European cosmopolitanism and the global field

Roland Robertson

pp. 174-197

in: Roland Robertson, Anne S. Krossa (eds), European cosmopolitanism in question, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012

Abstract

The preceding chapters have illustrated in various ways the manner in and degree to which the theme of cosmopolitanism has become topical, and how many definitions there are of this concept. Moreover, numerous links have been made between cosmopolitanism and other social-scientific and cultural topics. In fact, the list is almost endless. It includes religion; social and cultural affiliations; belongingness; solidarities; national, transnational and individual identities; enlightenment; the public sphere; colonialism; hybridity; glocalization; and, not least, human rights (see Cheah, 2006; Nash, 2009; Moyn, 2010). Additionally, cosmopolitanism has been claimed by some to be a form of critical theory, a form of methodology — or indeed a theory in and of itself. This seems to be particularly the case in the work of Ulrich Beck (1999; 2002; 2003; 2005; 2006), and, in a somewhat different vein, Gerard Delanty (2009). The work of Beck will be subject to particular criticism. This chapter constitutes an attempt to find a path through the minefield of these issues. I must therefore start from the basic observation that the notion of cosmopolitanism has become so grossly inflated that some of its most prominent users make vast claims for its grand-theoretical significance. To put this another way, Beck and a number of his collaborators and colleagues regard cosmopolitanism as the key to "everything".

Cited authors

Beck Ulrich

Delanty Gerard