maintaining that the cosmopolitan
person can easily disengage from his culture of origin: ‘The cosmopolitan’s
surrender to the alien culture implies personal autonomy vis-à-vis the cul-
ture where he originated. He has his obvious competence with regard to it,
but he can choose to disengage from it’ (1990: 240; 1992: 253). He then
presents an open definition of home: one possibility is that cosmopolitans
‘are never quite home again, in the way real locals can be’, since there is no
more ‘taken-for-grantedness’. Or, ‘the cosmopolitan makes ‘‘home’’ as well
one of his several sources of personal meaning’, or ‘he is pleased with his
ability both to surrender to and master this one as well’. Another possibility
is that ‘home is really home, but in a special way; a constant reminder of a
pre-cosmopolitan past, a privileged site of nostalgia . . . where once things
seemed fairly simple and straightforward’. Or, home could be ‘a comfor-
table place of familiar faces, where one’s competence is undisputed . . .
but where for much the same reason there is some risk of boredom’
(1990: 248; 1992: 253–4; 1996: 110). One could think of the possibility
of ‘multiple homes’, which is not mentioned in this way by Hannerz, who
presents a variety of single alternatives, without any hint of a possible
multiplicity. In the end the question of where home is for the cosmopolitan
remains literally wide open, which is why its substantiation within inter-
national education promised to be an interesting challenge.
The relationship between cosmopolitanism and the

nation-state
A very important discussion point recurring in the literature is the relation-
ship between cosmopolitanism and the nation state or national identity. It is
included in our matrix of cosmopolitan cultural identity in the sense that
the nation state deeply permeates the daily life of contemporary persons in
a variety of ways, culturally as well as politically. 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 litera-
ture, 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 iden-
tity frames or reference points (see just Greenfeld, 1996: 10; Guibernau,
1996: 73; 2001: 257; Opello and Rosow, 1999: 253–4; Moore, 2001: 56;
Parmenter, 1999: 454; Smith, 1991: 170; Wallerstein, 1991: 92).
262
Cosmopolitan models opposing the nation-state

If one keeps in mind the etymological meaning of ‘cosmopolitan’ from
classical Greek kosmou politês as a ‘citizen of the world’, of which the
literature is aware (Carter, 2001: 2; Cheah, 1998: 22; Derrida, 1997: 11;
Edwards, 2001: 34; Heater, 2000: 179; 2002: 7, 27; Münch, 2001: 69;
Pollock, 2002: 25; Robbins, 1992: 184; Rooney, 1999: 427; Tomlinson,
1999: 184; Wollen, 1994: 189), some authors can be seen as stating the
logical consequence of this:
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; Fried-
man, 1994: 204–5; 1995: 78–9)
Sarup and Rée go considerably further in their personal involvement and

attempt to construct a new model of cosmopolitanism or world
citizenship:
I think we should be thinking in terms beyond the nation-state. International-

ism is inadequate because it assumes the existence of the nation-state. I suggest
that we try and discover a new form of world citizenship. Is it too idealistic to
hope that, wherever you are, you are a citizen of that place? . . . A cosmopolitan
is . . . one ‘who has no fixed abode’ or one ‘who is nowhere a foreigner’.
(Sarup, 1996: 142–3)
Is it possible to hope for a new cosmopolitanism, after internationality? . . . Per-

haps we may look forward to a future in which people could interpret them-
selves without any reference to the idea that their nation is their self, in fact
without any essential reference to nationality at all . . . A new cosmopolitan
world, which could put the illusions of internationality behind it, for good.
(Rée, 1998: 88)
Strongest of all, in her essay ‘Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism’, Martha

Nussbaum (described by Heater, 2002: 11 as ‘one of the most influential
scholars in the field of cosmopolitan writing’) holds an ‘emphasis on
patriotic pride’ to be ‘morally dangerous’ (1996: 4), and ‘nationalism
and ethnocentrism’ as a ‘morally irrelevant characteristic’ (1996: 5). She
explicitly puts forward a model of cosmopolitan identity as ‘world citizen-
ship’ based on the Greek Stoics after Diogenes the Cynic (1996: 6–9) but
filled with contemporary meaning. It reiterates several aspects of the
cosmopolitan matrix developed by this author, while others are taken up
by critical literature to be discussed:
263
The Stoics stress that to be a citizen of the world one does not need to give up
local identification, which can be a source of great richness in life. They suggest
that we think of ourselves not as devoid of local affiliations, but as surrounded
by a series of concentric circles. The first one encircles the self, the next takes in
the immediate family, then follows the extended family, then, in order, neigh-
bours or local groups, fellow city-dwellers, and fellow countrymen – and we
can easily add to this list groupings based on ethnic, linguistic, historical, pro-
fessional, gender, or sexual identities. Outside all these circles is the largest one,
humanity as a whole. Our task as citizens of the world will be to ‘draw the
circles somehow toward the centre’ (Stoic philosopher Hierocles, 1st–2nd CE),
making all human beings more like our fellow city-dwellers, and so on.
We need not give up our special affections and identifications . . . But we
should . . . give the circle that defines our humanity special attention and
respect. (Nussbaum, 1996: 9)
Models reconciling cosmopolitanism and the nation state

