1 Cultural Diversity, Democracy and the Prospects of Cosmopolitanism: A Theory of Cultural Encounters Gerard Delanty Sussex University, UK Abstract The most appropriate way of theorising cultural diversity is to situate it in the context of a broader relational theory of culture in which the key dynamic is cultural encounters. The relational conception of culture places the emphasis on the relations between social actors and the processes by which some of these relations generate enduring cultural regularities and forms. This has important implications for political community and in particular for cosmopolitanism. It is in relationships that cultural phenomena are generated and are the basis of different kinds of political community. The paper outlines a typology of six kinds of cultural encounters and discusses four major cultural trends that variously emerge from these encounters. This approach with its emphasis on cultural encounters is the broad sociological context in which questions about cultural change and the prospects of cosmopolitanism should be discussed. Key Words Cultural diversity, the concept of culture, cultural encounters, cosmopolitanism, democracy The link between culture and democracy has been a topic that has gained increased prominence in social and political science in recent years.i Studies on the cultural presuppositions of democracy have moved considerably beyond the older notions of culture that were largely taken for granted in studies on political culture and nationalism. The relation between culture and political community changed when the focus shifted from mainstream politics and processes of state formation to a new interest in minorities, identity, multiculturalism and post-national citizenship. With this turn, culture took on a different character. Of the many questions that have arisen around the place of culture in democracy and more generally in political community a particular challenge is the problem of diversity for political community in complex societies. What are the political implications of cultural difference? When does cultural difference enhance democracy and when does it undermine it? Indeed, there is a more fundamental question as to the nature of cultural difference and how it should be understood. It is nowadays taken for granted that our societies are diverse in their cultural composition while at the same time there is also a certain normative assumption that there is at some level a shared public domain. This question has been at the forefront of 2 much recent social and political theory and research in political sociology (Gutmann 2003, Benhabib 2002, 2004, Peters 2010). The present paper is addressed to a problem that has become more acute in light of the extension of the link between culture and political community to contexts and issues that have become generally associated with globalization and more specifically with the rise of cosmopolitanism. On the one side, cultural diversity appears to be both a desirable normative aspiration and an inevitable outcome of world-wide democratization; on the other, cultural diversity can entail a conception of difference that may be a challenge to democracy if the latter is restricted in its assumptions about membership of political community or if the demands for the recognition of difference may be excessive or incompatible with other goals. For instance, the pursuit of difference may be at the cost of the pursuit of equality or may result in some kind of cultural segregation of social groups or atavistic nationalism (Blok 1998, Hutchinson 2005, Schlesinger 1992). This all raises the question as to how cultural diversity should be understood in the first instance and how it relates to democracy, especially in a cosmopolitan perspective. The argument will be advanced in this paper that greater attention needs to be given to the logic of cultural encounters, which is a neglected aspect of cultural pluralisation, but one that is now very much implied by the cosmopolitan turn in contemporary thought. Cosmopolitan theory has extended the limits of political community beyond the traditional reference points of liberal and republican political theory and the assumptions of much of classical sociological theory where the political community in question was largely that of the modern national state. Over the past two decades or so there has been a renewed interest in the cosmopolitan currents in modernity in particular in light of the impact of globalization and major cultural change around post-national membership. Questions of justice, rights, identity have been considerably redefined in light of cosmopolitanism whether in the areas of law, economy, state, civil society, technology or the arts (Beck 2006, Benhabib 2008, Delanty 2006, 2009, Tan 2004, Sassen 2007). The key underlying characteristic of cosmopolitanism is a reflexive condition in which the perspective of others is incorporated into one’s own identity, interests or orientation in the world. This is what distinguishes it from global culture, internationalism, transnationalism, which may be preconditions of cosmopolitanism: it is less a condition expressed in mobility, diversity, globalizing forces than in the logic of exchange, dialogue, encounters. Cosmopolitanism requires that some degree of self or societal transformation to take place as a result of the interaction of different groups and of the guiding role of normative counter-factuals (such as notions of social justice, solidarity, planetary survival). Thus pluralisation is not the only feature of cosmopolitanism, which is essentially a way of imagining the world and extending the limits of political community. Like the notion of democracy, cosmopolitanism suggests a certain openness and, too, potential fragility since it rests on the bonds of mutuality and dialogue. The exploration of difference is central to both democracy and cosmopolitanism and leads to the insight that with the increasing concern with cultural difference today, democracy can be brought in a cosmopolitan direction. But democratic negotiation is always more than the recognition of diversity. 3 Democracy entails contestation and the inclusion of different voices within the polity; it is about claim-making both through the representation of social interests as well as through direct action and the incorporation of new groups. Political community thus conceived requires an active civil society in which public debate is a normal part of life. This means that consensus and conflict are part of the same process and that more democracy inevitably brings about more contestation. In that sense, then, democracy is fragile since consensus is never a final condition, but can be contested as the boundaries of the political community are extended with the inclusion of new groups or the raising of new voices and the introduction of different perspectives. This fragility is underpinned by cultural pluralisation and more generally by societal complexity and risk (Stehr 2001). With the growing diversity of contemporary societies as a result of transnationalism, be it tourism or migration, and more generally multiculturalism, democracy has been both enhanced and at the same time challenged. This is for several reasons. The presuppositions that a more homogeneous society can make about values and norms are more likely to be challenged. This is especially the case with assumptions about such basic values as those that a society can take for granted. Democratization has every where led both to more rights and to greater consciousness of rights. This has been enhanced by opportunities for networking and when combined with social interests leads to an increase in contestation and to conflict. The more groups and perspectives that are mobilized, the greater the dissensus and contestation. If the groups themselves are internally diverse and divided, the outcome may be less significant than in the case of homogeneous groups. Cultural diversity can thus result in increased social conflict with different groups competing or it can be contained with the wider polity or society. It has often been noted that plural societies are often organized as hierarchy, with one group dominating the others (Horowitz 2000: 135-9). The nature of the relation between the groups is the key problem for democracy. It is in this balance that the notion of the encounter is of paramount importance. The problem of pluralism concerns the relationships between social groups and thus it concerns encounters. Democracy is a condition defined by the nature of transactions and as such it concerns mechanisms of negotiation and deliberation by which social actors, whether collective or individual, achieve their interests according to norms that are mutually acceptable, but it also involves contestation over normative principles. For this reason democracy presupposes at minimum a common or shared public domain. In other words, the problem of democracy is the problem of reconciling common ground with the reality of diversity and different interests (Smelser and Alexander 1999, Touarine 2000). Modern democracies have mostly solved one of the major divisions around class through the welfare state and the solution found has in general been compatible with the pursuit of common ground and even of shared national identities. But, as is attested by the resurgence of nationalism, the challenge of other differences that have arisen as a result of culturally based interests has increased and has often undermined both democracy itself and the possibility of a shared public domain. The more cosmopolitan democracy becomes, the more fragile it will be; yet, democracy tends by the very logic of democratization towards cosmopolitanism, which itself emerges out of pluralisation. 