This article was downloaded by: [Tsukuba University]

On: 7 February 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917004404]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ethnic and Racial Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713685087

Defining cosmopolitan sociability in a transnational age. An introduction

Nina Glick Schiller; Tsypylma Darieva; Sandra Gruner-Domic
First published on: 10 January 2011

To cite this Article Schiller, Nina Glick , Darieva, Tsypylma and Gruner-Domic, Sandra(2011) 'Defining cosmopolitan

sociability in a transnational age. An introduction', Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34: 3, 399 418, First published on: 10
January 2011 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2011.533781
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.533781

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 34 No. 3 March 2011 pp. 399
418

Defining cosmopolitan sociability in a

transnational age. An introduction
Nina Glick Schiller, Tsypylma Darieva and Sandra Gruner-Domic

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

(First submission October 2010; First published January 2011)

Abstract
This special issue features ethnographies that examine the trajectories of
mobile people within particular places, moments and networks of
connection. Critiquing the ready equation of cosmopolitanism with
experiences of mobility, we examine the encounters of pilgrims, migrants,
missionaries or members of a diaspora. Defining cosmopolitanism as a
simultaneous rootedness and openness to shared human emotions,
experiences and aspirations rather than to a tolerance for cultural
difference or a universalist morality, the authors explore the degree to
which mobility produces cosmopolitan sociability.

Keywords: Cosmopolitanism; sociability; transnational practices; religious ties;

diasporic homecomings; simultaneousness.

Cosmopolitan sociability can arise from the human competencies that

create social relations of inclusiveness. We suggest that a cosmopolitan
dimension and the maintenance of ethnic/national ties, gendered
identities or religious commitments can occur simultaneously in the
daily activities and outlook of some mobile people. Some situations
impose limitations and transience on sociability. Religious doctrines can
ultimately impose closure, disallowing broader human connectivities.
Scholars increasingly deploy the term cosmopolitan to encompass
mobile people, including transnational migrants and diasporic travellers. This special issue, Cosmopolitan Sociability: Locating Transnational Diasporic and Religious Networks, features ethnographies that
examine the trajectories of mobile people within particular places,
moments and networks of connection. Noting that the growing
literature on the cosmopolitan turn Rapport and Stade 2007
emphasizes the plurality of cosmopolitanisms, the issue queries
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
ISSN 0141-9870 print/1466-4356 online
DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2011.533781

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

400 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

whether migrants and travellers indeed construct cosmopolitan

sociabilities through their networks of interconnection and locally
based activities. In this introduction, we highlight key points in the
current debates within transnational migration, diasporic and cosmopolitan studies. We suggest that a cosmopolitan dimension and the
maintenance of ethnic/national ties or religious commitments and
identities can occur simultaneously in the daily activities and outlook
of some mobile people. Hence rootedness and openness cannot be seen
in oppositional terms but constitute aspects of the creativity through
which migrants build homes and sacred spaces in a new environment
and within transnational networks.
Within these spaces and connections the mobile actors highlighted in
this special issue create their own possibilities of cosmopolitanism as
openness and also encounter the limitations of the particular pathway
they have forged. These pathways reflect the specific circumstances out
of which cosmopolitan possibilities arise: religious pilgrimage, missionary commitments, narratives of homecoming and environmental
conservationism, a socialist past and the intersectionality of racialized
womens strategies of personal empowerment. Each of these pathways is
striking in that they arise in contexts that are generally associated with
closure: religious conversion, diasporic homecoming, long-distance
nationalism and ethnicized identification. The findings of our authors
resonate with the work of Lamont and Aksartova who discuss
cosmopolitanism not in terms of abstract moral choices . . . but
. . . in . . . particular universalisms (2002, p. 2). They mean by this the
cultural repertoires of universalism that are differentially available to
individuals across race and national context (2002, p. 2).
In their emphasis on variants of situated cosmopolitan openness and
their limitations, the authors in this special issue offer a very different
framing of cosmopolitanism than that found in much of the literature.
It is becoming apparent that various definitions of cosmopolitanism
reflect different disciplinary and political perspectives. Rather than
reviewing the disparate politics that take on a cosmopolitan voice, we
simply note that, while a normative voice is embedded in most
cosmopolitan discourse, the values espoused encompass a range of
positions. The interests represented within the scholarship of cosmopolitanism are quite wide. On the one hand, recent US and Western
European military interventions in other regions of the world have been
justified in the name of cosmopolitan law enforcement (Kaldor 2007,
p. 133). On the other hand, urban developers and boosters now
characterize their cities as cosmopolitan as a way of attracting global
talent, financial capital and tourism (Binnie et al. 2006; Young et al.
2006; Kosnick 2009). Certain forms of migrant cultural difference,
previously categorized as multiculturalism, become a valuable asset of
the cosmopolitan city.

Introduction 401

The approach to cosmopolitanism advocated here links the concept

to sociability practices rather than to a tolerance for cultural difference
or a universalist morality. Working from disparate case studies, with
persons in motion who see themselves as pilgrims, migrants, missionaries or members of a diaspora, the contributors to this special
issue move beyond the celebration of difference and multiculturalism to
an analysis of when and where people use their diverse cultural or
religious backgrounds to build relationships and identities of openness.