In decisive opposition to Nussbaum’s model, a number of authors expli-
citly embrace the nation-state attachment. As a result, the model of a
‘rooted cosmopolitanism, or if you like, a cosmopolitan patriotism’
(Appiah, 1998: 91) is put forward, which stresses the feasibility and neces-
sity of having loyalties to nation states, as well as to larger and smaller enti-
ties at the same time:
The cosmopolitan patriot can entertain the possibility of a world in which

everyone is a rooted cosmopolitan, attached to a home of his or her own, with
its own cultural particularities, but taking pleasure from the presence of
other, different, places that are home to other, different, people . . . We cosmo-
politans can be patriots . . . It is because humans live best on a small scale that we
should defend not just the state, but the county, the town, the street, the busi-
ness, the craft, the profession, the family, as communities, as circles among the
many circles narrower than the human horizon, that are appropriate spheres of
human concern. We should, in short, as cosmopolitans, defend the right to live
in democratic states, with rich possibilities of association within and across
their borders. (Appiah, 1998: 91, 95, 96, 97, original emphases; similarly
Bhabha, 1996: 202; Cohen, 1992: 483; Hollinger, 1995: 5; Malcomson,
1998: 234–5, 242–3; Robbins, 1998b: 1)
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
264
are a matter of course. The whole discussion hinges on the desirability of

forms of attachment and identity within the nation state. This means that
while larger dimensions than the nation state are taken for granted, the
nation state is not (not even by those supporting it). Useful as an overall
summary of the theoretical implications of this complex issue is Robbins’s
suggestion that ‘there is no simple relation between cosmopolitanism and
the state’ (1998b: 8). In sum, this is one of the most interesting aspects of
the cosmopolitan matrix with respect to ‘international education’ and its
discussion about ‘internationalism’, since ‘cosmopolitanism’ offers quite
a different take on this notion.
Intermediate summary
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.
The differentiation between cosmopolitanism and

globalization
With this outline of the model of cosmopolitanism, globalization could be
seen as its antithesis insofar as it is associated with cultural uniformity and
homogenization. Some writers classify contemporary cosmopolitanism as
a phenomenon of globalization (Barker, 2000: 113–14; Diouf, 2002: 111–
12; Held et al., 1999: 341, 374; Jones, 1998: 146; Mehta, 2000: 619–20;
Tomlinson, 1999: 185). Others differentiate between globalization and
265
cosmopolitanism by claiming that ‘the first signifies an empirical phenom-

enon whereas the second denotes an ideal’ (Papastephanou, 2002: 75), or
by differentiating that ‘globalisation is a set of designs to manage the world
whereas cosmopolitanism is a set of projects towards planetary con-
viviality’ (Mignolo, 2002: 157). However, none of them offers further
substantial reasoning for their practice or position. Cosmopolitanism, as
outlined, and globalization seem to be substantively as well as historically
completely different in character.
There are two strands of opinions in the globalization debate: one associ-
ates globalization with cultural uniformity (see Callan, 2000: 19; Jameson,
2000: 51; Kress, 1998: 57; Sifakis and Sougari, 2003: 60; Watson, 2000:
68–71) and one with fewer subscribers that (also) associates it with cul-
tural diversity (see Scholte, 2000: 23). Our model of cosmopolitanism
belongs to the diversity strand: while only few authors seem to read
cosmopolitanism as a synonym for uniformity (Gutmann, 1993: 184),
others read it as diversity (Bohman, 1998: 107; Brint, 2001: 10; Hannerz,
1990: 237; Hollinger, 1995: 84 and 103–4). To hammer the point home:
with Hannerz being our pivotal literature representative, he also provides a
clear and useful differentiation between his ‘world culture’ (to which the
cosmopolitan belongs) and the mentioned uniformity strand of globaliza-
tion: ‘World culture . . . means: not a replication of uniformity but an
organisation of diversity, an increasing interconnectedness of varied local
cultures’ (1996: 102; similarly 1990: 237).
With this differentiation in mind, the definition element of globalization
that ‘it goes global and local at the same moment’ (Hall, 1991: 27; simi-
larly Cadieux and Esselink, 2002: 24; Featherstone, 1993: 169; Fishman,
1998–9: 37; Guibernau, 2001: 244; Held et al., 1999: 28; Isin and
Wood, 1999: 94; Jones, 1998: 144, 149; Kaldor, 1996: 44; Lo Bianco,
2003: 287) is only superficially similar to our conception of cosmopolitan-
ism straddling the global and the local.
While the concept and the debate about modern forms of globalization
originated only in the 1940s (Nicholson, 1999: 24; Scholte, 2000: 16),
the concept and the debate of contemporary forms of the cosmopolitan
as a world citizen have much deeper historical roots. Here we can mention
Fougeret de Monbron’s work Le Cosmopolite ou le Citoyen du Monde (written in
1750), or literature maintaining that ‘in English, cosmopolite came into
frequent usage only in the seventeenth century’ (Malcomson, 1998: 233,
original emphasis; similarly Barnhart, 1988: 224; Edwards, 2001: 34).
One could even go back to the original Greek Stoics’ concept of cosmo-
politan as ‘world citizen’ of the 1st and 2nd centuries B C , illustrated by
Nussbaum (1996: 6–9).
266
The differentiation between cosmopolitanism and