4 These questions have come increasingly to the fore of social and political science in recent years. The question of diversity, difference and pluralism is not only a question of social conflict or of the sources of political instability. Much of the approach adopted in political science towards cultural diversity has been in response to the rise of ethnic conflict (Horowitz 2000). In other approaches that are less concerned with issues around major social conflict or the break-up of states, the concern has been rather more about the future of multiculturalism and the challenge of reconciling a politics of equality with one of the pursuit of difference (Hollinger 1995, Touraine 2000) and with questions of cultural citizenship (Stevenson 2002). In this paper I focus on one dimension of the problem of diversity and democracy, namely the implications of cultural diversity, recast in terms of a notion of cultural encounters, for cosmopolitan political community. Cosmopolitanism is increasingly seen as having a cultural dimension and while much of this has to do with issues relating to pluralisation, it is evident that the cultural question goes beyond the problem of diversity as such. So my question is what exactly is the significance of cultural diversity for cosmopolitanism and whether there are ways of conceiving of culture that do not reduce it to the condition of diversity. My argument is that underlying the notion of cultural diversity is a deeper notion of a cultural encounter. I argue that an exploration of the notion of cultural encounters is particularly fruitful as the notion of the encounter is also at stake in the concepts of democracy and cosmopolitanism. My aim, then, is to develop an analysis of cultural encounters in order to identify the dominant cultural trends and prospects for cosmopolitanism. A focus on the logic of the encounter rather than on diversity as such will offer useful insights for an understanding of the cultural dimensions of democracy and of cosmopolitanism. The first section examines the concepts of culture and diversity around a critical account of recent sociological theories of culture. My aim here is to develop a theory of culture that captures its relational, not only its plural, character. Drawing on recent contributions, I argue for a relational theory of culture. This relational conception of culture provides the foundation for a theory of cultural encounters, which I argue is better equipped to account for cultural challenges than is the notion of cultural diversity. The second section moves the discussion on to an account of cultural encounters. Here the aim is to answer the question what happens when one culture meets another. Six generic kinds of cultural encounter will be discussed. The third section addresses some of the main outcomes of cultural encounters with four main trends being identified. By way of conclusion, the final section offers an assessment of the prospects of cosmopolitanism. Culture and Diversity The concept of culture is amongst the most contested notions in the social and human sciences. The notion of cultural diversity or cultural difference is even more muddled. Since Ruth Benedict (1934) it is common place to see culture as by definition having particular forms. However this relativistic view of culture was never intended to reject universalism. The cultural value spheres of modernity, since Kant and Weber, have been generally seen as differentiated with each being based on different criteria and universalization possible only within each of these spheres.ii The concept of culture thus presupposes a diversity of forms as 5 well as wider spheres. Given the emphasis in recent times on cultural diversity in relation to political community, greater clarity needs to be established on what constitutes culture and cultural diversity beyond the recognition of its differentiated nature. The notion of cultural diversity can mean many things (Bennett 2001, Isar 2006). It frequently is a synonym for identity: one’s identity is constituted by the ability to distinguish oneself from another; it can signal a strong sense of otherness through ‘othering’ mechanisms by which the Other is marginalized, exotized, or persecuted. Cultural diversity is also intermeshed with other forms of difference making, as in processes of stratification such as caste and class. Cultural diversity is at work in normative discourses around cultural protection of heritage, as in the cultural policies of UNESCO (1996, 2001). Diversity may be a goal to be pursued or an obstacle to egalitarianism. Stronger cosmopolitan conceptions of diversity are invoked in notions such as ‘unity in diversity’ where the concept of diversity is broadened to include the search for common ground, as the policies of the EU and Council of Europe (Sassatelli, 2009). Some of these positive notions of diversity were reflected in initiatives such as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in 2008. However, on the other side, the notion of diversity in Europe appears to be replacing the notion of multiculturalism, which is increasingly under duress. It is not apparent that the discursive shift to diversity amounts to a substantial change in inclusive policies. It is difficult not to conclude that notions of cultural difference and diversity are often political slogans that lack conceptual clarity. It would be tempting to conclude that this, too, is the case with the notion of culture, which is often a black-box category. However, some clarity can be established on the sociological meaning of culture. The following discussion offers a brief review of some of the main trends in order to arrive at a concept of culture that has sociological significance. Since the so-called cultural turn in the human and social sciences and the related impact of postmodernist thought, a conception of culture has gained currency that stresses its fragmented, plural, and contested nature. This general perspective offers an important corrective to the traditional author based conceptions of culture or notions of culture that posit an unitary and underlying subjectivity of which it is the symbolic expression. However, such accounts, once common, have not altogether disappeared and frequently appear explicitly or implicitly in accounts of collective identities, nationalism and the politics of multiculturalism which see cultural groups are cohesive and based on coherent identities. Comparative studies of national culture, too, make certain assumptions about the unified nature of national culture (Hofstede 1980). Theories of national identity, for instance, have been for long divided between the proponents of ethno-symbolism and those advocating some version of constructivism (Hutchinson 2005). Another arena of controversy concerns the debate on ‘thin’ versus ‘thick’ forms of identity, where normative assumptions are particularly strong (Walzer 1983). Despite the postmodern critique of culture, the view has prevailed that culture is a coherent symbolic and normative whole that is expressed in different contexts. Theoretical approaches in recent sociological and cultural theory present a number of ways to conceive of culture that go some way to offering a framework for the analysis of culture that captures the postmodern logic of pluralisation, mobility and contestation, but also goes 6 beyond this level of analysis.iii The trend has been towards an emphasis on the cognitive dimensions of culture as opposed to the traditional emphasis on the symbolic and normative dimensions (Di Maggio 1997, Strydom 2011). A brief overview will offer a basis on which to develop a robust model of culture pertinent to current cosmopolitan currents and the rise of claim-making that go beyond those that can be situated exclusively within national contexts or more generally to approaches that reduce culture to the symbolic. Hermeneutical approaches suggest a notion of culture as a text that requires interpretation. This view of culture, which is also present in Foucauldian theory and more generally in discourse theory, stresses culture as a system of meaning that is always more than individual intentionality. However, the problem that such approaches present is the neglect of the social actor and the possibility of meaningful action. Bourdieu’s partly solves this problem. Against the model of text or discourse, culture is instead theorized as a mode of capital that is accumulated