CHAPTER 2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIGRANTS AND THE HOST
2.4. Cosmopolitanism
26
shared allegiance where differences are obliterated under a veneer of universal diversity – we are all different, we are all ethnics, we are all migrants, hence we are all the same. Second, the national embrace is in tension with a moral racist politics that underpins the neo-liberalist turn toward tolerance, integration, and diversity, in which the rhetoric of the national bond emphasises the glue of values rather than the glue of ethnicity...Within this moral politics, the problem of living together becomes a problem of them adjusting to our values, being gracious guests in our home
While the United Kingdom (UK) can boast of being a pluralist and multicultural society that encourages the integration of strangers who are allowed to exist with their differences, it is also wary of certain differences that collide with its national identity; therefore, it encourages some level of assimilation. As Fortier (2007: 108) puts it, “concealed within the narrative of integration is an assimilationist strategy”. A multicultural strategy for integration is to some extent selective in a bid to compromise on certain but not necessarily all the differences; it therefore becomes a blend of assimilation and plurality.
27
from globalisation; indeed, the former is a consequence of the latter and they are mutually reinforcing. As Yeoh (2013: 97) explains, cosmopolitanism “signifies a unifying vision for urban democracy and governance, and a culture of openness and acceptance of difference and otherness in a globalising world”. In the same vein, Yarram and Shetty (2014: 45) contend that,
Cosmopolitanism is often heralded as a cultural orientation ideally suited to the sociocultural and economic complexities emanating from the accelerating pace of globalization… The breaking of barriers in trade and the incredible amount of information flow necessitated by the new age media have resulted in the creation of a unique kind of cosmopolitanism that thrives on the idea of facelessness in the face of race for identity. The idea is to make a mark in a world of opportunity provided by changing socio-economic conditions irrespective of one’s cast, creed, or region.
Globalization did not just usher in the permeability of borders but also of citizenship.
Increased movement of people led to a novel conception of the position of migrants and their integration in the host community. It resulted in the creation of a space for migrants’
existence in the host community beyond the traditional territorial demarcations of citizenship to a more global one. Brock (2010: 362) explains that the main idea of cosmopolitanism in relation to migrants’ integration is that “every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be. It is frequently supposed that a cosmopolitan must be committed to more open borders…” It is this global perception of rights and privileges that cosmopolitans enjoy as deterritorialized citizens.
Neoliberalism and globalization have also influenced citizenship in ways that make it transnational and contractual. The opening up of borders which has led to increased movement of goods, services and people has also redefined citizenship. For instance, Haque argues that “the emergence of a neoliberal state formation in various regions and countries has significantly changed the meaning and composition of citizenship, especially in terms of the eroding rights or entitlements of citizens caused by the policy agenda pursued by such a state” (2008: 120). It has influenced a new type of citizenship which challenges the territorial and social character of the traditional notion. The citizenship praxis that was based on liberal
28
principles is being challenged by the economic and political forces of neoliberalism and globalization (Fudge 2005: 631). As Mitchell (2003: 387) puts it, “if the western citizen of the 19th century was a member of a consolidating nation, the contemporary citizen of the 21st century is a member of a deterritorializing state”. Therefore, the deterritorialization of citizenship implies the expansion of citizenship beyond national space.
A community is labelled cosmopolitan if it hosts people with different backgrounds and cultures without expecting them to assimilate. This is similar to multiculturalism although it further acknowledges global citizenship or appreciates the deterritorialization of citizenship and culture. Previously, a person who was fond of travelling or migrating, and who developed social networks across borders or felt at home everywhere was referred to as cosmopolitan (Yarram and Shetty 2014: 47). In contemporary times, they could be referred to as global nomads who emigrate to places outside their country of birth. This is why cosmopolitanism has been likened to “uprootedness” (Ribeiro 2001). It is not because the cosmopolitan or migrant lacks territorial citizenship but because they can access citizenship rights in more places beyond their territorial roots. Werbner (1999: 34) explains that it “does not necessarily imply an absence of belonging, but the possibility of belonging to more than one ethnic and cultural localism simultaneously” (Werbner 1999: 34). Using different parlance, Freemantle and Landau (2011) describe this as “in-betweenness”. In their words,
“exhibiting a permanent ‘in-betweenness’ typical of cosmopolitanism, migrants shift between different networks, identities and places…”. In-betweenness refers to the geographical space that cosmopolitans belong to; a space between their home and host country. Therefore, cosmopolitanism explains migrants’ global identity, cultural or political, which transcends territorial boundaries.
The second notion of cosmopolitanism, openness, explains how a cosmopolitan host community is expected to respond to the integration of migrants. In this case, cosmopolitanism does not aim to erode the boundaries that sustain othering based on differences. Rather, it is founded on the principle of openness and acceptance of otherness and cultural differences (Haupt 2010: 1). It acknowledges the existence of the us and them divide, otherwise known as othering, and aims to bridge these differences. Skrbis and Woodward (2007: 2) define openness as “an individual’s predisposition to feel interested in,
29
accepting of or empathetic to things originating in other cultures or other countries”. Rovisco and Norwicka (2011) add that this notion is founded on the principles of universalism and humanity. They state that it involves “openness to humanity, valuing of universalism and embracing of diversity that comes as an inevitable consequence of moving beyond local and particular” (Rovisco and Norwicka 2011: 54). Diversity therefore becomes an unavoidable consequence of cosmopolitanism, and openness entails accepting the inevitable.