internationalism
The differentiation between ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘internationalism’ as
independent concepts is a complex one, further complicated due to inter-
nationalism being, as mentioned above, a component of the synthesized
cosmopolitan matrix. However, with this in mind, especially considering
the relationship between cosmopolitanism and the nation state, the follow-
ing points seem crucial:
. Inter-nationalism by definition centres around national (meaning

nation-state) categories, which triggers several logical geographical,
political and cultural limitations from the viewpoint of
cosmopolitanism.
. Internationalism cannot question, or transcend, or even try to
ignore as a category, the nation state as such.
. Internationalism cannot explain why a person’s ‘home’ might
actually be outside his or her own nation state, or in several parts
of the world, as symbolized in the cosmopolitan shorthand
definition of ‘feeling at home in the world’.
. ‘Being international’ is defined as having ‘attitudes which place
the cultures and views of others on a par with one’s own’ or as
‘showing respect for others’ (Hayden et al., 2000: 120). The
possibility of viewing other cultures and views actually above one’s
own or showing more than just respect for others (e.g. a strong
emotional involvement or an emulation of local knowledge or
habits) is thus better conceivable in cosmopolitanism.
. Cultural issues that are below or above the nation-state remit (for
instance interest in small-scale local cultural diversity, like regions
or cities, or an overarching identity dimension covering the whole
world) are easier to capture with cosmopolitanism defined as
‘straddling the global and the local’.
Conclusion
‘International education’ has hitherto focused on ‘internationalism’, and
basically only within its own institutional setting. While consequent and
logical, these limitations might be challenged with the here presented
identity model of cosmopolitanism as a personal and individual choice
with which individuals, be it educator, pupil, parent or private person,
can enrich their professional as well as their private lives, in theory as
267
well as in practice. While cosmopolitanism might not need to replace inter-

