Imagining ‘non-nationality’: Cosmopolitanism as a source of identity and belonging

Abstract

Current literature tends to see cosmopolitan identity formation as an individual endeavour of developing a stance of openness, and transcending discourses of national and other cultural identities. This article challenges the essentialism inherent in this model by proposing a different framing of cosmopolitan identity formation that shifts the focus to how people collectively mobilize cosmopolitanism as a resource for cultural identity construction. The article is based on an anthropological study of transnational professionals who are part of a diverse expatriate community in Amsterdam. The analysis shows how these professionals draw on cosmopolitanism to define themselves as 'non-nationals'. This involves downplaying national affiliations and cultural differences while also marking national identity categories and 'cultural features' to maintain the difference they collectively embrace. This however does not imply openness to all otherness. Boundary drawing to demarcate the cosmopolitan 'us' in relation to national (mono)culture is equally important.The article argues that cosmopolitan identities are socially accomplished as particular modes of collective belonging that are part of -not beyond -a global discursive sphere of identity politics.

When all doors close: Implications of COVID-19 for cosmopolitan entrepreneurs

“…Geography, place, countries and other traditional, location-based characteristics do not limit how cosmopolitans live, work, venture, experience and learn ( Raitis et al, 2019 ). They are attracted to cosmoscapes – spaces, practices, objects and networks facilitating cosmopolitan life ( Kendall et al, 2009 ) – which downplay national affiliations and cultural differences ( Skovgaard-Smith and Poulfelt, 2018 ). The key characteristics that define a cosmopolitan individual are mobility, openness, a valuing of different cultures and a disengagement from national and local anchors ( Skrbiš and Woodward, 2013 ).…”

Attention! Cosmopolitans ahead – They may not be as creative as they think!

“…The notion of cosmopolitanism spans several academic disciplines. Skovgaard‐Smith and Poulfelt () synthesize these many disciplinary approaches by suggesting that the philosophical tradition underlies moral cosmopolitanism, a political science perspective is at the root of global governance and civil society and thus, political cosmopolitanism, and sociology has explored cultural cosmopolitanism. Despite these different forms and perspectives on cosmopolitanism, “the concept of openness to cultural difference remains widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the cosmopolitan” (Skovgaard‐Smith & Poulfelt, , p. 130).…”

“…Skovgaard‐Smith and Poulfelt () synthesize these many disciplinary approaches by suggesting that the philosophical tradition underlies moral cosmopolitanism, a political science perspective is at the root of global governance and civil society and thus, political cosmopolitanism, and sociology has explored cultural cosmopolitanism. Despite these different forms and perspectives on cosmopolitanism, “the concept of openness to cultural difference remains widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the cosmopolitan” (Skovgaard‐Smith & Poulfelt, , p. 130). We draw on the cultural cosmopolitanism perspective, the most common perspective in the management literature (Levy et al, , ; Skovgaard‐Smith & Poulfelt, ), to understand the cognitive orientation that influences the extent to which individuals view themselves as cosmopolitans.…”

“…Despite these different forms and perspectives on cosmopolitanism, “the concept of openness to cultural difference remains widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the cosmopolitan” (Skovgaard‐Smith & Poulfelt, , p. 130). We draw on the cultural cosmopolitanism perspective, the most common perspective in the management literature (Levy et al, , ; Skovgaard‐Smith & Poulfelt, ), to understand the cognitive orientation that influences the extent to which individuals view themselves as cosmopolitans.…”

“…A frequent characterization of cosmopolitans is that they are “citizens of the world” and thus, clanless or without culture (Nussbaum, ; Vertovec & Cohen, ), but most scholars agree that cosmopolitanism is an orientation of self that is inherently cultural, yet simultaneously transcends culture. Levy et al () describe this as a mediation between the local and global, whereas Skovgaard‐Smith and Poulfelt () characterize this as a playful exploration of “slipping in and out of each other's difference – yielding into otherness and trying it out for size” (Skovgaard‐Smith & Poulfelt, , p. 143).…”