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

The cosmopolitan idea

The cosmopolitan idea emerged in the context of long-distance
projects such as trade or empires. After the Enlightenment, cosmopolitanism was linked primarily to elites, intellectuals, exiles or others
who for reasons of politics or philosophy were citizens of the world
rather than of a particular place (Calhoun 2002; Delanty 2006;
Tihanov 2009). As nation-state projects became politically dominant
and freighted with concepts of exclusive national loyalties, the
transborder loyalties of a cosmopolitan identity
whether formulated
by social- or self-ascription
have been cast as treacherous. Today,
both the older conceptualization of cosmopolitanism and the newer
transnational migration or contemporary diasporic perspectives confront nation-state projects that continue to demand exclusive forms of
national loyalty. In this context, formulations of cosmopolitanism
continue to be read as critiques of nationalism. Hence, most efforts at
developing a cosmopolitics reject particularistic modes of collective
identification by searching for political alternatives (Robbins 1998;
Cheah 2006).
However, some scholars working within a cosmopolitan tradition
have countered the continuing binaries that set cosmopolitan sensibilities at loggerheads with national identities (Appiah 2006; Tarrow
2006; Jefferey and McFarlane 2008; Kathari 2008). The impetus of our
project is situated within this trajectory. Moving beyond analytical
perspectives that highlight binaries of difference and radical alterity,
we examine sociabilities in which a shared sense of common
sensibilities does not override but coexists with ongoing diversity of
perspective and practice. We build on the work of those who highlight
the fashioning of a dialectical concept of a rooted cosmopolitanism,
which accepts a multiplicity of roots and branches and that rests on
the legitimacy of plural loyalties, of standing in many circles but with
common ground (Cohen 1992, p. 483, cited in Tarrow 2006). At the
same time, ours is an effort to move beyond multiculturalism without
embracing national or global narratives of universalism. The articles
in this special issue share the critique of the ultimately essentializing
nature of culturally and ethno-religious-based paradigms. These

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

402 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

paradigms created and reinforced discourses and political projects that

produced naturalized and bounded difference rather than allowing for
overlapping and multiple identities and socialities and the intersectionality of diverse representations.
The transnational migration and diasporic literatures have also
addressed the question of politics but have not developed a theory of
the cosmopolitical. Instead, most of this work has focused on political
projects of migrant-sending states and of migrants who live between
their claims to a homeland and new land (Basch, Glick Schiller and
Szanton Blanc 1994; Itzigsohn 2000). The border-crossing identities of
migrants are sometimes understood as generating forms of long
distance nationalism (Anderson 1994; Glick Schiller 2005). Mobility
in this case is seen to renew and reinforce bounded identities and social
relations (Appadurai 1991; Mahler 1999; Glick Schiller and Fouron
2001; Calhoun 2002). The possibility that such transnational projects
can be inspired by or produce multiple, overlapping identities or
cosmopolitan aspirations and projects, a concern of this special issue,
has rarely been addressed. It is only recently that the mobilities of
disempowered people have been examined through the optic of
cosmopolitanism (Skrbis, Kendall and Woodward 2004).
Defining cosmopolitan sociability
On the basis of ethnographic case studies, this special issue focuses on
aspects of cosmopolitanism that are integrally linked to practice of
cosmopolitan sociability and those cosmopolitan identifications that
emerged from specific social engagements and lifestyle practices. In this
way we attempt to ground the relatively abstract notion of cosmopolitanism within a study of concrete social practices and ways of being
(Glick Schiller 2003; Lofland 1998). Sociability has long been a topic of
social theory. For Georg Simmel, sociability refers to interactions that
are deemed purely social and therefore domains of play rather than
specifically purposeful humans. As such they constitute interaction in
which we assert our common humanity where one acts as though all
were equal, as though he esteemed everyone . . . a miniature picture
of the social ideal that one may call freedom of bondage (1971,
pp. 133
4). While, for Simmel, this form of social relationship is
countermanded by the stringent demands of real life (1971, p. 134), we
see sociability in terms of domains of everyday interaction. In these
interactions people gather in the same place or in cyberspace around
some point of shared interest that is not primarily utilitarian. Such
interactions can be fleeting or persist over time. We define cosmopolitan
sociability as consisting of forms of competence and communication
skills that are based on the human capacity to create social relations of
inclusiveness and openness to the world. As such cosmopolitan

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 403

sociability is an ability to find aspects of the shared human experience

including aspirations for a better world within or despite what would
seem to be divides of culture and belief.1
These forms of cosmopolitan sociability are challenged or facilitated
in different historical contexts and locations. They do not exist in the
abstract but are enacted and embedded within social relations and
practice-based identities. The intellectual genealogy of the approach to
cosmopolitanism advocated here builds on some aspects of the
Kantian project, namely the recognition of the human capacity to
expand the circle of identification, belonging and social relationship
through sociability (Geselligkeit). At the heart of this reading of the
Kantian project is the acknowledgement of a common humanity.
From the perspective of mapping those moments and possibilities for
cosmopolitan sociability, this form of humanism does not negate
cultural or historical differences in perspectives or values but allows
for the simultaneity of difference and sameness.
The articles provide an empirical basis from which to scrutinize the
notion of openness to difference, which is widely used as a defining
characteristic of the cosmopolitan (Vertovec and Cohen 2002). This
approach rests on a concept of binary alterity that constructs a
hierarchy of unequal power as the foundation of social relationships
(Glick Schiller 2010). The papers here break new ground by
documenting and highlighting an openness experienced in terms of
relationalities of openness across differences rather than through the
celebration of difference. If cosmopolitanism is viewed as arising from
social relationships that do not negate cultural, religious or gendered
differences but see people as capable of relationships of experiential
commonalities despite differences, then we have another lens through
which to view and theorize social experiences. This perspective moves
researchers beyond the binaries of inclusion vs. exclusion, sameness vs.
difference.
In other words, cosmopolitan sociability defines a set of practices in
which people are not passive consumers but active participants in the
creation of common places (Massey 2005; Leitner et al. 2007). These
places are created through peoples meetings, encounters, civic
communication and coexistence. By recognizing various forms of
relational practices, scholars can acknowledge the agency of persons
and small groups and the ability of mobile people politically to
constitute common and sometimes fluid identities within larger
collectivities and transnational social fields. Thus, the articles in this
issue emphasize the social competence of dislocated people who
develop these practices by relying on both their specific cultural self
and the broader human aspirations that they access, deploy, internalize
and reconstitute in different situations. These competences take many