nationalism, as a complementary (or even concurrent) notion it has its
merits: it can challenge or at least question the nation state and all identity
and cultural attachments that are connected with it if and where that proves to
be advantageous to the philosophy of ‘international education’ in the sense
of ‘international understanding’. It can provide a cultural depth of engage-
ment with other cultures, loci and locals which internationalism, for
reasons of its inherent traditional geographical, geopolitical and political
definition and scope, even within the educational context of international
education, cannot provide. But above all, it can provide a personal and indi-
vidual identity notion of knowledge of and engagement with local cultural
diversity, which in the end is part and parcel of the notion of ‘international
understanding’ that lies at the core of international education. Hence in my
view it should not be cosmopolitanism against internationalism, but cosmo-
politanism as part of internationalism (just as internationalism has been
explained as being a part of cosmopolitanism). In the end, this could
mean cosmopolitanism as a partner of internationalism, to befit and to benefit
cosmopolitanism and internationalism as well as international education.
As such, cosmopolitanism can be an agenda of international education
for the individual in terms of the development (along the continua and cri-
teria suggested) of the characteristics of a cosmopolitan person. The notion
of continua of development would allow for multiple agendas to suit the
wide range of ‘clients’ found in a wide range of international schools
(which includes locals and various degrees of ‘tourists’ as defined above).
While it is believed that the above characteristics of cosmopolitanism
and the cosmopolitan individual do suggest a possible model for the indi-
vidual outcomes of an international education (and, hence, in turn serve as
a source of definition of such an education), it should be noted that this
model is not narrowly prescriptive with respect to educational experience
or curriculum. There are perhaps certain educational objectives implicit in
the model – and I would summarize both the model and its overarching
educational purpose as ‘world citizenship in terms of individual engage-
ment with cultural diversity’ – but the model itself is not predicated on
any specific educational programme. Its definitions are related to the
individual learner rather than to ‘international education’ or ‘international
schools’, which are seen, rather, as derivative concepts. A key point is
that a ‘cosmopolitan education’ – or perhaps it should be ‘education for
cosmopolitanism’ – would be based on a clear conceptualization of the
outcomes, in terms of ‘cosmopolitanism’ or ‘the cosmopolitan individual’,
rather than on an educational context, such as a particular type of school, or
on a purpose arising from particular views of the ‘needs’ of contemporary
268
global society. I suggest that only with clarity in our educational aims with
respect to the development of the individual can we usefully engage in
practical issues such as curriculum and school management. I believe
that there are important educational implications of the analysis of cosmo-
politanism presented here, but these are open to translation into practice in
a diversity of ways in both international and national education systems.
References
ABBAS, A. (2002) ‘Cosmopolitan descriptions: Shanghai and Hong Kong’, in
C.A. Breckenridge, S. Pollock, H.K. Bhabha and D. Chakrabarty (eds)
Cosmopolitanism, pp. 209–28. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.
A L L A N, M . (2003) ‘Frontier crossings: Cultural dissonance, intercultural learning
and the multicultural personality’, Journal of Research in International Education 2(1):
83–110.
A L L E N, K . (2002) ‘Atolls, seas of culture and global nets’, in M. Hayden,
J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for
National and International Schools, pp. 129–44. London: Kogan Page.
A N D E R S O N, A . (1998) ‘Cosmopolitanism, universalism, and the divided legacies
of modernity’, in P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling
Beyond the Nation, pp. 265–89. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota
Press.
A P PA D U R A I , A . A N D B R E C K E N R I D G E , C. (1998) ‘Why public culture?’, Public
Culture Bulletin 1(1): 5–9.
A P P I A H , K . A . (1998) ‘Cosmopolitan patriots’, in P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds)
Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, pp. 91–114. Minneapolis and
London: University of Minnesota Press.
B A R K E R , C . (2000) Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
B A R N H A RT, R . K . (ed.) (1988) Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Edinburgh: Chambers.
B AU M A N N, Z . (1996) ‘From pilgrim to tourist – or a short history of identity’,
in S. Hall and P. Du Gay (eds) Questions of Cultural Identity, pp. 18–36. London:
Sage.
B E C K , U. (2000) ‘The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of
modernity’, British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 79–105.
B H A B H A , H . K . (1996) ‘Unsatisfied: Notes on vernacular cosmopolitanism’, in
L. Garcı́a-Moreno and P.C. Pfeiffer (eds) Text and Nation: Cross-Disciplinary Essays on
Cultural and National Identities, pp. 191–207. Columbia, Ohio: Camden House.
B L A N D F O R D, S . A N D S H AW, M . (eds) (2001) Managing International Schools. London:
Routledge.
B O H M A N, J. (1998) ‘The globalisation of the public sphere: Cosmopolitan
publicity and cultural pluralism’, The Modern Schoolman 75(2): 101–17.
B OW L E S , P. (1990) The Sheltering Sky. London and Glasgow: Paladin Grafton Books.
N A N, T. (1997) At Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism Now. Cambridge, MA:
B R E N NA
Harvard University Press.
N A N, T. (2001) ‘Cosmopolitanism and internationalism’, New Left Review 2(7):
B R E N NA
75–84.
269
B R I N T, M . (2001) ‘The politics of identity and the culture of global technology’,