and exchanged in a context underpinned by the habitus and by fields. In this analysis, culture is a resource in a field of power in which social actors engage in struggle. But where Bourdieu over-stresses agency and struggle the notion of culture as performance has attracted considerable interest to those working in cultural analysis (Llyod 2011). Performativity is of course already present in Bourdieu who developed what had been a purely linguistic concept into a sociological one whereby individuals are endowed with symbolic authority to perform public acts. The concept has been invoked by Habermas in the universal pragmatics theory of language and famously by Judith Butler (1999) with her theory of gender as a repetition of acts. Dramaturgical accounts of social performance have become influential in sociology, since Erving Goffman first introduced the concept of social drama, and it is also a feature of the recent cultural pragmatic sociology of Jeffrey Alexander, who stresses the objective domain of the cultural order of society, on the one side, and on the other, individual actors who position themselves with respect to symbolic structures of meaning (Alexander et al 2006, Alexander 2004). However the problem with Alexander’s approach is that it places too much emphasis on what he calls cultural fusion between the diverse elements of a performance - authenticity, a script based on recognisable codes, capacity for collective identification etc - and which enable it to be successful. Culture cannot in all its facets be understood in the terms of performativity conceived of as cultural fusion. Indeed, much of it entails exchange and innovation and which is not always foreclosed as a performance. The dimension of public culture that escapes the aforementioned approaches is its critical function and its role in the shaping of new political subjectivities. Culture entails the raising of questions and the probing of new issues; it is often controversial about boundaries, identity and taste. It is both discursive and an arena of claim-making and as a consequence it critical with respect to the status quo. Three theoretical approaches that highlight the critical dimension of culture can be mentioned. Habermasian approaches to culture stress its normative content and the resources it offers for criticism, self-problematization as well as consensus building. These are generally seen as residing in the differentiated value spheres of modernity, as mentioned earlier, and more specifically in public culture (Peters 2010, see also Benhabib 2002). In repertoire theory, as advocated by Boltanski and Thevenot (1999, 2006), culture is theorized 7 in terms of evaluative criteria by which people justify their claims. They emphasize arguments and conflicts in which common norms are appealed to. Unlike Habermas’s notion of justification, which appeals to the possibility for discursive consensus based on common presuppositions, Boltanski and Thevenot see a plurality of orders or repertoires of justification each invoking different notions of justification, though they possibly overestimate the role of argumentation and justification. The notion of an imaginary signification as highlighted variously in the work Castoriadis (1987) and Touraine (1977) can also be related to the critical idea of culture. The imaginary component of culture concerns the notion of a cultural model by which a society defines its self-identity on the level of a mode of selfinterpretation that allows it to creatively renew itself. In this brief characterization of recent theorizing on culture, it can be finally commented that one of the more promising contributions to cultural analysis is what Ann Swidler (1986) has called in a much discussed paper the ‘tool kit’ model. In this view, culture is less a whole way of life or an objective framework that determines social action than a set of ‘tool’, frames, schemata, modes of categorization, and repertoires by which social actors make sense of the world. This approach stresses the cognitive dimension of culture, as opposed to its purely symbolic forms (Di Maggio 1997). Strydom (2011) has also drawn attention to the cognitive dimension of society which includes learning structures and schemata by which individual, social groups construct the social order. Such conceptions of culture have become increasingly influential in a range of areas. Many of these are often related to narrative analysis (Eder 2009, Somers 1994, 1995). Narrative approaches to culture stress the ways in which culture is constructed in sense-making activities such as biographies, memories, identities. Narratives are ways of experiencing and interpreting time and situate the present in relation to the past and future. In many ways narratives reflect the cognitive conception of culture as a form of mapping, claim-making and sense-making. In sum, the contemporary concept of culture that is most appropriate to the sociological analysis of the present day is one that can be characterized, firstly, as fragmented, mobile and plural and, secondly, as relational. The general trend is towards a conception of culture that is post-representational in the sense that culture does not depict something external, but is itself a process of self-constitution. Culture does not merely transmit, but interprets and transforms that which it communicates. This view of culture stresses the importance of separating the normative, symbolic and cognitive dimensions of culture and giving an increased importance to the latter. Where the traditional accounts of culture stressed closure, the approach advocated here emphasizes the open-ended nature of culture, be it in identities, memories, artistic creations. Without such a perspective it would not be possible to understand cultural acts of claim-making such as those related to collective identity and citizenship. On this basis, then, cultural phenomena can be theorized as more than simply differentiated but as fluid, fragmented, contested, diverse and open to new forms. In addition to these characteristics of culture a sociological approach, which is primarily aimed at explanation, can be improved with a firmer grasp of the dynamics by which cultural phenomena undergo change and how major socio-cultural change occurs. The key point in this regard is what can be called the relational conception of culture. By this is meant a 8 conception of culture that is formed from the interactions of social groups, as opposed to being predefined and static. This is implicit in many of the above approaches, in particular those that are constructivist, as well as in much of classical sociology with its characteristic concern with the analysis of social relations whether large scale processes such as capitalism, as in Marx, or small groups as in the sociology of Simmel or Mead (see Tilly 2008, Emirbayer 1997, Gross 2009). However, a more explicit emphasis on culture as relational is important in terms of explanation, as in the focus of the present paper, namely explaining the significance of cultural diversity for political community. The relational conception of culture places the emphasis neither on the social actors as such nor the cultural phenomenon, but rather on the relations between the social actors and the processes by which some of these relations generate enduring cultural regularities. It is in relationships that cultural phenomena such as identities, memories, values, beliefs, trust etc is generated. The nature of social relationships is that they are not static, but fluid, mobile and contested. It therefore follows from this that culture, relationally defined, also has these characteristics. This point is often lost in subject centred sociological approaches that take collective identities as given. This is not to deny the importance of social actors and the need to identify the carriers of cultural values, beliefs etc, but rather is an endeavour that seeks to explain the mechanisms and processes by which such cultural phenomena are generated and have particular impacts on the shaping of political community. On the basis of this notion of culture we can see more clearly the implications for democracy and especially for cosmopolitan political community. The relational concept of culture advocated here not only offers a pluralized conception of culture, but one that stresses interaction between social groups, be they large-scale entities, such as national societies or ethnic groups or life-style groups. The additional emphasis on culture as mobile, allies it very closely with cosmopolitanism, conceived of as a condition of openness and exchange. The cosmopolitan perspective draws attention to a dimension of political and cultural change that is often neglected in favour of diversity oriented approaches. Cosmopolitanism concerns not the fact of diversity itself, but the emergence out of the diverse cultures of the world of norms of dialogue and the overcoming of divisions. The cosmopolitan imagination does not seek a global culture and nor does it seek diversity for its own sake, but rather cultivates an attitude of critical