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

404 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

forms and open an array of possibilities. Some of these possibilities

emerge as cosmopolitan.
The approach to cosmopolitanism highlighted in this issue examines
the possibilities and limitations of the bothness of cultural selves and
universal values or bifocality. The issue highlights sociabilities enacted
within religious contexts and places because such situations confront
actors with moments and insights of common solidarity of belief that
simultaneously produce constraints and limitations on openness.
Three of the articles specifically highlight the differences between
sociabilities formed within transnational religious networks and what
we have delineated above as cosmopolitan sociability. In each case
boundaries are eventually drawn between the religious community and
all others. It is exactly such transient moments of solidarity that allow
us to understand better the limits to cosmopolitanism within religious
practices such as those of Pentecostal Christianity. Through these
ethnographic insights, this special issue highlights that globe-spanning
transnational networks of connection between people of different
cultural backgrounds do not necessarily produce cosmopolitan openness. It is only through examinations of located diasporic and religious
networks and experiences that researchers can determine under which
circumstances a cosmopolitan sociability emerges and when and how
the limits of cosmopolitanism in transnational fields arise.
The case studies of cosmopolitan sociability also make it clear that
cosmopolitanism can never be gender, racially or ethnically neutral.
All of these positionalities are experienced as social relationships of
unequal power that are not negated although differentiated individuals
enter into relationships of sociability. Moreover, it is important to note
that not all those who practise cosmopolitan sociability claim a
cosmopolitan identity. There may not be a public acknowledgement of
a shared self-representation. Because the process of engagement with
others is always going to be with particular individuals with whom one
may want to identify or share moments or spaces of conviviality
(Gilroy 2004), these processes therefore do not necessary lead to the
embracing of a universalistic self-identification or single global
political project (Wood 1998).
Mobility is not necessarily cosmopolitan
We do not agree with Skrbis, Kendall and Woodward that cosmopolitanism is about mobilities of ideas . . . and people (2004, p.121).
Although the articles in this special issue highlight situations in which
mobility and transnational connections provide possibilities for openness, we must stress that experiences of migration, travel and pilgrimage do not necessarily produce either cosmopolitan sociabilities or
identities. The case studies in this special issue examine how, when and

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 405

why the experience of movement can become a form of flexible social

capital that enables people to form and maintain social relations and
live with multiple identities. The possibilities of cosmopolitan sociability that arise from travel and the transnational networks that arise
forms of human mobility must be explored within the current context
of uneven participation in asymmetrical globalization. The authors
highlight the concept of bothness through their case studies not only
of typical routes of migration from South to North and East to West
but also patterns of travel that carry people from West to East and
from East to East.
By framing our interest in mobile peoples social relations as a
location of possible cosmopolitan sociability, we distinguish our focus
on mobility from the diversity and integration discourses of public
policy and from the scholarly discussion of postcolonial forms of
travel. We build on but also distinguish our topic from much of the
literature in transnational migration studies. The scholarship on
cosmopolitanism and transnational migration has shared an interest
in moving away from conceptualizing social relations and identities as
bounded
whether they have been envisioned as impassable,
territorially rooted cultural differences or those differentiated by the
national borders of nation-states. Transnational migration studies
argue that people live their lives across borders, connected to more
than one nation-state through both their social relations and identities.
This perspective raises new questions about societal belonging and
about how we understand the concept of society (Levitt and Glick
Schiller 2004).

Moving beyond transnational migration and diasporic studies

The transnational literature has documented the everyday realm of
sociability of impoverished and disempowered mobile people. However, while a transnational perspective on migration emphasizes
sociability, much of the research has reflected the methodological
nationalism deeply embedded in migration studies. Consequently
many researchers have preferred to see migrants as living within
transnational communities or transnational spaces bounded within
national, ethnic or ethno-religious categorizations (Faist 2000; Pries
2001; Guarnizo, Portes and Haller 2003; Vertovec 2004). As several
critiques of this literature have noted, migrants have been viewed
through an ethnic lens that assumes migrants activities to be centred
in ethnic and national categories of identity, whether as a form of
homeland politics or a culture of home and family (Anthias 1998;
Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002; Brubaker 2005; Darieva 2005, Glick
Schiller, C
ag lar and Guldbrundsen 2006)

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

406 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

Within this scholarship, the articulation of national, ethnic or

ethno-religious identities that stretch across borders and generations
has attracted most of the attention. As a result of this privileging of
diasporic or ethnic identities, transnational migration studies has
tended to underreport on and failed to theorize cosmopolitan
practices, sociabilities and forms of identification not built on shared
common ethnic or ethno-religious identities.
Researchers working within the field of diaspora studies have only
occasionally addressed notions of cosmopolitanism. Previously, the
concept of diaspora was associated with persons identified through a
salient ethnic or racial identity or as members of a de-territorialized
religious minority outside the original place and its resettlement
history. Despite its links to displacement, the concept of diaspora had
been, as Clifford noted, always embedded in particular maps and
histories (1994, p. 302). Recently, the idea of diaspora has experienced
a shift of meaning; the term diaspora no longer refers only to a
bounded community defined by an idealized memory of violent past
suffering and experience of closure. Today the term diaspora is
associated with unbounded transnational movements of people,
mobility of capital, commodities, cultural iconographies, diasporic
stances or idioms (Brah 1996; Brubaker 2005). Researchers are noting
that old and new diasporas are increasingly involved in diverse
migratory flows that provide a new basis for engaging with global
politics and transnational economic and social networks. Rather than
examining cosmopolitan sociabilities, scholars have been concerned to
differentiate between old and new or bad or good diasporas. The
question has been whether a diaspora is a social formation that can
bring benefits or by its nature disrupt national society and national
security (Vertovec 2006).
However, it is possible and important to identify a cosmopolitan
dimension within this growing diversity of diasporic alternative
identities and experiences and contemporary invocations of diasporic
narratives. As Pnina Werbner has noted, diasporas . . . can be both
ethnic-parochial and cosmopolitan (2005, p. 130). This insight
resonates with Vertovecs (2009, p. 7) reference to Martin So kefelds
evocation of a diasporic duality of continuity and change (2006). As
they strive to maintain particular historical narratives and identities,
diasporic people and those who build diasporic projects and networks
also look to common understandings, sensibilities and aspirations with
those around them.
Hence, members of diasporas can be transnational agents linked to
various contemporary social movements and cosmopolitan perspectives from their embeddedness in particular maps (Clifford 1994;
Tarrow 2006). International organizations have also noted that
diasporas activities may become increasingly varied as those who

