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