Katharyne Mitchell Geographies of identity: the intimate cosmopolitan
In sociology, recent conceptualizations have fixated primarily on the relationship between cosmopolitanism and modernity, with standard bearers such as Ulrich Beck (2000) arguing that we have entered an era of ‘second’ or ‘reflexive’ modernity, characterized by the redefinition and growing ambiguity of boundaries. The boundaries associated with territories, disciplines, institutions and ideas can no longer be considered fixed or pregiven but rather must be understood as constantly reworked in specific contexts. These contexts, moreover, reflect new kinds of economic, political and cultural productions and alliances brought about by the contemporary processes of globalization. One of Beck’s key insights in this regard has been the notion of the unintended consequences related to globalization, particularly the ways that new forms of uncertainty or ‘risk’ that are connected with global processes and articulations, impact upon political decisions, state–society relations, and social organization more generally. A ‘cosmopolitan perspective’ for Beck thus starts with a global outlook and involves a critique of nation-based research formats (what he terms methodological nationalism), a recognition that we have entered a new historical era, a so-called ‘age of cosmopolitanism’, and an assumption that scholars must now engage a new kind of theoretical framework based on a conception of ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’.
In sociology, recent conceptualizations have fixated primarily on the relationship between cosmopolitanism and modernity, with standard bearers such as Ulrich Beck (2000) arguing that we have entered an era of ‘second’ or ‘reflexive’ modernity, characterized by the redefinition and growing ambiguity of boundaries. The boundaries associated with territories, disciplines, institutions and ideas can no longer be considered fixed or pregiven but rather must be understood as constantly reworked in specific contexts. These contexts, moreover, reflect new kinds of economic, political and cultural productions and alliances brought about by the contemporary processes of globalization. One of Beck’s key insights in this regard has been the notion of the unintended consequences related to globalization, particularly the ways that new forms of uncertainty or ‘risk’ that are connected with global processes and articulations, impact upon political decisions, state–society relations, and social organization more generally. A ‘cosmopolitan perspective’ for Beck thus starts with a global outlook and involves a critique of nation-based research formats (what he terms methodological nationalism), a recognition that we have
entered a new historical era, a so-called ‘age of cosmopolitanism’, and an assumption that scholars must now engage a new kind of theoretical framework based on a conception of ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’
In sociology, recent conceptualizations have fixated primarily on the relationship between cosmopolitanism and modernity, with standard bearers such as Ulrich Beck (2000) arguing that we have entered an era of ‘second’ or ‘reflexive’ modernity, characterized by the redefinition and growing ambiguity of boundaries. The boundaries associated with territories, disciplines, institutions and ideas can no longer be considered fixed or pregiven but rather must be understood as constantly reworked in specific contexts. These contexts, moreover, reflect new kinds of economic, political and cultural productions and alliances brought about by the contemporary processes of globalization. One of Beck’s key insights in this regard has been the notion of the unintended consequences related to globalization, particularly the ways that new forms of uncertainty or ‘risk’ that are connected with global processes and articulations, impact upon political decisions, state–society relations, and social organization more generally. A ‘cosmopolitan perspective’ for Beck thus starts with a global outlook and involves a critique of nation-based research formats (what he terms methodological nationalism), a recognition that we have entered a new historical era, a so-called ‘age of cosmopolitanism’, and an assumption that scholars must now engage a new kind of theoretical framework based on a conception of ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’.
In sociology, recent conceptualizations have fixated primarily on the relationship between cosmopolitanism and modernity, with standard bearers such as Ulrich Beck (2000) arguing that we have entered an era of ‘second’ or ‘reflexive’ modernity, characterized by the redefinition and growing ambiguity of boundaries. The boundaries associated with territories, disciplines, institutions and ideas can no longer be considered fixed or pregiven but rather must be understood as constantly reworked in specific contexts. These contexts, moreover, reflect new kinds of economic, political and cultural productions and alliances brought about by the contemporary processes of globalization. One of Beck’s key insights in this regard has been the notion of the unintended consequences related to globalization, particularly the ways that new forms of uncertainty or ‘risk’ that are connected with global processes and articulations, impact upon political decisions, state–society relations, and social organization more generally. A ‘cosmopolitan perspective’ for Beck thus starts with a global outlook and involves a critique of nation-based research formats (what he terms methodological nationalism), a recognition that we have
entered a new historical era, a so-called ‘age of cosmopolitanism’, and an assumption that scholars must now engage a new kind of theoretical framework based on a conception of ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’