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 407

identify themselves as members of a diaspora become agents of

development and actors of peace-building in conflict regions (Faist
2007). For example, diasporic networks currently contribute to social
and political changes in the lands classified as the Third World by
advocating sustainable environment, gender equality, education and
civil society.
The idea and practice of reconnecting a specific territory to the rest
of the world by developing the country seem to be stronger than the
ideas of permanent resettlement to the homeland. This process of
linking the homeland to the world constitutes a new motivating force
that can renew diasporic identifications and connections among
second and third generations. This means that a diasporic pattern of
attachment to home cannot simply be equated with anti-modern, deglobalized repatriation programmes and the desire to return to the
ancestral land. As Darievas article on homecoming demonstrates,
diasporic identification may instead motivate short-term work contracts, development aid programmes and global ecological activities in
a particular place. Considering the concept and the values of
bifocality she identifies these processes as an emerging diasporic
cosmopolitanism.
Until recently the cosmopolitan literature failed to address the
everyday activities of people who do not belong to the ranks of elite
travellers. However, in the past few years, scholars have taken steps to
rectify this gap, noting a plurality of cosmopolitan identities, sense,
practices and institutional forms of cosmopolitanism, such as
vernacular cosmopolitanism, working-class or ordinary cosmopolitanism (Lamont and Aksartova 2002; Werbner 2008), subaltern
cosmopolitanism (Jeffrey and McFarlane 2008), black or Sindhi
cosmopolitanism (Falzon 2004), cosmopolitanism from below (Werbner 2008) and cosmopolitanism in practice (Nowicka and Rovisco
2009). All these formulations draw attention to the role that ordinary
individuals and social groups play in the making of a new cosmopolitan order by transcending symbolic and social boundaries.
Yet this literature provides more description than theory. It
insufficiently theorizes the role of migration and mobility outside the
orbits of elite travellers described by Hannerz (1999) or Calhoun
(2002). In those instances in which non-elite migrants have been
addressed, their transnational practices and communities per se have
been deemed to be cosmopolitan (Beck 2000; Nowicka and Rovisco
2009). For example, Ulrich Beck has argued that in the struggles over
belonging, the actions of migrants and minorities are major examples
of dialogic imaginative ways of life and everyday cosmopolitanism
(2002, p. 14). For Stephen Vertovec and Robin Cohen (2002; Vertovec
2009), migrants, members of ethnic diasporas and other transnational
communities maintain not only cosmopolitan attitudes and practices

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

408 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

but also a set of analytic, emotional, creative/imaginative and

behavioural competencies and skills. Vertovec has outlined a habitual
concept of cosmopolitanism by considering culture as a kind of
toolkit. However, by beginning with a definition of cosmopolitanism
as openness to difference and by theorizing transnational migration
around concepts of diasporic identities or ethnic communities, these
scholars maintain a concept of fixed cultural difference, even as they
have sought to move beyond an ethnic lens.
Other scholars emphasize micro-level practices, defining cosmopolitanism as a lifestyle, as a way of living based on an openness to all
forms of otherness, associated with an appreciation of, and
interaction with, people from other cultural backgrounds (Hiebert
2002, p. 212). Dan Hieberts ethnographic based research illuminates
the everyday practices of non-elitist hospitality between people of
different cultural backgrounds. His approach brings a spatial dimension to the study of cosmopolitans by drawing our attention to
practices and habitus in urban neighbourhoods. While Hieberts
approach to cosmopolitanism as civic culture directs researchers
attention to the possibility of human connections through shared
cultures of consumption and exchanges of services, the mutuality
envisioned is one that highlights and celebrates cultural differences
that are fixed, uniform and marked by their alterity.
This special issue examines transnational religious and transnational diasporic ties to see to what extent social relations that extend
beyond an ethnic or national lens may produce cosmopolitan
sociability. The activities and self-representations documented in these
articles occur in a variety of places, not all of which are located in
world cities or global metropolitan centres such as London or Berlin.
The settings include small-scale cities and settings such as Yerevan,
Ghana and the borderland between the Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The contemporary moment and cosmopolitan perspectives
The intersection of transnational, diasporic and cosmopolitan perspectives may reflect the contemporary historical moment, which is one of
dramatic neoliberal rescaling of territorial scales of governance and
identity (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Smith 2002). To speak about
neoliberalism is not to posit homogeneous worldwide transformations.
It is rather to address the way in which the organization and experience
of social, political, cultural and economic life has been dramatically
altered in varying ways within and across various nation-states by the
current liquidity and fluidity of capital and more flexible processes of
capital accumulation. The processes of privatization, commodification
and abridgements in public responsibilities have created new insecurities

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 409

and inequalities (Hayden 2005). Observers of the contemporary

moment often note the ways current changes in the organization of
social life produce individualization and a fracturing of the self. Ulrich
Beck has suggested that the global restructuring of capital has been
accompanied by a simultaneous counter-current of cosmopolitanization (Beck and Sznaider 2006). However, Becks hypothesis that
increased mobility of people and ideas may be creating new forms of
conviviality and openness has not been adequately explored empirically.
The articles in this special issue, in their observation and theorization of transnational connections and cosmopolitan tensions and
possibilities, reflect on the current moment and its multiple connections and disparities. They document the processes through which, in
particular moments, transnational and diasporic projects and quests,
individuals find that they share a common humanity, while in some
other ways strangers remain strangers. The articles illustrate the ways
in which these cosmopolitan sociabilities emotionally engage people,
even though cosmopolitanism is rarely a part of their self-representations. However, this may be changing as NGOs and transnational
networks popularize the concept among refugees, international aid
workers and members of religious orders (Sen 2009). The selfconsciously cosmopolitan Latina women described by Gruner-Domic
in her article may be harbingers of more wide-spread cosmopolitan
self-ascriptions.
In discussing the contemporary moment and its outcomes, it is
important to distinguish between the ongoing transformations in
social, political, cultural and economic fields of power and the
paradigms through which we study and theorize human relations. To
make this distinction Ulrich Beck and Natan Sznaider speak of the
contemporary situation of multiple interconnectedness as cosmopolitan reality (2006), and call the framework through which they
analyse that reality methodological cosmopolitanism. In a similar
conceptual move, Glick Schiller (1999, 2003) has distinguished
between the analytical lens of the transnational perspective on
migration and the experiential processes of unequal globalization
accompanied by multiple forms of mobility.
However, discussions of cosmopolitan sociability and mobility
require a further distinction between processes of mobility that create
transnational networks and those that produce forms of opennesses in
social relationships and/or identifications despite continuing cultural,
religious or national differences. Examining connections built between
people in motion, the articles in this issue provide much needed data
and theorization about the types of solidarities and sociabilities that
may be developing in relation to the current historical conjuncture.
They supplement the current work on past and present spaces of
cosmopolitanism and local forms of conviviality and subaltern unities