in R. Lukic and M. Brint (eds) Culture, Politics, and Nationalism in the Age of
Globalisation, pp. 3–28. Aldershot: Ashgate.
B RU C K N E R , P. (1996) ‘The edge of Babel’, Partisan Review 63(2): 242–54.
B U Z A N, B . , H E L D, D. A N D M C G R E W, A . (1998) ‘Realism versus cosmopolitanism:
A debate between Barry Buzan and David Held, conducted by Anthony
McGrew’, Review of International Studies 24(3): 387–98.
B Y R A M , M . (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
B . (2002) ‘Feeling gilty [sic]: Defining the terms
C A D I E U X , P. A N D E S S E L I N K , B.
globalisation, internationalisation, localisation and translation’, Language
International 14(3): 22–5.
C A L L A N, H . (2000) ‘The international vision in practice: A decade of evolution’,
Higher Education in Europe 25(1): 15–23.
C A RT E R , A . (2001) The Political Theory of Global Citizenship. London and New York:
Routledge.
C H E A H , P. (1998) ‘Introduction part II: the cosmopolitical – today’, in P. Cheah
and B. Robbins (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, pp. 20–41.
Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
C L I F F O R D, J . (1992) ‘Travelling cultures’, in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson and
P.A. Treichler (eds) Cultural Studies, pp. 96–116. New York and London:
Routledge.
C L I F F O R D, J . (1997) Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge,
MA, and London: Harvard University Press.
C L I F F O R D, J . (1998) ‘Mixed feelings’, in P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds)
Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, pp. 362–70. Minneapolis and
London: University of Minnesota Press.
C O H E N, M . (1992) ‘Rooted cosmopolitanism: Thoughts on the left, nationalism,
and multiculturalism’, Dissent 39(4): 478–83.
C U RT I S , B.
B . A N D PA J AC Z KOW S K A , C. C . (1994) ‘‘‘Getting there’’: Travel, time and
narrative’, in G. Robertson et al. (eds) Travellers’ Tales: Narratives of Home and
Displacement, pp. 199–215. London and New York: Routledge.
D E R R I DA , J . (1997) Cosmopolites de Tous les Pays, Encore un Effort! Paris: Éditions Galilée.
D H A RWA D K E R , V. (2001) ‘Introduction: Cosmopolitanism in its time and place’,
in V. Dharwadker (ed.) Cosmopolitan Geographies: New Locations in Literature and Culture,
pp. 1–13. New York and London: Routledge.
D I O U F, M . (2002) ‘The Senegalese Murid trade diaspora and the making of a
vernacular cosmopolitanism’, in C.A. Breckenridge, S. Pollock, H.K. Bhabha and
D. Chakrabarty (eds) Cosmopolitanism, pp. 111–37. Durham, NC, and London:
Duke University Press.
E AG L E TO N, T. (2000) The Idea of Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
E DWA R D S , R . R . (2001) ‘‘‘The metropol and the mayster-toun’’: Cosmopolitanism
and late medieval literature’, in V. Dharwadker (ed.) Cosmopolitan Geographies: New
Locations in Literature and Culture, pp. 33–62. New York and London: Routledge.
E Z R A , R . (2003) ‘Culture, language and personality in the context of the
internationally mobile child’, Journal of Research in International Education 2(2):
123–49.
270
F E AT H E R S TO N E , M . (1993) ‘Global and local cultures’, in J. Bird, B. Curtis,
T. Putnam, G. Robertson and L. Tickner (eds) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures,
Global Change, pp. 169–87. London: Routledge.
F E AT H E R S TO N E , M . (1995) Undoing Culture: Globalisation, Postmodernism and Identity.
London: Sage.
F I S C H E R , G . (1996) ‘Tourist or explorer? Reflection in the foreign language
classroom’, Foreign Language Annals 29(1): 73–81.
F I S H M A N, J. A . (1998–9) ‘The new linguistic order’, Foreign Policy 113: 26–40.
F O U G E R E T D E M O N B RO N, L . (1970) Le Cosmopolite, ou le Citoyen du Monde. Bordeaux:
Ducros. (Written in 1750.)
F R I E D M A N, J . (1994) Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.
F R I E D M A N, J . (1995) ‘Global systems, globalisation and the parameters of
modernity’, in M. Featherstone, M. S. Lash and R. Robertson (eds) Global
Modernities, pp. 69–91. London: Sage.
F U L L I N W I D E R , R . (2001) ‘Multicultural education and cosmopolitan citizenship’,
International Journal of Educational Research 35(3): 331–43.
GELLAR, C C.. A . (2002) ‘International Education: A commitment to universal values’,
in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice:
Dimensions for National and International Schools, pp. 30–5. London: Kogan Page.
G R E E N F E L D, L . (1996) ‘Nationalism and modernity’, Social Research 63(1): 3–40.
GUIBERN AU, M . (1996) Nationalisms: The Nation-State and Nationalism in the Twentieth
NAU,
Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
GUIBERN AU, M . (2001) ‘Globalisation and the nation-state’, in M. Guibernau and
NAU,
J. Hutchinson (eds) Understanding Nationalism, pp. 242–68. Cambridge: Polity Press.
G U N E S C H , K . (2002) ‘The relationship between multilingualism and
cosmopolitanism’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bath.
G U T M A N N, A . (1993) ‘The challenge of multiculturalism in political ethics’,
Philosophy and Public Affairs 22(3): 171–206.
H A L L , S . (1991) ‘The local and the global: Globalisation and ethnicity’, in
A.D. King (ed.) Culture, Globalisation and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for
the Representation of Identity, pp. 19–39. London: Macmillan.
H A N N E R Z , U. (1990) ‘Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture’, in
M. Featherstone (ed.) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalisation and Modernity, pp. 237–
51. London: Sage.
H A N N E R Z , U. (1992) Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organisation of Meaning. New
York: Columbia University Press.
H A N N E R Z , U. (1996) Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. London and New
York: Routledge.
H AY D E N, M . C C.. A N D T H O M P S O N, J. J. (1995) ‘Perceptions of international
education: A preliminary study’, International Review of Education 41(5): 389–404.
H AY D E N, M . A N D T H O M P S O N, J. (eds) (1998) International Education: Principles and
Practice. London: Kogan Page.
H AY D E N, M . , T H O M P S O N, J. A N D WA L K E R , G. (eds) (2002) International Education
in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools. London: Kogan Page.
H AY D E N, M . , T H O M P S O N, J. A N D WA L K E R , G. (eds) (2000) International Schools
and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality. London: Kogan
Page.
271
H AY D E N, M . C (2000) ‘Being international:

C.. , R A N C I C , B . A . A N D T H O M P S O N, J. J.
Student and teacher perceptions from international schools’, Oxford Review of
Education 26(1): 107–23.
H E AT E R , D. (2000) ‘Does cosmopolitan thinking have a future?’, Review of
International Studies 26(5): 179–97.
H E AT E R , D. (2002) World Citizenship: Cosmopolitan Thinking and its Opponents. London and
New York: Continuum.
H E L D, D. , M C G R E W, A . , G O L D B L AT T, D. A N D P E R R ATO N. J . (1999) Global
Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
H O L L I N G E R , D. A . (1995) Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. New York: Basic
Books.
I S I N, E . F. A N D WO O D, P. K . (1999) Citizenship and Identity. London: Sage.
I Y E R , P. (2000) The Global Soul: Jet Lag, Shopping Malls, and the Search for Home. New York:
Vintage Books.
J A M E S O N, F. (2000) ‘Globalisation and political strategy’, New Left Review 2(4):
49–68.
J O N E S , P. W. (1998) ‘Globalisation and internationalism: Democratic prospects for
world education’, Comparative Education 34(2): 143–55.
K A L D O R , M . (1996) ‘Cosmopolitanism versus nationalism: The new divide?’, in
R. Caplan and J. Feffner (eds) Europe’s New Nationalism: States and Minorities in Conflict,
pp. 42–58. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
K AU F M A N N, E . (2000) ‘Liberal ethnicity: Beyond liberal nationalism and minority
rights’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(6): 1086–1119.
K E L S K Y, K . (1996) ‘Flirting with the foreign: Interracial sex in Japan’s
‘‘international’’ age’, in R. Wilson and W. Dissanayake (eds) Global/Local: Cultural
Production and the Transnational Imaginary, pp. 173–92. Durham, NC, and London:
K R E S S , G. (1998) ‘Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically
mediated communication: The potentials of new forms of text’, in I. Snyder
(ed.) Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era, pp. 53–79. London and New
York: Routledge.
K R I S T E VA , J . (1988) Étrangers à nous-mêmes. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard.
K Y M L I C K A , W. (2001) Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
L A N G F O R D, M . (1998) ‘Global nomads, third culture kids and international
schools’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and
Practice, pp. 28–43. London: Kogan Page.
L O B I A N C O, J . (2003) ‘Making language education policies: A needed response
to globalization’, Modern Language Journal 87(2): 286–8.
M AC K E N Z I E , J . (2000) ‘Curricular interstices and the Theory of Knowledge’, in
M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education:
Improving Teaching, Management and Quality, pp. 42–50. London: Kogan Page.
M C K E N Z I E , M . (1998) ‘Going, going, gone . . . global!’, in M. Hayden and
J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp. 242–52.
London: Kogan Page.
M C K I L L O P - O S T RO M , A . (2000) ‘Student mobility and the international
curriculum’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and
272
International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality, pp. 73–84. London:
Kogan Page.
M A L C O M S O N, S . L . (1998) ‘The varieties of cosmopolitan experience’, in P. Cheah
B . (2000) ‘Cosmopolitanism and the circle of reason’, Political Theory
M E H TA , P. B.
28(5): 619–39.
M I G N O L O, W. D. (2002) ‘The many faces of cosmo-polis: Border thinking and
critical cosmopolitanism’, in C.A. Breckenridge, S. Pollock, H.K. Bhabha and
D. Chakrabarty (eds) Cosmopolitanism, pp. 157–87. Durham, NC, and London:
M O O R E , M . (2001) ‘Globalisation, cosmopolitanism, and minority nationalism’,
in M. Keating and J. McGarry (eds) Minority Nationalism and the Changing International
Order, pp. 44–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
M O R L E Y, D. (1996) ‘EurAm, modernity, reason and alterity: Or, postmodernism,
the highest stage of cultural imperialism?’, in D. Morley and K.H. Chen (eds)
Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, pp. 326–60. London: Routledge.
U N C H , R . (2001) Nation and Citizenship in the Global Age: From National to Transnational
M Ü
Ties and Identities. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.
N I C H O L S O N, M . (1999) ‘How novel is globalisation?’, in M. Shaw (ed.) Politics and
Globalisation: Knowledge, Ethics and Agency, pp. 23–34. London and New York:
Routledge.
N U S S B AU M , M . C . (1996) ‘Patriotism and cosmopolitanism’, in J. Cohen (ed.)
For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, pp. 2–17. Boston: Beacon Press.
O N G, A . (1999) Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC,
and London: Duke University Press.
O P E L L O, W. C. A N D RO S OW, S . J. (1999) The Nation-State and Global Order: A Historical
Introduction to Contemporary Problems. Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner.
PA PA S T E P H A N O U, M . (2002) ‘Arrows not yet fired: Cultivating cosmopolitanism
through education’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 36(1): 69–86.
PA R M E N T E R , L . (1999) ‘Constructing national identity in a changing world:
Perspectives in Japanese education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(4):
453–63.
P E A R C E , R . (1998) ‘Developing cultural identity in an international school
