Transnationalism and Cosmopolitanism: Towards Global Citizenship?
| Date | 01 April 2010 |
| Published date | 01 April 2010 |
| DOI | 10.3366/E1755088210000467 |
| Author | Christien Van Den Anker |
| Subject Matter | Article |
TRANSNATIONALISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM:
TOWARDS GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP?
CHRISTIEN VAN DEN ANKER
Abstract: The concept of transnationalism, despite a variety of earlier uses,
has recently been used to describe the sociological phenomenon of cross-
border migrants considering more than one place ‘home’. This can be in
terms of identity and belonging, cultural expression, family and other social
ties, visits, financial flows, organising working life in more than one nation-
state or transnational political projects. In this paper I discuss the theory and
practice of transnationalism to assess the practical, explanatory and normative
strength of the concept. I then introduce three different forms of cosmopolitan
approaches and assess whether transnational migrants’ practices contribute to
a cosmopolitan outlook and active global citizenship. I show that the extent
to which transnationalism contributes to various forms of global citizenship
varies according to the different conceptualisations of transnationalism and
cosmopolitanism. In conclusion I draw out the implications of these differences
for the future protection of the rights of migrants.
Keywords: Cosmopolitanism, global citizenship, hospitality, migrant rights,
transnationalism
The Argument for Links between Transnationalism and Cosmopolitanism
In order to establish whether transnational migration strategies contribute to cos-
mopolitanism, we need to set out clearly what the indicators are for such expec-
tations. Who is expected to create this moral motivation? Does global citizenship
mean political participation, global entitlements to social and other rights or
being welcome everywhere? Should global citizens only live a specific cos-
mopolitan lifestyle or should they act in support of ‘others’? Are those situated
abroad or nearby? And what is it about transnationalism that supposedly creates
Journal of International Political Theory, 6(1) 2010, 73–94
DOI: 10.3366/E1755088210000467
© Edinburgh University Press 2010
73
Christien van den Anker
any of these versions of increased (moral) global citizenship? These questions
will be explored in subsequent sections after looking first at the argument that
transnationalism contributes to cosmopolitanism and global citizenship.
Ulf Hannerz argues that more people having relationships with ‘others’
means they have an experiential basis for a cosmopolitan outlook as opposed
to patriotism (Hannerz 2009). He views any migration across national borders
as transnational (as opposed to international, which he sees as referring to
state actors only). The ‘people’ in his argument are presumably the non-
migrant inhabitants in receiving countries who, through living in more cultural
and ethnically diverse environments due to transnational migration, come
into contact with more ‘others’ and therefore are expected to be more open
to ‘difference’. He may also want to include migrants who by living with
more diversity become more cosmopolitan but he does not make this explicit.
Hannerz displays here a version of the ‘proximity thesis’ which holds that
increased diversity due to migration leads to more multiculturalism, understood
as the sociological phenomenon of greater cultural variety as well as increased
interaction and understanding between groups, within neighbourhoods, cities or
communities (van den Anker 2007). These expectations can be traced back to
early natural law accounts of acknowledging moral duties towards ‘others’ once
there is recognition of them as fellow human beings (Jahn 1999).
In Hannerz’s line of argument, the closing of the emotional distance gap is
due to migration across borders of nation-states, which means migration per se
seems to do the work in the proximity thesis, not any new model of migration
where transnational ties are kept by migrants to their ‘home’ lands or with
family and friends in the diaspora in additional countries. Yet, in the moral
panic about migration in receiving countries it is precisely these complex lives
across borders that are presented as reasons to doubt the loyalty of immigrants
to their new country of residence. That becomes a ground of suspicion which
hampers a cosmopolitan outlook. In a recent British documentary on migration,
characteristically entitled ‘Immigration: the inconvenient truth’, the fact that
immigrants would watch the news from their country of origin was presented
as evidence for their lack of connection to the society where they now lived. The
loyalties to different national cultures were constructed as mutually exclusive.
An additional complaint presented about recent migrants to the UK from new
EU member-states is that they stay for a relatively short period of time in order to
make enough money to start a business at home. This illustrates that the anxieties
expressed are linked to an underlying ethic of nationalism: that people should
belong to one nation-state and not several. If they opt for migration, they are
expected to build a life in the receiving country, not leave after a short period.
The different versions of nationalism may range from the more benign to the
more sinister but the general perception is of a host society which ‘welcomes’
guests and should therefore control who comes in, for how long and which rights
will be granted.
74
To continue reading
Request your trial