deliberation and ways of imagining new ways of living. Cosmopolitanism does not then just mean internationalism, or globalization, or transnationalism. As argued earlier, these may be presuppositions of cosmopolitanism, which is a condition that emerges when one culture encounters another and undergoes normative transformation in light of that encounter and the guiding role of normative principles. Cosmopolitanism is a term that is increasingly used to refer to internal pluralisation and interaction of different cultures; it highlights moments of openness, exchange, creativity and dialogue (Delanty and He 2008, Kendal et al 2009, Hannerz 1996, Roudemetof 2006). Cosmopolitanism thus conceived concerns self-transformation in light of the encounter with the other. It therefore presupposes the possibility of learning for groups or societies. The significance of this for the analysis of post-national political community is that it provides a framework in which culture and identity can be examined in ways that do not reduce it to an underlying collective identity or 9 simply to dispositions. From the perspective of critical cosmopolitanism the task is to assess processes of self-transformation in which new cultural models take shape and where spaces of discourse open up, leading to a socio-cognitive change. A critical cosmopolitan approach thus proceeds on the assumption that the cultural models of society contain learning potential in terms of moral and political normative criteria. It suggests a view of culture as a sphere of contestation and interpretation. This essentially communicative concept of culture also opens up the cosmopolitan possibility for a reflexive relation between cultures. To pursue this further some consideration needs to be given to the notion of cultural encounters, as this is the kernel of the problem posed by the notion of cultural diversity and more generally by the very concept of democracy conceived of as a mode of inclusion within the polity. Cultural Encounters A theory of culture that is especially addressed to the nature of encounters between cultures is clearly what is needed to advance the general relational and cognitive conception of culture discussed in the fore-going. It may also be suggested that a theory of cultural encounters will be better equipped to solve the problem of cultural diversity than recourse to notions of cultural relativism versus universalism or, on a more modest scale, cultural difference versus commonality. The problem, in essence, is what happens when one culture meets another. From a cosmopolitan perspective the assumption must be that a process of learning will take place as a result of the encounter, but this of course is not always the case and the opposite may occur (a regression, for instance). Indeed, diversity is often the outcome of encounters. This is why a theory of cultural encounters is important and, I argue, such a framework of analysis offers the broad sociological context in which questions about cultural difference, democratic negotiation and conflict resolution should be discussed in order to identify cosmopolitan and counter-cosmopolitan tendencies. The notion of a cultural encounter has been a surprisingly neglected topic in sociology and has hardly been addressed in related fields.iv Comparative social and cultural research offers little insight, since its concerns are different and not primarily based on a relational theory of culture whereby the cultures change as a result of the contact. The field of international relations has of course been concerned with the relations between states. Such interrelations, which since Carl Schmitt are often conceived of in terms of friends and enemies, is a possible avenue of inquiry. However such approaches offer little sociological insight into the nature of cultural interactions and have relatively little to offer on the problem of cultural diversity and political community. Some of the more advanced theorizing on culture and the encounter of different cultures has been around the separate and largely philosophical question of cultural relativism and the problem of cultural commensurability.v Work in the general area of intercultural dialogue offers promising opportunities, but generally this field is concerned with a strong normative orientation and lacking in a sociological analysis of culture and conflict. 10 One of the most important contributions in sociology has been the work of Benjamin Nelson (1976, 1981) in the comparative analysis of civilizations. Influenced by Weber, Nelson used the term ‘civilizational encounters’ to understand the ways in which cultures have learnt from each other. Those who have followed this line of inquiry have likewise sought to reconcile the necessity to recognise the plurality of civilizational patterns - or ‘civilizational complexes’ to use Nelson’s term - and at the same time the enhanced capacity of civilizations to learn from encounters with other civilizations (Arnason, 2003: 139-57). The outcome of such encounters in the approach adopted by Nelson was a concern with the transformation in ‘structures of consciousness.’ Of the many suggestions that this approach opens up is the prospect of a civilizational pattern to articulate and sustain conflicting interpretations of the world (Arnason, 2003: 151). It was Nelson’s basic thesis that structures of consciousness evolve in light of inter-civilizational encounters. Nelson’s work was primarily concerned with civilizational encounters, in particular those between Europe and the civilizations of Asia. His insights have not been developed or related to other kinds of cultural encounters. Other schools of thought within sociological theory that are relevant to an understanding of cultural encounters - for instance conflict sociology - have not addressed questions of cultural diversity and relations between different groups where the nature of the encounter is what needs to be explained. While the contribution of sociology has been limited, some insights can be gained from recent work in cultural and social history, and more generally in the domain of global history, on cultural exchange and borrowing (see for example Bentley 1993).vi However, it is difficult to attain anything like a social theory of the cultural encounter from these works. An exception is a recent book by Peter Burke on cultural hybridity (Burke 2010). Burke identifies four kinds of encounters: acceptance of the culture of the foreigner, rejection, segregation, and adaptation which all arise out of the consequences of exchange. This is a useful but under-developed typology, which can be improved through the inclusion of broader range of encounters. vii Some of the considerations that need to be addressed before going directly to an outline of some possible scenarios and a tentative typology concern the nature and scale of the cultural groups in question and the speed and scale of their interrelations. Clearly there are important considerations as to whether the groups in questions are national societies, or even larger civilizational units, religions or sects, ethnic groups, or consumer groups. It is furthermore important whether the nature of the encounter concerns a non-living culture or an extant one about which direct knowledge may be limited. Other considerations concern the degree of proximity between the cultures in question and the duration of the encounter. The significance of an encounter may make sense only in view of a longer historical period in which several encounters took place. Finally, whether the encounters are intra or inter, internal to a larger entity, or relate to different cultural worlds is an additional level of complexity in any consideration of cultural encounters. A detailed treatment of these ‘why’ and ‘how’ factors is not possible in the space of the present paper, which is primarily concerned with the ‘what’ question of the outcomes of the encounter of cultures. The following remarks should therefore be read with a view to the larger difficulty in making general claims as to the nature and logic of cultural encounters. 