410 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

(Gilroy 2004; Bayat 2008; Jeffrey and McFarlane 2008; Harvey 2009).
The simultaneity of openness and boundary maintenance reflects a
creative ability expressed in the process of making homes and sacred
spaces in an era of great precariousness, individualism, growing
inequality and anti-foreign sentiments.

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Whose cosmopolitanisms?
Underlying the ways in which Cosmopolitan Sociability enters into the
contemporary discussion on cosmopolitanism is a shared response to
the question, Whose cosmopolitanism? As we have indicated, each of
the authors specifies the circumstances of mobility that produce either
cosmopolitan possibilities or the realization of cosmopolitan sociabilities and agendas among non-elite travellers. In doing so, they respond
to unresolved issues in the literature around mobility, national
belonging and practices of daily cosmopolitism. In this section, we
turn to the individual papers and address how each of the authors
examines different forms of cosmopolitan sociability in relationship to
the uncertainties of the global situation, the tensions between fixity
and mobility, and the continuing tensions between bounded forms of
belonging and openness to the world. The authors demonstrate that
ethnographies of situated and located cosmopolitanism can help to
explain how sociability practices produce various kinds of solidarity
and morality.
Kristine Krause in Cosmopolitan charismatics? and Gertrud
Hu welmeier in Socialist cosmopolitanism meets global Pentecostalism focus on transnational Christian ties within Pentecostalist
networks among African and Vietnamese migrants in Germany and
elsewhere in Europe. Both articles contribute to the growing literature
that queries whether the cultural openness of fundamentalist Christian
migrants can be understood as a form of cosmopolitanism or whether
boundary crossing based on religious solidarities generates new divides
(Glick Schiller and Caglar 2008; Glick Schiller 2009). For Krause,
Pentecostal transgressions of geographical and cultural spaces, as well
as the global outreach of their religious messages, can be the basis of
cosmopolitan sociabilities and sensibilities. Krause identifies cosmopolitan moments among African transnational churches beyond the
benign universalisms that emerge as side-effects of the Christian
conversion process among African migrants. She finds useful Van der
Veers concept of a cosmopolitanism with a moral mission (2002, p.
167), which she argues may emerge from the overall Pentecostal
project of salvation. Krause argues that ideological movements, like
Pentecostalism, which in their overall aim contradict the cosmopolitan
idea (Glick Schiller 2009), in the course of missionizing might produce

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 411

cosmopolitan moments of openness as people unite around aspects of

their share human emotions of fear, love and hope.
Examining the practices of the churches linked to Ghanaian
transnational religious networks, Krause highlights the possible
simultaneity of both openness to the world and the exclusiveness of
Pentecostal Christianity. In certain circumstances, such as the conversion process, pastors may not only easily transgress and negate
divisions that are thought to exist between those of different
nationalities and cultures but also allow specifically non-Christian
practices. Importantly, Krause emphasizes that particularities of the
historical moment and the significance of the locality within larger
regional, national and global conflicts affect the degree to which such
openness is possible or can be sustained within the pressures towards
Christian closure.
Similarly, historical change plays a vital role in Hu welmeiers
explication of the emergence and closure of cosmopolitan possibilities
with Vietnamese Pentecostal churches in Berlin and Hanoi. Hu welmeier reminds us about the many ways that discussions of cosmopolitan sociability must take into account time and place, including
questions of differing historical periods. She contrasts the experiences
of fixity and mobility of the different sectors of Vietnamese migrants
participating in Pentecostal churches. One sector of migrants arrived
in Germany shaped by two contrastive migration experiences. They
first experienced a form of what Hu welmeier calls socialist cosmopolitanism within Soviet-configured transnational networks. Next
they faced stigmatization and racialization as foreign migrants in a
post-socialist world. Their narratives differed dramatically from the
trajectory of Vietnamese boat people, who arrived as refugees from
South Vietnam. However, in the current moment of precariousness,
both sectors seek refuge within Pentecostal Christianity.
Hu welmeier demonstrates that the Pentecostal churches she studies
embraced Vietnamese newcomers without regard to their political
past, class or ethnic background or identifications with their resident
nation-state. On the one hand, the unity they build is national
Vietnamese but, on the other hand, the sociability they foster is
Christian and global. Therefore, this unity is not only ethnic, it
transverses national and cultural boundaries to encompass Germans
and others who come to the church seeking salvation. It is important
to note that, even more forcefully than Krause, Hu welmeier ultimately
distinguishes between the Pentecostal Christian ability to foreground a
shared humanity across lines of ethnic, national and political
differences and cosmopolitan sociability. Christian sociability continues to create community by imposing of a dividing line between
believers and those who have not taken Jesus into their lives.

