Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent years have seen a growth in work on the notion of cosmopolitanism. In urban geography the term has a number of meanings, and this article focuses on two. The first refers to claims of how the experiences of certain cities have been universalized and the calls that have emerged in recent years to diversify the empirical basis on which theories are constructed. The second refers to claims of the ways in which those charged with governing urban downtowns have mobilized notions of cosmopolitanism as part of their efforts to market themselves and to define particular development trajectories. Using the example of Wisconsin's Business Improvement Districts, this article argues for a greater appreciation of diversity within this model of downtown governance than hitherto has been acknowledged, broadening the geographical referents for studies of entrepreneurial urbanism and thinking through what this knowledge might reveal about how we theorize urban revalorization. Despite some evidence of copy-cat urbanism in the two cases, there remains a need to be alive to diversity and variety.

For all the attention globalization has received in recent years, little consensus has emerged concerning how best to understand it. For some, it is the happy product of free and rational choices; for others, it is the unfortunate outcome of impersonal forces beyond our control. It is in turn celebrated for the opportunities it affords and criticized for the inequalities in wealth and power it generates. David Singh Grewal's remarkable and ambitious book draws on several centuries of political and social thought to show how globalization is best understood in terms of a power inherent in social relations, which he callsnetwork power. Using this framework, he demonstrates how our standards of social coordination both gain in value the more they are used and undermine the viability of alternative forms of cooperation. A wide range of examples are discussed, from the spread of English and the gold standard to the success of Microsoft and the operation of the World Trade Organization, to illustrate how global standards arise and falter. The idea of network power supplies a coherent set of terms and concepts-applicable to individuals, businesses, and countries alike-through which we can describe the processes of globalization as both free and forced. The result is a sophisticated and novel account of how globalization, and politics, work.

In recent decades, the rise of world markets and the technological revolutions in transportation and communication have brought what was once distant and inaccessible within easy reach of the individual. The territorial and social closure that characterized nation-states is fading, and this is reflected not only in new forms of governance and economic globalization, but also in individual mobility and transnational transactions, affiliations and networks. Social Transnationalism explores new forms of cross-border interactions and mobility which have expanded across physical space by looking at the individual level. It asks whether we are dealing with unbridled movements and cross-border interactions which transform the lifeworlds of individuals fundamentally. Furthermore, it investigates whether, and to what degree, increases in the volume of transnational interactions weaken the individual citizen's bond to the nation-state as such, and to what extent citizens' national identities are being replaced or complemented by cosmopolitan ones 1. Introduction Part 1: From National Containers to Transnational Social Spaces 2. The Nation-State as Container? 3. Globalization, De-Nationalization, and World Society 4. Transnationalism and Transmigration 5. Transnationalization from Below 6. From Presence to Absence 7. Spaces and Networks of Border-Crossing Part 2: The Cartography of Transnational Social Relations 8. The Geographic Range of German Transnational Social Networks 9. Family Networks: Closeness with Distance 10. Mobility across Borders 11. Student Mobility on the Global Campus 12. International Tourism: People on the Move 13. Transnationalization of the Immobile Part 3: Transnationalism and the New Cosmopolitanism 14. The Cosmopolitan Perspective 15. Attribution of Responsibility 16. Attitudes towards Foreigners 17. Transnational Trust 18. Identity: From National to Supranational? 19. Globalization: Threat or Promise? Part 4: Unequal Transnationalism 20. Fragmentation through Transnationalism? 21. Transnationalism of the Masses or of the Elites? 22. Divided Transnationalism: West versus East? 23. Global City and Provincial Province? 24. Younger Generations as Movers of Social Transnationalism 25. Gender and Transnational Involvement Part 5: Conclusion 26. Social Transnationalism: Reconfiguring Society and State-Relations Steffen Mau is currently Professor of Political Sociology and Comparative Social Research, Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, University Bremen.