11 So what happens when one culture meets another? It is possible to set out six generic kinds of cultural encounters and in each case to identify the related normative principle, or mode of legitimation, that is at stake in the encounter. The emphasis will be placed on the relational aspect, rather than the actual groups involved, and therefore the concern lies with the logic of the transaction and the resulting process that is generated by the interaction (the subsequent section will explore in greater detail the resulting processes). For the purpose of the construction of a typology, the simple case of two cultures will be taken, but it should be borne in mind that in addition to the above mentioned considerations that most forms of cultural encounter will entail a more complex situation in which more than one culture is involved, for instance many cultural encounters take place through an intermediatory or third culture.viii It is also increasingly the case that many cultural encounters are occurring against the wider context of world culture and democratization, which serve as forms of mediation. The first encounter is one based on hostility or rejection and may be termed a clash of cultures. In this case, which is normally one in which there was not significant prior contact, the cultures collide and generally do so in the form of a violent encounter, such as conquest or war. To speak of a cultural encounter may be misleading if the encounter has been primarily violent and the cultures simply collide. However, the result of the collision may be the emergence of enemy pictures or constructions of otherness and these then become the basis of subsequent encounters. There are no shortages of examples in history, be it the crusades, colonialism, twentieth century hot and cold wars, the invasion of Iraq or cultural clashes. The notorious idea of the ‘clash of civilizations’ captures in part the nature of cultural encounters based on hostility. However, as argued in the fore-going, this is only one possible model of a cultural encounter and represents the limit case. Essentially in this case the nature of the encounter is one of rejection, whereby at least one of the cultures concerned reject the other. In Burke’s (2010: 82-90) typology, rejection may take the forms of resistance in the name of another and more ‘authentic’ tradition or it may take the form of purification (such as ethnic cleansing). The normative justification in such cases can be termed decisionism or self-interest or simply an appeal to sovereignty. The second cultural encounter can be termed cultural divergence. This occurs in the case of a culture undergoing a process of differentiation in which different cultural orientations develop leading to their autonomization and a subsequent confrontation with the original culture. Some paradigmatic examples of this are the splitting up of a nationalist movement into different traditions, for example a culturally oriented nationalism versus a secessionist movement, leading to rival cultural understandings of the nation. In this case the nation is the site of a conflict of interpretations. Similarly the history of Christianity, as is the case with many world religions, can be seen in terms of schisms - the separation of the Orthodox tradition from the Latin tradition and the subsequent divisions in the latter - which created the conditions for cultural encounters that while sharing a common cultural background engage in major disputes in the interpretation of that heritage. Such cultural encounters will often be about the interpretation of history and may involve the codification of new versions of an older tradition, as in the case of the Protestant Reformation. Different instances of cultural divergence can be found in examples relating to indigenization, the reaction to dominant 12 western cultures and the pursuit of a nativist alternative (Alatas 2006). In normative terms, cultural encounters of this kind can be described as disputes over authority as to which culture represents the authentic tradition. The third cultural encounter is one based on assimilation and can be termed simply cultural assimilation. In this case, one culture, usually a dominant one, assimilates a weaker one. Such instances may follow a prior struggle or conquest. The paradigmatic example of this is conversion, as in Christian missionaries in the colonial period. In such cases, the nature of the cultural encounter is decidedly one-sided, with one culture being absorbed into another. For this reason one should speak of assimilation as opposed to fusion, since the two cultures do not fuse, for one has been absorbed into another which remains largely unchanged as a result of the encounter. Where the absorption is incomplete, as in some kind of asymmetrical fusion, hybrid remnants may remain, as in the case of creolization. In normative terms, cultural encounters that take the form of assimilation can be described as non-recognition of the other. In modern societies, the integration of immigrants has often taken this form whereby there is no official recognition of minority cultures and the immigrants are required to immerse in the dominant national culture. In many examples of cultural encounters there is no overt conflict, but also no obvious evidence of violence whether physical or symbolic. The fourth type of cultural encounter is one of peaceful co-existence where the cultural relationship is largely co-operative, but not necessary devoid of conflict arising from different interests, for example relating to economic competition. This kind of encounter can be termed cultural acceptance where the relationship remains inconclusive as regards the relation and potential fusion. This kind of encounter is frequently the outcome of trade, but can also be related to political arrangements involving a balance of power. In these cases the corresponding parties relate to each other as allies as opposed to enemies. It is of course the nature of such encounters that they are fragile and can lead to the development of other types of encounters, such as the aforementioned. The general normative order in interactive encounters can be related to international norms as in treaties or international law. But at work in this encounter is often a certain acceptance of the culture of the foreigner, though in this instance it will be generally limited to certain aspects, such as fashion, food, design etc and does not imply assimilation or integration. Another illustration of this type of cultural encounter is the instance given by Burke of, what he calls, ‘segregation’ as a distinct kind of cultural encounter (2010: 90-3). This, in essence is a kind of cultural management, which arises out of a partial borrowing from a foreign culture by an elite (who, for instance, embrace western fashion but do not extend it to the wider society) or the example of migrant communities continuing a partial commitment to the original home culture. Cultural segregation might be better seen as part of a more general tendency towards cultural acceptance rather than constituting a distinct kind of cultural encounter. The next type of cultural encounter is one that often evolves out of the previous kind, namely cultural diffusion or adaption. This occurs when interacting cultures become increasingly inter-linked and a process of societal interpenetration occurs blurring the boundaries between the cultures in whole or in part. It has been a feature of considerable cultural contact in many societies and between societies and civilizations that cultural encounters take the form of 13 cross-fertilization. This is more than the previously discussed examples of peaceful coexistence, for the nature of the relationship is considerably influenced by the fact that the cultures in question are over-lapping, but not fused. This may result from extensive borrowing, travel, trade, migration. The key point in such forms of encounter is that the one or more of the cultures is irreversibly affected by the nature of the encounter, which results in a process of diffusion. Of the many examples of such encounters, mention can be made of ones relating to dialogue, whether inter-faith dialogue, ecumenism or a wider dialogue of civilizations. In normative terms, these kinds of encounter can be related to dialogic rationality and learning and the outcome can be integration rather than outright assimilation. The final example that can selected is one of cultural fusion or syncretism. In this case a process of diffusion results in a new cultural form that incorporates elements from the interacting cultures. Consequentially this is more transformational and innovative in terms of its consequences. Such encounters will typically take place over longer periods of time. Paradigmatic examples are the formation of a ‘great tradition’ as in the early world religions, the so-called axial age civilizations before their later crystallization into divergent religions (Eisenstadt 1986). Other examples are civilizational fusions such as the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire or in the modern age the formation of national identities from the fusion of regional and other identities. More contemporary examples are the American tradition of the ‘melting-pot’ notion of multiculturalism. In general, cultural fusion is less likely as a holistic model for advanced modern societies due to their highly differentiated composition and pluralisation is a more likely feature. However, arguably a degree of fusion does take place in value consensus and the formation of a shared public culture. In such cases the resulting fusion may lack a syncretic character and there can easily be a reversion to de-fusion as discussed above and the second model this often results from the break-up of a syncretic culture.ix The normative order in which cultural fusion occurs is largely one of the overcoming of difference and the search for a new consensus. The six models are not sequential. They are in a sense ‘ideal types, and are combined in real instances. Cultural encounters, as noted in the qualifications above, occur