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

412 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

Agieszka Halembas article on Virgin Mary apparitions in contemporary Eastern Europe and the transnational pilgrimages of a
Marianas cult continues the discussion of whether a religious ethos
can unite people who differ in culture and history. She also examines
whether such unity, which in some way reflects common human
aspirations, can be understood as a form of cosmopolitanism.
Halemba responds to these questions in her paper National,
transnational or cosmopolitan heroine? The Virgin Marys apparitions
in contemporary Europe by examining the ecumenical actions of
priests and believers during pilgrimages and demonstrates that
common faith can facilitate the negotiation of particularistic beliefs
and local attachments. She demonstrates that practices motivated by
national identifications can also invoke cosmopolitan moments.
As do Hu welmeier and Krause, Halemba emphasizes that some
forms of openness, such as those constituted by religious discourses,
may ultimately depend on developing rhetorics and practices of
difference that create new forms of closure. And, as with the other
two others, she raised the question of the permanence of cosmopolitan
sociability. However, examining a different form of Christian experience, she differs in her conclusions. She states not only that
cosmopolitan sociability is obviously inherently relational
it is about
simultaneous perception of sameness and difference with others
but
that such relationality can sometimes be sustained. She argues that, in
order to be sustained, cosmopolitan sociability requires a constant
exposure not only to difference but at the same time openness to
moments of shared humanity (this volume).
In her paper Rethinking homecoming: diasporic cosmopolitanism
in post-Soviet Armenia, Tsypylma Darieva examines the potential for
cosmopolitan sociability among those who build transnational connections through diasporic attachments to a homeland rather than
through globe-spanning religious networks. She explores a form of
creative cosmopolitanism that emerges among the paradigmatic
Armenian diaspora. Some members of this diaspora have begun to
move from a focus on national differentiation to a politics of openness
to the world. Some second- and third-generation diasporic Armenians
combine homeland imaginaries and ancestral tourism with an
assertion that to reclaim Armenian soil is to contribute to the
environment of the entire planet and its inhabitants. Activists among
the second- and third-generation Armenian Americans have developed
rhetorics and competences that combine the continuing tensions
between bounded forms of ethnic belonging and openness to the
world. Diasporic Armenians prefer to communicate with a new
homeland transnationally through global NGOs and future social
projects oriented to a moment of planetarian conviviality. Darieva
raises the question as to what extent, even within a paradigmatic group

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 413

such as the Armenian diaspora, ethnic nostalgic engagements with

home can be transformed into cosmopolitan global concepts that
empower young diasporics.
She places this reconfiguration of the concept of homecoming and
even the location of the homeland on the part of the diaspora, as well
as a new receptivity to this diasporic population on the part of those in
Armenia, within the changing historical context of post-socialism.
Paradoxically, it was within the reconfiguration of Armenia as an
independent post-Soviet republic that Armenian-Americans began to
turn claims to a homeland into a post-national project of protecting
the planet. At the same time, citizens of the Republic of Armenia, set
adrift within the economic and political disparities of the post-socialist
world, sought ways to encompass this new form of return.
Time, place, and transnational lives are also central to Sandra
Gruner-Domics article Transnational lifestyles: a new form of
cosmopolitan identification. In certain places and times, such as
contemporary Berlin, persons who live across national borders may
develop specifically articulated lifestyles that they represent as cosmopolitanism. In her contribution, Gruner-Domic finds that some Latin
American women pragmatically chose such lifestyles as a way of
stepping beyond ethnic identifications and boundaries without discarding them completely. In an urban context in which migrants are
often racialized and marginalized through multi-cultural discourses,
identifying as cosmopolitan enabled these women to emphasize other
aspects of their lives and aspirations that were silenced by the politics of
diversity. However, as in the case of the other authors in this special
issue, Gruner-Domic is not arguing for a binary between the
cosmopolitan and the ethnic but for an analytical stance that can
allow us to theorize the multiple positioning of migrant actors. The
Latina women described by Gruner-Domic accessed opportunities to
perform and substantiate their sense of common humanity within the
changing representations of Berlin. The identity practices of these
women can truly be considered a cosmopolitanism from below, since
their self-representations preceded and foreshadowed the branding and
marketing of Berlin as cosmopolitan. One can argue that when
migrants choose these self-representations and lifestyles, they contribute to the creation of a cosmopolitan city.
Conclusion: theorizing modes of sociability and power
Underlying our discussion of cosmopolitan sociability is the everpresent question of differential power, a topic too rarely addressed in
discussions of cosmopolitanism. Yet contemporary cosmopolitan
discourses must be situated within the changing dominant narratives
that configure various forms of migrant sociability. The minimalization

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

414 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

of everyday forms of cosmopolitanism, including those of impoverished religious migrants, within debates about cosmopolitanism is itself
an exercise in discursive power. Several of the authors provide insights
into the emergence of cosmopolitan sociability within struggles of
mobile people to counter-balance their positioning within globespanning, national and local relations of unequal power. They
demonstrate that the contexts within which migrant forms of relationality are constructed include racialization, gender hierarchies, ethnicization, post-socialist exclusions and the intensified power of borders.
Hu welmeier and Krause note that African and Vietnamese Christian
migrants in Europe counter their racialization and denial of rights and
respect by making religiously based claims that validate their humanity.
Similarly, Gruner-Domic argues that the claims to a cosmopolitan
lifestyle of Latina women migrants are made within the context of the
gendered and racialized hierarchies they encounter in Berlin.
Although we have described a variety of cosmopolitan identities,
senses and practices, we do not want to overemphasize the cosmopolitanism of migrants and travellers. We have in fact cautioned against
teleological connections among mobility, transnational networks and
cosmopolitanism. Re-evaluations of religious movements, diasporas
and migrant lifestyles provide no ready set of answers about
cosmopolitanism. Instead, the authors of these studies argue that
ethnographic observation can teach us much about the processes
through which individuals create relations of commonality
or do not.
Tangible or imagined participations of migrants in transnational and
diasporic fields do not necessarily result in cultivation of cosmopolitan
identities. And cosmopolitan goals and identities cannot be understood
solely as selfless humanitarianism. Commitment to self-improvement
and career development can be part and parcel of an individuals
cosmopolitanism, as Darievas and Gruner-Domics pieces indicate.We
suggest that inquiries into who is a cosmopolitan and whose
cosmopolitanism is to be valued require a close reading of social
relationships and public domains that previously have been rejected or
ignored in discussions of cosmopolitan projects and actors. These
include, but are certainly not limited to, religious practices and spaces,
female worlds and diasporic networks. Examinations of the specific
occasions on which the mobility of non-elite people facilitates modes of
openness can advance the theorization of cosmopolitanisms.
Note
1. We differentiate sociability from sociality, which denotes the entire field of all social
relations. The notion of sociality offered by Marilyn Strathern sees persons as simultaneously containing the potential for relationships and always embedded in a matrix of
relationships with others (1996, p. 66). For us sociability is a form of interaction. Sociability

Introduction 415
builds on a certain shared human competencies to relate to multiple other persons as well as
a desire for human relationships that are not framed around specific utilitarian goals.