environment’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles
and Practice, pp. 44–62. London: Kogan Page.
P O L L O C K , D. CC.. A N D VA N R E K E N, R . E . (2001) The Third Culture Kid Experience: Growing
up among Worlds, 2nd edn. London: Nicholas Brealey.
P O L L O C K , S . (2002) ‘Cosmopolitan and vernacular in history’, in C. Breckenridge
(eds) Cosmopolitanism, pp. 15–53. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University
Press.
P O L L O C K , S ., B H A B H A , H . K . , B R E C K E N R I D G E , C
C.. A . A N D C H A K R A B A RT Y, D.
(2002) ‘Cosmopolitanisms’, in C.A. Breckenridge, S. Pollock, H.K. Bhabha and
D. Chakrabarty (eds) Cosmopolitanism, pp. 1–14. Durham, NC, and London: Duke
University Press.
R A B I N OW, P. (1986) ‘Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-
modernity in anthropology’, in J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus (eds) Writing Culture:
273
The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 234–61. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
R ÉE E , J. (1998) ‘Cosmopolitanism and the experience of nationality’, in P. Cheah
RO B B I N S , B . (1992) ‘Comparative cosmopolitanism’, Social Text 31/32: 169–86.
RO B B I N S , B . (1998a) ‘Comparative cosmopolitanisms’, in P. Cheah and B. Robbins
(eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, pp. 246–64. Minneapolis
and London: University of Minnesota Press.
RO B B I N S , B . (1998b) ‘Introduction part I: Actually existing cosmopolitanism’,
in P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation,
pp. 1–19. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
RO O N E Y, K . (ed.) (1999) Encarta World English Dictionary. London: Bloomsbury.
RO O N E Y, K . (ed.) (2002) Encarta Essential English Dictionary. London: Bloomsbury.
S A RU P, M . (1996) Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
S C H O LT E , J. A . (2000) Globalisation: A Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan.
S H O R E , C . (2000) Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London and
New York: Routledge.
S I FA K I S , N. A N D S O U G A R I , A . M . (2003) ‘Facing the globalisation challenge in the
realm of English language teaching’, Language and Education 17(1): 59–71.
S K E LTO N, M . (2002) ‘Defining ‘‘international’’ in an international curriculum’,
in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice:
Dimensions for National and International Schools, pp. 39–54. London: Kogan Page.
S M I T H , A . D. (1991) National Identity. London: Penguin.
S TO RT I , C . (1990) The Art of Crossing Cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
T H E RO U X , P. (1986) Sunrise with Seamonsters. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
T H O M P S O N, J . (1998) ‘Towards a model for international education’, in
M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice,
pp. 276–90. London: Kogan Page.
TO D O ROV, T. (1986) ‘Le croisement des cultures’, Communications 43: 5–24.
TO K U H A M A - E S P I N O S A , T. (2003) ‘Third culture kids: A special case for foreign
language learning’, in T. Tokuhama-Espinosa (ed.) The Multilingual Mind: Issues
Discussed by, for and about People Living with many Languages, pp. 165–9. Westport, CT,
and London: Praeger.
TO M L I N S O N, J . (1999) Globalisation and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
WA L D RO N, J . (1995) ‘Minority cultures and the cosmopolitan alternative’, in
W. Kymlicka (ed.) The Rights of Minority Cultures, pp. 93–119. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
WA L K E R , G. (1998) ‘Home sweet home: A study, through fictional literature, of
disoriented children and the significance of home’, in M. Hayden and
J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp. 11–27. London:
Kogan Page.
WA L L E R S T E I N, I . (1991) ‘The national and the universal: Can there be such a
thing as world culture?’, in A.D. King (ed.) Culture, Globalisation and the World-System:
Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, pp. 91–105. London:
Macmillan.
274
C.. W.
WAT S O N, C (2000) Multiculturalism. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
W I L S O N, R . (1998) ‘A new cosmopolitanism is in the air: Some dialectical twists
and turns’, in P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond
the Nation, pp. 351–61. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
WO L L E N, P. (1994) ‘The cosmopolitan ideal in the arts’, in G. Robertson et al.
(eds) Travellers’ Tales: Narratives of Home and Displacement, pp. 187–96. London and
New York: Routledge.
Z AC H A RY, G. P. (2000) ‘Dueling multiculturalisms: The urgent need to reconceive
cosmopolitanism’, Paper presented at the Conceiving Cosmopolitan Conference,
University of Warwick 27–9 April 2000. Oxford: Transnational Communities
Programme.
Biographical note
KO N R A D G U N E S C H has studied and trained in Law in Germany, The
Netherlands, Sweden and Canada. He undertook a Master’s in European
Politics in England, Italy, Spain and France before completing his PhD
thesis in the Department of Education at the University of Bath. He is
currently a Research Assistant in the Department of Anthropology and
Sociology in the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University
of London. [email: konradgunesch@hotmail.com]
275