in multifarious situations and there is rarely symmetry. The final four are more likely to be sequential, but in all cases reversion to a model of collision can easily occur. My concern in the present paper is less to provide an exhaustive analysis of these types of encounter than to outline the context in which cultural diversity needs to be looked at as a relational phenomenon and in particular how cosmopolitan orientations can be discerned as taking shape in cultural encounters (see next section). It will be noted that the above typology does not contain a specifically cosmopolitan type of cultural encounter. This is because cosmopolitanism, as noted in the conclusion of the previous section, is not itself a specific form of encounter that is decidedly different from all other kinds. In the approach adopted here, cosmopolitanism is an orientation found in different cultural and political phenomena; it is present in degrees as opposed to being a condition that is either present or absent. The same can be said for democracy. Indeed, democracy has been fostered within small groups and is perfectly compatible with models of cultural rejection, as in the first example of a cultural encounter. This is not necessarily the 14 case for cosmopolitanism, since it implies a more open-ended conception of political community. Of the models of cultural encounter discussed above cosmopolitan orientations can related, to varying degrees, to the latter three forms of encounters. However, cosmopolitanism is not to be equated exclusively with any of these forms of encounter, which all can in principle exhibit counter-cosmopolitan tendencies, and nor is it in any way an inevitable outcome. On the basis of the argument developed so far concerning the nature of cultural diversity and the relational logic of cultural encounters, the next section will attempt to assess the prospects of cosmopolitan political community. The Consequences of Cultural Encounters The previous section outlined six largely generic types of cultural encounter with each having different cultural consequences. It is these consequences that must now be considered. As remarked earlier, in his theory of civilizational encounters, from which the sociological notion of a cultural encounters derives, Benjamin Nelson put forward the notion of ‘structures of consciousness’ to capture the different kinds of outcomes arising from such encounters. Such a concept is necessary to characterize the variety of cultural forms that are generated from cultural encounters. Moreover, as in Nelson’s work, there is the related question of accounting for transformations in such structures of consciousness as a result of new cultural encounters. So, in these terms our question is what kind of encounters generate cosmopolitan structures of consciousness. In order to answer this question it is helpful to consider the major socio-cultural developments that can be related to different kinds of cultural encounters. There are four main trends and all of which can be seen as responses to globalization. Indeed, the extent of cultural encounters is due to the expansion in scale and intensity of globalization which has brought about a situation in which all societies or culturally defined groups are influenced in some way by others. Socio-cultural change is rarely self-generating, but occurs in a relational context of connections that are often of global scope. Global forces – in markets, media and communication technologies, religion, popular culture, civil society, science – provide the mechanisms by which cultural encounters proliferate and become the norm rather than the exception. But the outcomes of the ensuing encounters is unpredictable and contingent on many factors. Cosmopolitan outcomes are by no means the only or the inevitable outcomes of cultural encounters. The four main consequences of the meeting of cultures are these: cultural homogenization, cultural polarization, hybridization, and unity in diversity. These should all be seen as possible outcomes of cultural encounters, as opposed to being self-generating realities. In order to assess the prospects of cosmopolitanism, a characterization of the competing processes is necessary. If cultural encounters are mechanisms by which cultures come into contact, these are the resulting processes.x The prospects of cosmopolitanism will depend to a large degree on the latter two processes becoming predominant. The first outcome is a trend towards world-wide homogenization. This may be reflected in the growing convergence of societies or in the emergence of a dominant global culture or a 15 major regional variant. Such developments were once taken for granted and seen as an outcome of modernization and the expression of evolutionary universals. Contemporary social science is of course less confident in global convergence, but is not entirely dismissive of such trends, which may not quite lead to total homogenization, but might point in the direction of a global culture, as argued by John Meyer and other proponents of world culture (Drori et al 2006). In terms of a theory of cultural encounters, the only basis for cultural homogenization is in the third (and to a lesser extent, the sixth) example given, namely cultural encounters involving assimilation and those of a syncretic nature. In this case there is clearly a sense in which the encounter with a dominant culture - whether on a global level or on a more local context - could result in homogenization. The encounter with American culture is one such example of a potential drift in the direct of cultural homogenization and eventually to a global culture.xi In the case of syncretic encounters, the fusion of cultures might be seen as a basis for a wider process of homogenization. However, as argued, this is rather less common and the resulting culture is in fact likely to be less homogenous. The example of European integration suggests such an instance of a polysemous cultural form that is not a straightforward instance of homogenization, despite increased uniformity in certain areas. Many tendencies in the direct of homogenization are in fact closer to the model of a unity in diversity (see below). In sum, claims for assimilation need to be carefully qualified; in the terms of the typology developed they can be related specifically only to the model of assimilation, which presupposes asymmetry between the cultures. However given the scale of cultural imperialism, the global impact of Americanization and organized religion, the significance of such outcomes cannot be underestimated. The second outcome of cultural encounters can described as polarization. Instead of a process of homogenization resulting from encounters, the cultures are more likely to undergo further differentiation leading to divergence and eventually but not inevitably to polarization. This may be expressed in conflict, resistance or simply in withdrawal. Clearly the first and second types of cultural encounters are related to processes of cultural divergence and polarization. It has often been noted, for instance, that the impact of European integration in many countries, especially since the eastern enlargement, has been to increase national consciousness rather than the creation of a European identity. Multiculturalism, too, often results in an increase in cultural differences as opposed to being a means to secure autonomy and justice. The third type of encounters entailing cultural acceptance may be given as an example of divergence, since in these cases the cultures in question do not undergo fusion but remain at arm’s length (however, this does not imply polarization). The more extreme example of a global clash of values, or a ‘clash of civilizations,’ is mostly not supported by empirical evidence. xii This is because much of this cultural polarization has occurred within the advanced affluent societies and the counter-cultural identity is no more the product of a premodern tradition than is republicanism. So what we do not have is a clash of anti-modern versus modern societies. Here one only has to consider the fundamental divide in the USA on religion or the recent controversy over Muslim women wearing headscarfs in western European countries. It has been widely noted that the Muslim custom of veiling has been linked to individualism and the creation of a modern Islamic female identity (Gole 1987). In these cases it should be noted 16 that the tendency towards polarization takes place in a context of debate which often has the result of defusing the potential conflict of values of its potency. The third possible outcome of cultural encounters is a trend towards hybridization, a mixing of cultures. This is a distinct alternative to a global culture and to a situation of a conflict of cultures. It is view of cultural encounters reflected in numerous approaches in recent social science (Burke 2010, Canclinci 1995, Robertson 1992, Nederveen Pieterse 2004). Cultures do not collide, but borrow from each other and adapt in different ways. So what appears to be an anti-modern movement - fundamentalism - is in fact a product