    Who are we? is the question at the core of these fascinating essays from one of the nation's leading intellectual historians. With old identities increasingly destabilized throughout the world—the result of demographic migration, declining empires, and the quickening integration of the global capitalist economy and its attendant communications systems—David A. Hollinger argues that the problem of group solidarity is emerging as one of the central challenges of the twenty-first century.       Building on many of the topics in his highly acclaimed earlier work, these essays treat a number of contentious issues, many of them deeply embedded in America's past and present political polarization. Essays include Amalgamation and Hypodescent, Enough Already: Universities Do Not Need More Christianity, Cultural Relativism, Why Are Jews Preeminent in Science and Scholarship: The Veblen Thesis Reconsidered, and The One Drop Rule and the One Hate Rule. Hollinger is at his best in his judicious approach to America's controversial history of race, ethnicity, and religion, and he offers his own thoughtful prescriptions as Americans and others throughout the world struggle with the pressing questions of identity and solidarity.

In O Olho de Hertzog (2010), set in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, the Mozambican writer João Paulo Borges Coelho presents a cosmopolitan panorama of colonial south-eastern Africa. «Mozambique» emerges here not primarily as a Portuguese colonial space but as a site of multiple entanglements between interests: transnational and local, European and African, South African and Mozambican, British and German, colonial and proto-nationalist. In such a way, and differently from previous Mozambican literature, O Olho de Hertzog performs a complex act of worlding that exceeds the bounded colonial/ national space of Mozambique, but resists synthesis. This cosmopolitanism can be read expressive of the strained relations and constitutive hierarchies of colonial society as well as, by implication, of contemporary globalisation. The most important index of such a critical cosmopolitanism is the trope of the «two worlds» of Lourenço Marques, embodied in the central character João Albasini, legendary mestiço activist and founder of the proto-nationalist journal O Brado Africano (1918-1974). Albasini functions as a Virgil for the protagonist Hans Mahrenholz’s descent into the colonial inferno of Mozambique. Not least by citing documentary material –Albasini’s editorials and shop signs in Lourenço Marques– Coelho problematises the divisions of the colonial city, sustained by international capital, and provides a sharp contrast to the otherwise dominant «European» narrative of novel, which revolves around a fabled diamond and white South African intrigue.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a wealth of discussion and controversy about the idea of a ‘postnational’ or ‘cosmopolitan’ politics. But while there are many normative theories of cosmopolitanism, as well as some cosmopolitan theories of globalization, there has been little attempt to grapple systematically with fundamental questions of structure and action from a ‘cosmopolitan point of view.’ Drawing on Kant‘s cosmopolitan writings and Habermas‘s critical theory of society, Brian Milstein argues that, before we are members of nations or states, we are participants in a ‘commercium’ of global interaction who are able to negotiate for ourselves the terms on which we share the earth in common with one another. He marshals a broad range of literature from philosophy, sociology, and political science to show how the modern system of sovereign nation-states destructively constrains and distorts these relations of global interaction, leading to pathologies and crises in present-day world society.

Managerialism and the neoliberal lifestyle are dulling our ability to think for, or beyond, ourselves. Recourse to the Garden of Peace enables us to rediscover our intellectual capacities. Yet, in that sanctuary, we also encounter the meta-issues of the era. Several \"big questions\" in geography proposed by Cutter, Golledge, and Graf (2002) direct attention to three domains of risk related to Western economic, political, and social capital under neoliberalism. They are terrorism, the limits of liberalism, and the future of labor. With backdrops of democracy, globalization, and cosmopolitanism, this article explores their development and interrelations, working through the various options to presage future neoliberal geographies and forms of governance by 2050. The scenario judged most likely, however, exemplifies the contradictions and challenges confronting the West in the next half-century.

This paper looks at such youthful cosmopolitan aspirations among Manjaco of Guinea-Bissau and Lauje in Sulawesi. It is often argued that these attempts at worldliness reflect claims for equal rights of membership in an unequal global society. Yet, an aspiration to worldliness also entails their assertion that we are, or at least should be, like them. This paper suggests that Manjaco and Lauje might seem to want to look like us but they talk very differently about what they expect of us in a world we mutually make.