Although this idea of cosmopolitanism in relation to migrants’ diversity is similar to that of multiculturalism, its response to their integration is quite different. As with multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism is founded on respect for socio-cultural differences. For example, according to Rogers (2011: 3), “cosmopolitanism is focused on the celebration of diversity and the acceptance of difference.” He adds that acceptance of diversity does not imply coexistence but rather the quest to propagate homogeneity through diversity. Hollinger (1994: 3) asserts that multiculturalism is wary of differences; however, rather than doing away with them, it allows them to exist but isolates them from the host community. He adds that pluralism sees
“cosmopolitanism as a threat to identity, while cosmopolitanism sees in pluralism a provincial unwillingness to engage the complex dilemmas and opportunities actually presented by contemporary life” (Hollinger 1994: 4). In contrast, cosmopolitanism acknowledges the presence of differences but aims to connect these diversities by merging them into a global identity that is more universal and open. Yarram and Shetty (2014: 46) concur that “multiculturalism is based on preserving inherent differences while cosmopolitanism is based on bridging them”. Bridging differences does not imply assimilation into a “melting pot” but general acceptance and tolerance and even celebrating them (Yarram and Shetty 2014: 46). Silverstone (2007: 14) reiterates that “the cosmopolitan individual embodies, in his or her person, a doubling of identity and identification; the cosmopolitan as an ethic, embodies a commitment, in deed and obligation, to recognize not just the stranger as other, but the other in oneself. Cosmopolitanism implies and requires, therefore, both reflexivity and toleration”. Haupt (2010: 5) contends that cosmopolitanism involves not just learning about diversities but “an emphasis on shared human identity, an ability to manoeuvre cultural difference and to transcend one’s own culture and home actively”. This implies that diversity and othering is pertinent to all, both the host and the stranger, and should therefore be equally confronted by all, and that these diversities should not be hierarchical.
30
Therefore, unlike a multicultural society which creates a mosaic society characterized by different communities existing independently of one another; a cosmopolitan society seeks to create spaces where many different kinds of people can flourish without socio-cultural boundaries. Yarram and Shetty (2014: 1835) describe it as
a reinvented notion of modern utopia that provides a free space, unlimited opportunity and importantly freedom to live one’s life as per one’s will. Any instance of disruption to this fabric of life is viewed as a threat to the very notion of the cosmopolitanism.
This description depicts an inclusive society without prejudice. However, as with multiculturalism, critics have argued that a cosmopolitan society is selective and thus discriminatory. Yeoh (2013) explains that cosmopolitanism has two contradictory effects on migrants’ integration. Although it is founded on the principles of openness, tolerance and acceptance of differences, it perpetuates global othering based on economic status (Yeoh 2013: 97). He uses Singapore, a growing economic hub, to underline this point. This cosmopolitan city and global city-state that is characterized by “super” diversity and immigration (Yeoh 2013: 97) nonetheless categorizes migrants based on their “economic diversity”. He explains that the drive to create a cosmopolitan city which is economically competitive in the global arena has “resulted in certain inequalities…, [described] as cosmopolitanism which extends upwards, not sideways... While those identified as ‘foreign talent’ are welcomed and valorised as migrant talent which energises society…, those who are not – i.e. foreign workers – tend to be treated as disposable labour” (Yeoh 2013: 97).
Cosmopolitanism can thus become another form of exclusion based on class. The host community chooses to accept and tolerate the diversity of migrants and even relinquish global citizenship status only if it can benefit from them economically. Haupt (2010: 2) explains that,
the nature of one’s mobility is assumed to be crucial for the development of a cosmopolitan disposition. Those who travel out of a position of privileged choice (and thus with a secure place to return to), such as (Western) business elites, moneyed travellers, academics or foreign correspondents, are commonly considered as being cosmopolitan... On the other hand, those for
31
whom the nature of their mobility is unprivileged, i.e. dictated by necessity or even forced, such as migrants and refugees, are conceived of as either people out of place or as transnationals.
These cosmopolitans exist in a global arena which Ong (2006) describes as a “global assemblage”, where citizenship rights are accessed through class and skills. Migrants who lack this status are excluded. Concessions and privileges are bestowed based on the value of the resources the foreign immigrant has to offer. For instance in Asian megacities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Singapore, skilled migrants are categorized as expatriates and granted global citizenship status, while those that are less skilled are labeled ‘aliens’ (Ong 2007: 88).
Paradoxically, not all migrants are cosmopolitans, but all cosmopolitans are migrants. In summary, cosmopolitanism’s notion of openness and deterritorialization is selective and is not inclusive of all migrants. Beneath its principle of universalism lies localization, as it aims to develop the state economically; therefore, selective tolerance of migrants’ diversity becomes a compromise to achieve economic development.