ABSTRACT
Since its origin in Greek culture, cosmopolitanism has been a highly disputed concept. Critics holding on to identity politics that take the nation-state (→ II/38) as their reference point dismiss it as an escapist outlook. While supporters clearly see cosmopolitanism as a liberating alternative to confining national and ethnic as well as racial identity patterns (→ Race, I/39; Ethnicity, I/25), some of its more radical advocates embrace it as a means to distance themselves from the notion of nation by adopting a non-committal view from above. Such a view from above suggests the possibility of a space which is aesthetic or social, or both, existing beyond fixed geopolitical territories, beyond the diametrical oppositions of inside and outside, of center and periphery. The word “cosmopolitan” combines two Greek terms, “cosmos” (universe) and “polis” (city), to refer to a person capable of living anywhere. “Cosmopolitanism” means the theory or advocacy of a world society and the rejection of parochial or provincial values in favor of universally shared views. Since the Enlightenment (→ I/8), “cosmopolitanism” has referred generally to a philosophy that is based on transnational, rather than specifically national, values. Of course, the interpretations of what constitute universality, transnationality, and world society have been historically quite diverse, but while there have been differing attempts to define cosmopolitanism, one central consensus emerges which is shared by all cosmopolitan views and which embraces the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political, racial, or gender differences, belong to a community that is in need of further cultivation (Raussert 2011).