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

References
ANDERSON, BENEDICT 1994 Exodus, Critical Inquiry, vol. 20, winter, pp. 314
27
ANTHIAS, FLOYA 1998 Evaluating diaspora: beyond ethnicity, Sociology, vol. 32,
no. 3, pp. 557
80
APPADURAI, ARJUN 1991 Global ethnoscapes: notes and queries for a transnational
anthropology, in Richard Fox (ed.), Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present,
Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 191
210
APPIAH, KWAME A. 2006 Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, New York:
Norton
BASCH, LINDA, GLICK SCHILLER, NINA and SZANTON BLANC, CHRISTIANA
1994 Nations Unbound Transnational Projects: Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorrialized Nation-States, New York: Gordon & Breach
BAYAT, ASEF 2008 Everyday cosmopolitanism, ISIM Review, vol. 22, pp. 4
5
BECK ULRICH 2000 The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of
modernity, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 79
105
*** 2002 The cosmopolitan society and its enemies, Theory, Culture, and Society,
vol. 19, nos 1
2, pp. 17
44
BECK, ULRICH and SZNAIDER, NATAN 2006 Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the
social sciences: a research agenda, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1
23
BINNIE, JON et al. 2006 Introduction: grounding cosmopolitan urbanism: approaches,
practices and policies, in Jon Binnie et al. (eds), Cosmopolitan Urbanism, New York:
Routledge, pp. 1
34
BRAH, AVTAR 1996 Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities, London: Routledge
BRENNER, NEIL and NIK, THEODORE 2002 Cities and geographies of actually
existing neoliberalism, Antipode, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 348
79
BRUBAKER, ROGERS 2005 The diaspora diaspora, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 28,
no. 1, pp. 1
19
CALHOUN, CRAIG 2002 The class consciousness of frequent travellers: toward a critique
of actually existing cosmopolitanism, South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 869
97
CHEAH, PHENG 2006 Inhuman Conditions: On Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
CLIFFORD, JAMES 1994 Diasporas, Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 302
38
COHEN, MITCHELL 1992 Rooted cosmopolitanism, Dissent, autumn, pp. 477
83
DARIEVA, TSYPYLMA 2005 Recruiting for the nation: transnational migrants in
Germany and Kazakhstan, in Erich Kasten (ed.), Rebuilding Identities: Pathways to Reform
Post-Soviet Siberia, Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, pp. 153
72
DELANTY, GERARD 2006 The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and
social theory, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 25
47
FAIST, THOMAS 2000 The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and
Transnational Social Spaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press
*** 2007 Transnationalism and Development(s): Towards a North-South Perspective.
COMCAD working paper, no. 16, Bielefeld: Center on Migration, Citizenship and
Development
FALZON, MARK-ANTHONY 2004 Cosmopolitan Connections: The Sindhi Diaspora,
1860
2000, Brill: Leiden
GILROY, PAUL 2004 After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? New York: Routledge
GLICK SCHILLER, NINA 1999 Transmigrants and nation-states: something old and
something new in U.S. immigrant experience, in Charles Hirschman, Josh DeWind and

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

416 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

Philip Kasinitz (eds), Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, New
York: Russell Sage, pp. 94
119
*** 2003 The centrality of ethnography in the study of transnational migration: seeing
the wetland instead of the swamp, in Nancy Foner (ed.), American Arrivals, Santa Fe, NM:
School of American Research, pp. 99
128
*** 2005 Blood and belonging: long-distance nationalism and the world beyond, in
Susan McKinnon and Sydel Silverman (eds), Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 448
67
*** 2009 There is no power except for God: locality, global Christianity, and
immigrant transnational incorporation, in Bertrand Turner and Thomas Kirsch (eds),
Permutations of Order, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 125
47
*** 2010 Old baggage and missing luggage: a commentary on Beck and Snzaiders
Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda, British Journal of
Sociology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 413
20
GLICK SCHILLER, NINA and CAGLAR, AYSE 2008 And ye shall possess it, and dwell
therein: social citizenship, global Christianity, and non-ethnic immigrant incorporation, in
Deborah Reed-Danahay and Caroline Brettell (eds), Immigration and Citizenship in Europe
and the United States: Anthropological Perspectives, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, pp. 203
25
GLICK SCHILLER, NINA and FOURON, GEORGES 2001 Georges Woke Up Laughing:
Long Distance Nationalism and the Search for Home, Durham, NC: Duke University Press
GLICK SCHILLER, NINA, CAGLAR, AYSE and GULDBRANDSEN, THADDEUS
2006 Beyond the ethnic lens: locality, globality and born-again incorporation, American
Ethnologist, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 612
33
GUARNIZO, LUIS, PORTES, ALEJANDRO and HALLER, WILLIAM 2003 Assimilation and transnationalism: determinants of transnational political action among contemporary migrants, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1211
48
HANNERZ, ULF 1999 Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture, in Mike Featherstone
(ed.) Theory, Culture & Society, Special Issue on Global Culture, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 237
51
HARVEY, DAVID 2009 Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom, New York:
Columbia University Press
HAYDEN, PATRICK 2005 Cosmopolitan Global Politics, Aldershot: Ashgate
HIEBERT, DANIEL 2002 Cosmopolitanism at the local level: the development of
transnational neighborhoods, in Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (eds), Conceiving
Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209
23
ITZIGSOHN, JOSE 2000 Immigration and the boundaries of citizenship: the institutions
of immigrants political transnationalism, International Migration Review, vol. 34, no. 4,
pp. 1126
54
JEFFREY, CRAIG and MCFARLANE, COLIN 2008 Performing cosmopolitanism,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 26, pp. 420
7
KALDOR, MARY 2007 New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, 2nd edn,
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
KATHARI, UMA 2008 Global peddlers and local networks: migrant cosmopolitanisms,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 26, pp. 500
16
KOSNICK, KIRA 2009 Cosmopolitan capital or multicultural community? Reflections on
the production and management of differential mobilities in Germanys capital city, in
Magdalena Nowicka and Maria Rovisco (eds), Cosmopolitanism in Practice, Farnham:
Ashgate, pp. 161
80
LAMONT, MICHE`LE and AKSARTOVA, SADA 2002 Ordinary cosmopolitanisms:
strategies for bridging racial boundaries among working-class men, Theory, Culture &
Society, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1
25
LEITNER, HELGA et al. 2007 Contesting urban futures: decentering neoliberalism, in
Helga Leitner, Jamie Peck and Eric Sheppard (eds), Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban
Frontiers, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 1
25