Dieser Aufsatz zielt - ausgehend von der transformativen Natur des kogenerativen Dialogs - auf die ethische Dimension dieser Praxis, um die erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung (und die Klassenzimmer und Schulen, mit denen sie sich befasst) weiter zu bringen als dies in gegenwärtigen Konzeptualisierungen von Ethik der Fall ist. Hierzu werden der Belmont-Bericht und entwickelte Begriffen von Evaluationsverfahren der 4. Generation miteinander verbunden, um kogenerative Dialoge in einem philosophischen Ansatz zur Kosmopolitik zu begründen, der den Unterschied der verschiedenen Teilnehmenden, Felder und Wissens- und Seinsweisen anerkennt. Hiernach wird diskutiert, wie das Begründen eines wirklich ethischen Forschungsaktes in einem kosmopolitischen Ideal zu Wohltätigkeit führen kann. Es folgen Überlegungen, wie mögliche Fallen, die in den Authentizitätskriterien verborgen sind, in der Praxis des kogenerativen Dialogs überkommen werden können durch Handlungen, die die taktische Authentizität maximieren. Unser Zugang zu kogenerativen Dialogen dient uns als eine Methode der Kritik und Analyse, die gegenwärtige Praktiken herausfordern und Überlegungen zur Ethik der kogenerativen Dialoge in Innenstadtschulen in einem neuen Licht erscheinen lassen. In this article, we acknowledge the transformative nature of cogenerative dialogues and focus on the ethical dimension of the practice in order to move educational research, classrooms and schools beyond the current conceptions of what is ethical. Utilizing a fusion of the Belmont Report with nuanced notions of fourth generation evaluation procedures, we root cogenerative dialogues in a philosophical approach to cosmopolitanism that acknowledges the differences between multiple participants, multiple fields, and varying ways of knowing and being. Firstly, we consider how rooting the character of the truly ethical research act in a cosmopolitan ideal can attain participant beneficence. Secondly, we consider how to avoid the potential pitfalls of authenticity criteria in the practice of cogenerative dialogues by enacting practices that maximize tactical authenticity. Our approach to cogenerative dialogues serves as a method for critique and analysis that challenges our current practice and considers the ethics of cogenerative dialogues in inner city schools in a new light. En este artículo reconocemos la naturaleza transformativa del diálogo cogenerativo y enfocamos la dimensión ética de la práctica para dirigir la investigación educativa, las clases y las escuelas más allá de las nociones actuales de lo que es ético. Utilizando una fusión del reporte Belmont y nociones matizadas de procedimientos evaluativos de cuarta generación, fundamentamos los diálogos cogenerativos en un enfoque filosófico al cosmopolitanismo que reconoce las diferencias entre múltiples participantes, múltiples campos y varios modos de saber y ser. Primero, consideramos como la fundamentación del acto investigativo verdaderamente ético en un ideal cosmpolitano puede ganar la beneficiencia del participante. Luego consideramos como evitar las trampas potenciales de los criterios de autenticidad en la práctica de los diálogos cogenerativos al realizar prácticas que maximizan la autenticidad táctica. Nuestro enfoque a los diálogos cogenerativos sirve como un método de crítica y de análisis que desafia nuestra práctica actual y considera en una nueva perspectiva a la ética de diálogos cogenerativos en escuelas de la ciudad.

Tradicionalmente, pueblo, territorio y derechos deben coincidir para justificar el control estatal. Sin embargo, los Estados han desplazado recientemente sus fronteras de modo que estos tres elementos se encuentran desacoplados. ¿Cómo debemos entender entonces la legitimidad del Estado? Este artículo examina tres respuestas contemporáneas al fenómeno del desplazamiento de las fronteras. En primer lugar, el soberanismo trata de estabilizar la relación entre pueblo y territorio, aunque para ello haya que limitar el alcance de los derechos. En segundo lugar, el cosmopolitismo democrático tolera los desplazamientos del territorio, siempre que pueblos y derechos coincidan. Por último, el modelo de la cuenca hidrográfica mantiene los derechos dentro del territorio, pero acepta cambios en el pueblo, ya que separa la gobernanza democrática y los derechos de una identidad nacional concreta. En el artículo se sostiene que el modelo de cuencas hidrográficas puede responder mejor a los retos que plantea la movilidad humana en tiempos de crisis planetaria.