COSMOPOLITANISM IN SOCIAL THEORY: AN AMBIVALENT DEFENCE

Abstract

Cosmopolitanism is now widely present within contemporary social sciences, having successfully jumped all of the hurdles that new analytical frameworks have to overcome in order to be recognized within the scholarly community. Its historical credentials have been reconstructed and brought up to date (Chernilo, 2007b; Fine, 2003a; Inglis, 2009; Inglis and Robertson, 2008; Turner, 1990, 2006), its critical force for redressing some of the problems of previous approaches has been amply discussed (Beck and Sznaider, 2006; Habermas, 1998), its potential analytical uses are being intimated in a number of different disciplinary and empirical contexts (Chea, 2006; Delanty, 2009; Derrida, 2001; Fine, 2003b, 2006, 2007; Harvey, 2009; Skrbis, Kendall, and Woodward, 2004), its normative strengths and weaknesses, as well as its co-lateral implications, are being systematically reviewed and reflected upon (Benhabib, 2004; Bohman, 2007; Habermas, 2006). Cosmopolitan social science — or, more pertinently for this chapter, cosmopolitan social theory — is now a rightful occupant of our increasingly cosmopolitan intellectual landscapes.