of modernity. Much of the taken-for-granted culture of the modern world is the product of centuries of cultural borrowing and adaption. The liberal legacy, for instance, has been received and adapted in much of the world today. There is no part of the world that has not been touched with the ideas of liberty, equality, and tolerance. The ways in which these ideas have been received and taken up is of course varied. This is true too of the ancient civilizations, which as Wengrow (2010) argues were formed not in isolation, but out of borrowing and mixing from different societies. In terms of the typology of encounters, the fifth type of cultural diffusion or adaption are the primary determinants of processes of cultural hybridization. The notion of hybridization, while avoiding the extremes of both convergence and divergence, is not without problems. The emphasis on diversity and fusion is important but it may take the edge out of conflict. Hybridization is nonetheless a relevant characterization of many kinds of cultural phenomena that are the direct result of the mixing of cultures. However, there is a danger of inscribing a theoretical category into an ontological category. While it can be argued that all cultures are in some way the product of culturing mixing, a point is generally reached whereby the cultural form ceases to be conscious of its hybridity and with the passage of time it takes on a more solidified character. At this point, the cultural entity in question will take on another character and the result may be surrender to a global culture, or itself become a global culture, or a process of polarization sets in. Distinct from the aforementioned processes, a fourth scenario is also possible and can be termed a unity in diversity. In this case the distinctive development is less a mixing of cultures and the production of new hybrid forms, than a reflexive inter-relation of cultures whereby the cultures undergo some change as a result of exchange. Diversity is not eradicated by mixing but also does not result in polarization. While diversity is preserved, there is a also a degree of unity between the elements but without a dominant culture taking over. Unity in diversity may lead to frisson, as opposed to fusion or friction. It has often been related to large-scale pluralist polities organized along the lines of federations, such as modern India and the European Union (Oonmen 2004). It can also be related to certain kinds of communitarian multiculturalism. For a unity in diversity to be an apt description of a cultural process, a degree of interpenetration between the cultures would need to take place as well as a commitment to common norms. But in such cases pluralisation will be on-going and enhanced by mechanisms of integration. So, instead of a single culture emerging, the cultures co-exist through the creation of frameworks of solidarity and integration. The three final types of cultural encounters could be generative of an overall unity in diversity. The fourth type, cultural acceptance, with its characteristic feature of peaceful co-existence, can lead to a 17 unity in diversity, while the fifth, cultural adaption, is a stronger kind of encounter that can lead to more enduring expressions of unity in diversity. Finally, the sixth form is clearly the most in tune with unity in diversity to the extent to which an overall fusion in cultures does not take place but there is considerable commonality and differences are negotiable. Conclusion: The Prospects of Cosmopolitan Political Community The four processes outlined in the foregoing are all possible consequences of the meeting of cultures. There is ample evidence of all being real forces in the world. Overall, the trend towards divergence has more going for it than the notion of convergence or some notion of global culture, which exaggerates consensus. I would like to argue that all four trends are in evidence, all of which need to be considered in an assessment of the current situation. This has important implications for empirical research, but which cannot be considered in the present paper. Now, in order to assess the more specific question of the prospects of cosmopolitanism what is needed is an analysis that locates cosmopolitan phenomena within the above processes and the related kinds of cultural encounters than make such trends possible. The cosmopolitan perspective, already discussed above, draws attention to a dimension of political and cultural change that is often neglected or reduced to global culture or equated with hybridization. Norris and Inglehart (2009), for instance more or less equate cosmopolitanism with globalization. But, as argued, cosmopolitanism concerns neither global culture nor the fact of diversity itself, but the emergence out of the diverse cultures of the world of norms of dialogue and the overcoming of divisions; it is expressed in the cultivation of an attitude of critical deliberation and self-problematization. So in answer to the question what happens when one culture meets another, the cosmopolitan perspective highlights the transformational, creative and critical developments that arise out of the encounter. This would suggest, then, that the prospects for cosmopolitanism are to be found in increased trends in the direction of unity in diversity and in related types of cultural encounters. Processes of hybridization are too potentially important sources of cosmopolitanism. However, as argued, cosmopolitanism should not be equated with these processes as such, which should rather be seen as the socio-cultural conditions of its possibility. In all of these cultural encounters are key dynamics in the generation of cultural shifts, which can of course have various kinds of outcomes. The overall argument developed in this paper is that the logic of cultural change - and the concept of culture itself - cannot be understood without consideration of the relatively neglected topic of cultural encounters. While the notion of cultural diversity is much involved today around questions of political community and the need to rethink democracy, it is worth considering that diversity is the result of cultural encounters. Democracy, too as a cultural reality, is based on the space of relations between citizens and as such it is the logic of the encounter that defines the space of the political. This has been the basic insight in much of modern political philosophy, as in specifically the writings of Hanah Arendt and more 18 recently in approaches as different as those of Bonnie Honnig (2003) and Claude Lefort 1989). Cosmopolitanism in extending the domain of political community and eroding the distinction between friends and enemies is a key dynamic in democracy. The nature and logic of cosmopolitanism is primarily one of encounter, dialogue and exchange. It is this condition that marks the specificity of democracy. The fragility of democracy is due to its reliance on the space of the encounter. This paper has tried to show that the question of cultural diversity should be looked at in terms of a theory of encounters than of diversity or difference. The relational and cognitive conception of culture provides a fruitful sociological framework for research on the cultural implications of democracy and cosmopolitan political community, in particular in light of globalizing trends. One of the consequences of globalization is the increase in cultural encounters of all kinds. A sociological approach to cosmopolitanism accordingly should focus on the logic of the encounter rather than on social actors themselves and their identities and dispositions. This would lead to an alternative to the much criticized notion of identity and subject centres sociological approaches. 19 Gerard Delanty is Professor of Sociology and Social & Political Thought, University of Sussex, UK. His most recent publications are Community (2nd edition) London: Routledge, 2010) and The Cosmopolitan Imagination: The Renewal of Critical Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2009. He has edited (with Stephen P. Turner) The International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory, Routledge 2011). Address Department of Sociology, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SN, UK Email: g.delanty@sussex.ac.uk References Alexander, J. 2004 ‘Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance between Ritual and Strategy’, Sociological Theory 22 (4): 527-73. Alexander, J. Giesen, B. and Mast, J. (eds.) 2006 Social Performance: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnason, J. 2003 Civilizations in Dispute: Historical Questions and Theoretical Traditions, Leiden: Brill. Arnason, J. 2006 ‘Understanding Civilizational Encounters’, Thesis Eleven 86: 39-53. Alatas, S. F. 2004 Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Response to Eurocentricism. London: Sage. Beck, U. 2006. The Cosmopolitan Outlook, Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U., Sznaider, N. and Rainer Winter, R. (eds) 2003 Global America: The Cultural Consequences of Globalization, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Benedict, R. 