Education For Cosmopolitanism?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education For Cosmopolitanism?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A RT I C L E

Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity ( w w w.s ag ep u bl ic a ti o n s. co m )

model for and within international education

curricular, organizational, or managerial concerns. We must ask, ‘What

Presenting ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a form of

. First, there is an ongoing discussion of what constitutes

be applied and used, theoretically and also practically, by

I will present cosmopolitanism as a model for such transnationalism and

The cosmopolitan straddling of the global and the local

Cosmopolitan competence or mastery

Cosmopolitanism tends also to be a matter of competence, of both a general-

In view of the number and differentiation of alien cultures, the cosmo-

Hannerz’s metacultural position

The question of mobility or travelling

1996: 175; Morley, 1996: 332–3), or by describing the mobility that

Hannerz compares cosmopolitans with other groups of people who can

The relationship between cosmopolitanism and tourism

. Just keeping to beach holiday stereotype experiences. (Curtis and

Hannerz’s critique of Theroux’s writing is very useful to sum up all these

Hannerz’s ‘home’ for the cosmopolitan

cultural departure, however without reference to cosmopolitanism (Storti,

The relationship between cosmopolitanism and the

Cosmopolitan models opposing the nation-state

Cosmopolitans are, almost by definition, people who regret the privileging of

Sarup and Rée go considerably further in their personal involvement and

I think we should be thinking in terms beyond the nation-state. International-

Is it possible to hope for a new cosmopolitanism, after internationality? . . . Per-

Strongest of all, in her essay ‘Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism’, Martha

Models reconciling cosmopolitanism and the nation state

The cosmopolitan patriot can entertain the possibility of a world in which

To sum up the relationship between cosmopolitanism and the nation state:

are a matter of course. The whole discussion hinges on the desirability of

. a straddling of the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ spheres, with a decisive

The differentiation between cosmopolitanism and

cosmopolitanism by claiming that ‘the first signifies an empirical phenom-

The differentiation between cosmopolitanism and

. Inter-nationalism by definition centres around national (meaning

well as in practice. While cosmopolitanism might not need to replace inter-

B R I N T, M . (2001) ‘The politics of identity and the culture of global technology’,

H AY D E N, M . C (2000) ‘Being international:

You might also like