E(Lab)orating performance: transnationalism and blended learning in the theatre classroom

Adult Education Through a Cosmopolitanism Lens: A Review of the Research Literature

“…They defined cosmopolitanism as a personal perspective that entails ethical and philosophical orientations to include worldviews, dispositions, or identity (Bakkabulindi & Ssempebwa, 2011; Bilecen, 2013; Coryell, Spencer, & Sehin, 2014; Guardado, 2010; McNiff, 2013; Williams, 2013). Characteristics of cosmopolitanism include an individual’s openness (Froese, Jommersbach, & Klautzsch, 2013; Schein, 2008), commitment to multicultural sensitivity (Anderson, 2011; Cloete, Dinesh, Hazou, & Matchett, 2015; Guardado, 2010; Starkey, 2007; Szelényi & Rhoads, 2013), awareness of difference (Bamber, 2015; Sidhu & Dalla’Alba, 2012), development of cultural competence (Nilep, 2009; Ye & Kelly, 2011), adaptability (Coryell et al, 2014; Guardado, 2010), utilization of intellectual devices (Cloete et al, 2015; Sobré, 2009), and employment of appropriate discourse tools (Amadasi & Holliday, 2017) These attributes were suggested as helping individuals interact sensitively and effectively across different cultures, linguistic settings, and political economies. Others posited that cosmopolitanism articulates a sense of belonging in multiple communities (Gu & Schweisfurth, 2015; Khandekar, 2010), while Saito (2017) described cosmopolitanism as imagining a situation where world citizens belong to one community (through the common language of English).…”

“…Others further argued for critical tenets of moral cosmopolitanism. These researchers asserted that cosmopolitanism requires a critical stance and personal cultural reflexology (Amadasi & Holliday, 2017; Bamber, 2015; Cloete et al, 2015; Schein, 2008). While Bamber’s (2015) understanding of cosmopolitanism calls for recognition of all people’s equal moral worth and agency, Schein (2008) clarified that cosmopolitanism in the United States necessitates “an openness to the world that is itself an affirmation of a rooted, immutable, and deeply raced, gendered, and classed national character” (p. 101).…”

“…[and] used as a theoretical framework through which to understand postmodern transition processes in an increasingly globalized world” (p. 116). However, Cloete et al (2015) and Amadasi and Holliday (2017) referred to Stuart Hall’s work to suggest that cosmopolitanism does not indeed lead to a homogenized society lacking culture but instead leads to one that provides influences of many cultural systems of which individuals can choose selectively from a diversity of discursive meaning.…”

“…For example, Nilep (2009), Schein (2008), and Starkey (2007) all discussed cosmopolitan citizenship, a sense of self that connects with complex, multiple identities (Starkey, 2007) and with individuals of a global community that are “knowledgeable and competent to interact with others across the borders of the nation state” (Nilep, 2009, p. 231). Similarly, Coete et al (2015) and Gu and Schweisfurth (2015) concentrated on the development of transnational cultural citizenship. Coete et al (2015) argued that this kind of citizenship requires a cosmopolitan lens shaped by an intellectual and aesthetic openness toward diverse cultural experiences.…”

“…Similarly, Coete et al (2015) and Gu and Schweisfurth (2015) concentrated on the development of transnational cultural citizenship. Coete et al (2015) argued that this kind of citizenship requires a cosmopolitan lens shaped by an intellectual and aesthetic openness toward diverse cultural experiences. Gu and Schweisfurth (2015) further asserted that transnationalism is a particular type of subjectivity in which individuals can embrace both the “here” and the “there” (p. 950) and possess levels of cosmopolitan competence for interacting effectively with cultural diversity.…”