1934 Patterns of Culture, New York: Mifflin. Benhabib, S. 2002 The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Benhabib, S. 2004 The Rights of Cultures: Aliens, Residents and Citizens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benhabib, S. 2008 Another Cosmopolitanism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20 Bennett, T. 2001 Differing Diversities: Cultural Policy and Cultural Diversity, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Bentley, J. 1993 Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Premodern Times, New York: Oxford University Press. Berger, P. L. And Huntington, S. P. Eds 2002 Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blok, A. 1998 ‘The Narcissism of Minor Differences’, European Journal of Social Theory 1 (1):33-56. Boltanski, L. and Thevenot, L. 1999 ‘The Sociology of Critical Capacity’, European Journal of Social Theory 2 (3): 359-77. Boltanski, L. and Thevenot, L. 2006 On Justification: Economies of Worth, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Burama, I. 2004 Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of its Enemies. London: Penguin. Burke, P. 2010 Cultural Hybridity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Butler, J. 1999 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge. Canclini, N. 1995 Hyprid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minesota Press. Castoriadis, C. 1987 The Imaginary Institution of Society, Cambridge: Polity. Chaney, D. 2002 'Cosmopolitan Art and Cultural Citizenship', Theory, Culture, and Society 19 (1-2): 57-74. Delanty, G. 2006 ‘The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory’ British Journal of Sociology, 57 (1): 25-47. Delanty, G. and He, B. 2008 ‘Comparative Perspectives on Cosmopolitanism: Assessing European and Asia Perspectives’, International Sociology 23 (3): 323-44 Delanty, G. 2009 The Cosmopolitan Imagination: The Renewal of Critical Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DiMaggio, P. 1997 ‘Culture and Cognition’, Annual Review of Sociology 23: 263-87 Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. andHwang, H. (eds.) 2006 Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21 Eder, K. 2009 ‘A Theory of Collective Identity: Making Sense of the Debate on a “Europe Identity” ’, European Journal of Social Theory 12 (4): 427-447. Eisenstadt, S. N. (ed.) 1986 The Origins and Diversity of the Axial Civilizations, New York: SUNY Press. Emirbayer, M. 1997 ‘A Manifesto for a Relational Sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103: 281-317 Gole, N. 1997 The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Greenblatt, S. et al 2010 Cultural Mobility: A Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gross, N. 2009 ‘A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms’, American Sociological Review 74: 358-79. Gutmann, A. 2003 Identity in Democracy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. 1987 The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hannerz, U. 1996 Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, London: Routledge. Hofstede, G. 1980 Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, London: Sage. Hollinger, D. 1995 PostEthnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism, New York: Basic Books. Honnig, B. 2003 Democracy and the Foreigner. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Horowitz, D. 2000 2nd edition. Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley: California University Press. Hutchinson, J. 2005 Nations as Zones of Conflict, London: Sage. Isar, Y. R. 2006 ‘Cultural Diversity’, Theory, Culture and Society 23 (2-3): 372-5. Jones, E. 2006 Cultures Merging: A Historical and Economic Critique of Culture, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kendall, G. Woodward, I., and Skribis, Z. 2009. The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism, London: Sage. Lefort, C. 1989 Democracy and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lloyd, M. 2011 ‘From Linquistic Performativity to Social Performace: The Development of a Concept’ in Delanty, G. and Turner, S. (eds) Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory, London: Routledge. Lukes, S. (2000) ‘Different Cultures, Different Rationalities’, History of the Human Sciences 22 13 (1): 3-18. Nederveen Pieterse, J. 2004 Globalization and Culture: Global Melange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Nelson, B. 1976 ‘Orient and Occident in Max Weber’, Social Research 43(1): 114-29. Nelson, B. 1981 On the Road to Modernity. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield Norris, P. And Inglehart, R. 2009 Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a Globalized World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Obeyesekere, G. 1992 The Apothesis of Captain Cook: European Myth Making in the Pacific, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Oommen, T. K. 2004 ‘Socio-political Transition in the Indian Republic and the European Union’ European Journal of Social Theory 7(4): 519-37. Peters, B. 2010 Public Deliberation and Public Culture: The Writings of Bernhard Peters, 1993-2005, edited by H. Wessler. London: Palgrave. Robertson, R. 1992 Social Theory and Globalization. London: Sage. Roudemetof, V. 2006 ‘Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization’, Current Sociology 53 (1): 113-5. Sahlins, M. 1985 Islands of History Chicago, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sahlins, M. 1995 How“Natives” Think About Captain Cook for Example, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sassatelli, M. 2009 Becoming Europeans: Cultural Policy and Cultural Identity, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Sassen, S. 2009 Territory, Authority and Rights, New York: Norton. Schlesinger, A. 1992 The Disuniting of America. New York: Norton. Smelser, N. And Alexander, J. (eds) 1999 Diversity and its Discontents: Cultural conflict and Common Ground in Contemporary American Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Somers, M. 1994 ‘The Narrative Constitution of Identity’, Theory and Society, 23: 605-49. Somers, M. 1995 ‘Narrating and Naturalizing Civil Society and Citizenship Theory’, Sociological Theory 13: 221-65. Stehr, N. 2001 The Fragility of Modern Societies: Knowledge and Risk in the Global Age, London: Sage. 23 Stevenson, N. 2002 Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitan Questions. Buckingham: Open University Press. Strydon, P. 2011 ‘The Cognitive and Metacognitive Dimension of Social and Political Theory’ in Delanty, G. and Turner, S. (eds) Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory, London: Routledge. Swidler, A. 1986 ‘Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies’, American Sociological Review 51: 273-86. Tan, K.-C. 2004 Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and Patriotism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. 2001 ‘Mechanisms in Political Processes,’ Annual Review of Political Science 4: 2141. Touraine, A. 1977 The Self-Production of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Touraine, A. 2000 Can we Live Together? Equal and Different, Cambridge: Polity Press. UNESCO 2001 Our Creative Diversity. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO. Walzer, M. 1983. Thick and Thin: The Moral Argument at Home and Abroad.,New York: Basic Books. Wengrow, D. 2010 What Makes Civilization? The Ancient Near East and the Future of the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Endnotes i Acknowledgements. I am grateful to two referees for their comments on an earlier draft. I am also grateful to the following for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, x, y and z. ii This line of post-universal theorizing has been defended by numerous philosophers, most notably Habermas (see Habermas 1987). 24 iii See for example accounts as different as Chaney (2002), Jones (2006), Greenblatt (2010). iv An exception is Arnason (2006). However, this paper is confined to the case of India and no attempt is made to develop a typology. The present paper is indebted to suggestions made in the analysis. v See for example the Sahlins (1985, 1995) and Obeyesekere (1992) debate. For a wider discussion on cultural relativism see Lukes (2000). vi See also the four volume series, Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe, edited by R. Muchembled, for a series of studies on cultural encounters based on the notion of cultural exchange. Burke’s book is an extended essay that was published after the present paper was written. vii viii For instance Japanese encounters with the West in the seventeenth century were conducted via Portuguese translators. ix For a different use of the concepts fusion and de-fusion, see Alexander (2004). x On mechanisms and processes with respect to cosmopolitanism, see Tilly (2001 ). xi For a more differentiated analysis of global Americanization, see Beck et al (2003) See Burama (2004) for instance. Huntington’s later work has moved considerably away from the clash of civilization thesis. See Berger and Huntington (2002) and also Norris and Inglehart (2009). xii