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

Introduction 417
LEVITT, PEGGY and GLICK SCHILLER, NINA 2004 Conceptualizing simultaneity:
a transnational social field perspectives on society, International Migration Review, vol. 38,
no. 3, pp. 1002
39
LOFLAND, LYNN 1998 The Public Realm: Exploring the Citys Quintessential Social
Territory, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers
MAHLER, SARAH 1999 Theoretical and empirical contributions toward a research
agenda for transnationalism, in Michael Smith and Lous Guarnizo (eds), Transnationalism
from Below, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, pp. 64
100
MASSEY, DOREEN 2005 For Space, London: Sage
NOWICKA, MAGDALENA and ROVISCO, MARIA 2009 Introduction: making sense of
cosmopolitanism, in Magdalena Nowicka and Maria Rovisco (eds), Cosmopolitanism in
Practice, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1
16
PRIES, LUDGAR 2001 The disruption of social and geographic space Mexican-US
migration and the emergence of transnational social, International Sociology, vol. 16, no. 1,
pp. 55
74
RAPPORT, NIGEL and STADE, RONALD 2007 A cosmopolitan turn or return?, Social
Anthropology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 223
35
ROBBINS, BRUCE 1998 Actually existing cosmopolitanism, in Pheng Cheah and Bruce
Robbins (eds), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, pp. 1
19
SIMMEL, GEORG 1971 On Individuality and Social Forms, ed. Donald Levine, Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press
SEN, AYREYEE 2009 A sea of others: Tibetan refugees, Indian hosts, Richard Gere
and navigating cosmopolitanisms in Dharamsala, Princeton-Manchester Colloquium,
sponsored by the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University,
25
6 September
SKRBIS , ZLATKO, KENDALL, GAVIN and WOODWARD, IAN 2004 Locating
cosmopolitanism: between humanist ideal and grounded social category, Theory, Culture,
Society, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 115
36
KEFELD, MARTIN 2006 Mobilizing in transnational space: a social movement
SO
approach to the formation of diaspora, Global Networks, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 265
84
SMITH, NEIL 2002 New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy,
Antipode, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 427
50
STRATHERN, MARILYN 1996 The concept of society is theoretically obsolete: for the
Motion (1), in Tim Ingold (ed.), Key Debates in Anthropology, London: Routledge, pp. 60
66.
TARROW, SIDNEY 2006 The New Transnational Activism, New York: Cambridge
University Press
TIHANOV, GALIN 2009 Cosmopolitans without a polis: towards a hermeneutics of the
East-East exilic experience (1929
1945), in John Neubauer and Zsuzsanna To ro k (eds), The
Exile and Return of Writers from East-Central Europe, New York: Walter de Gruyter,
pp. 123
43
VAN DER VEER, PETER 2002 Colonial cosmopolitanism, in Steven Vertovec and Robin
Cohen (eds), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 165
79
VERTOVEC, STEVEN 2004 Migrant transnationalism and modes of transformation,
International Migration Review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 970
1001
*** 2006 Diasporas good? Diasporas bad?, Working paper no. 41, Centre on Migration,
Policy and Society, University of Oxford
*** 2009 Cosmopolitanism in Attitude, Practice and Competence. Working paper 09-08,
www.mmg.mpg.de/workingpapers
VERTOVEC, STEPHEN and COHEN, ROBIN 2002 Introduction, in Steven Vertovec and
Robin Cohen (eds), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 1
23

418 Nina Glick Schiller et al.

Downloaded By: [Tsukuba University] At: 03:57 7 February 2011

WERBNER, PNINA 2005 The predicament of diaspora and millennial Islam: reflections
on September 11, 2001, in Sigrid No kel and Levent Tezcan (eds), Islam and the New Europe:
Continuities, Changes, Confrontations, Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 127
51
*** 2008 Introduction: towards a new cosmopolitan anthropology, in Pnina Werbner
(ed.), Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism, Oxford: Berg, pp. 1
31
WIMMER, ANDREAS and GLICK SCHILLER, NINA 2002 Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation state building, migration and the social sciences, Global Networks:
A Journal of Transnational Affairs, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 301
34
WOOD, ALLEN 1998 Kants project for perpetual peace, in Pheng Cheah and Bruce
Robbins (eds), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, pp. 59
76
YOUNG, CRAIG, DIEP, MARTINA and DRABBLE, STEPHANIE 2006 Living with
difference? The cosmopolitan city and urban reimagining in Manchester, UK, Urban
Studies, vol. 43, pp. 1687
714

NINA GLICK SCHILLER is Professor of Social Anthropology at the

University of Manchester, UK.
ADDRESS: Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures, AL 2-409,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Email: nina.glickschiller@manchester.ac.uk
TSYPYLMA DARIEVA is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the
University of Tsukuba, Japan.
ADDRESS: Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Tsukuba1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8573, Japan.
Email: darieva.tsypylma.gw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp; tsypylma25@gmail.com
SANDRA GRUNER-DOMIC is Lecturer in Sociology and Gender
Studies at the University of Southern California, USA.
ADDRESS: Mark Taper Hall of Humanities, 422 Los Angeles, CA
90089-4352, USA. Email: grunderdo@college.usc.ed