cosmopolitanism in twenty-first

Cosmopolitanism in Twenty-FirstCentury Fiction

Kristian Shaw

Cosmopolitanismin Twenty-FirstCentury Fiction

Kristian ShawUniversity of LincolnLincoln, United Kingdom

ISBN 978-3-319-52523-5 ISBN 978-3-319-52524-2 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52524-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017933831

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in anyother physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adapta-tion, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafterdeveloped.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names areexempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informationin this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither thepublisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect tothe material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Thepublisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-tional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Samantha Johnson

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer International Publishing AGThe registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For my family

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing this book has been a wonderful experience, and that is largelydue to the people who have helped me along the way. First and foremost,I want to thank my PhD supervisor Nick Bentley for all his intellectualadvice and guidance both throughout and following my doctorate. He hastaught me how to become a better writer and academic, and has providedencouragement throughout all stages of my career thus far. Many thanksalso to Timothy Lustig for his intellectual breadth and enthusiasm,improving and refining the structure of this project for the better.I could not have asked for a more helpful or knowledgeable supportnetwork.The research in these pages was made possible through the generosity

of the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Their substantial fundingallowed me to dedicate countless hours to improving the quality anddepth of my doctoral research on which this book is based. I would alsolike to thank the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Institute atKeele University for supporting my project, providing internal fundingand introducing me to some wonderful colleagues. Anthony Mansfield inparticular provided much needed humour and insight during the doc-toral process: I cannot imagine sharing an office with anyone else. It hasbeen a pleasure to teach and study in such a welcoming environment.Kymberley Joy Warby offered constant encouragement and infinite kind-ness – thank you.Special thanks go to my commissioning editor at Palgrave, Ben Doyle,

for his advice and belief in this project, as well as his editorial assistantsTomas René and Eva Hodgkin for their professionalism and guidance.

vii

I am deeply indebted to Sara Upstone for providing generous criticism:the book is infinitely stronger due to your input and careful reading of mywork (not to mention our candid discussions on contemporary literaturein general). I am also greatly appreciative to Emily Johansen for volunteer-ing to read early versions of book chapters, and for offering key theoreticalinsights on the nature of cosmopolitanism itself. Jason Whittaker gener-ously allowed me to use the first few months of my new position at theUniversity of Lincoln to refine my research. Needless to say the writingprocess was (relatively) painless as a result.I have presented various sections or ideas from this book as conference

papers or keynotes at Keele University, the University of Lincoln, UniversityCollege London, the University of Brighton, Birkbeck College London,Durham University, the University of Bolton and the University of the ArtsLondon. Numerous colleagues at these events have been vital in shaping mythinking. Special mention goes to Aris Mousoutzanis, James Peacock,Samuel Thomas and David James for tremendous constructive criticismalong the way.My greatest debts are to my family. To my parents, who have offered

unconditional love and support, I am eternally grateful. To Katy, you haveprovided much kindness and invaluable knowledge of academia. Thankyou for everything.

viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1

2 ‘A Multitude of Drops’: The Global Imaginariesof David Mitchell 27

3 ‘Global Consciousness. Local Consciousness’:Cosmopolitan Hospitality and Ethical Agencyin Zadie Smith’s NW 67

4 ‘A Deeper Project’: Critical Cosmopolitanismand Cultural Connectivity in Teju Cole’s Open City 103

5 ‘Solidarity by Connectivity’: The Myth of DigitalCosmopolitanism 139

6 Conclusion 179

Bibliography 193

Index 209

ix

NOTE ON THE TEXT

An early version of Chapter 2 was published as ‘Building CosmopolitanFutures: Global Fragility in the Fiction of David Mitchell’, in EnglishAcademy Review 32.1 (2015): 109–23.

Sections of Chapter 3 were published as ‘“A Passport to Cross theRoom”: Cosmopolitan Empathy and Transnational Engagement inZadie Smith’s NW (2012)’, in C21 Literature Journal (2016).

An overview of the initial idea behind this project was published as‘A Unified Scene: Global Fictions in the C21’, in the open access journalAlluvium 4.3 (2015): n.pag.

xi

ABSTRACT

The twenty-first century has been marked by an unprecedented intensifi-cation in globalisation, transnational mobility and technological change.However, the resulting global interconnectedness reveals the continuationof deeply unequal power-structures in world society, often exposing ratherthan ameliorating cultural imbalances. The emergent globalised conditionrequires a form of narrative representation that accurately reflects theexperience of existing as a constituent member of an interconnectedplanetary community.

This study of cosmopolitanism in contemporary British and Americanfiction identifies several authors who demonstrate a willingness to forgenew and intensified dialogues between local experience and global flows,and between transnational mobilities and networks of connectivity. Thetheories and values of cosmopolitanism will be argued to provide a directresponse to ways of being-in-relation to others and answer urgent fearssurrounding cultural convergence. The study will examine works by DavidMitchell, Zadie Smith, Teju Cole, Dave Eggers and Hari Kunzru. Byenvisioning how society is shaped by the engendering of shared fatesbrought about by globalisation, the selected fictions by these authorsimagine new cosmopolitan modes of belonging and the development ofan emergent global consciousness founded on the cross-cultural interde-pendencies of the post-millennial world.

Despite providing unique and divergent perspectives on the contem-porary moment, the fictions indicate that cosmopolitical concerns andcrises weaken calls for more progressive and productive forms of harmo-nious global interconnectedness, and retain a scepticism of more utopian

xiii

discourses. Cultural relations are increasingly mediated through theawareness of inhabiting a shared, but not unified, world. The study willconclude by arguing that the selected fictions point towards the need foran emergent and affirmative cosmopolitics attuned to the diversity andcomplexity of twenty-first century globality.

xiv ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

It is important to ask what critical perspectives might nurture the abilityand the desire to live with difference on an increasingly divided but alsoconvergent planet?

Gilroy 2004: 3

We now have to be responsible for fellow citizens both of our country andfellow citizens of the world.

Appiah 2009: 88

According to Peter Boxall, there has been ‘an ethical turn in the fictionof the new century’ reflective of the ‘contemporary global condition’ (2013:141). Undoubtedly, the twenty-first century has been marked by an inten-sification in transnational mobility, globalisation and unprecedented tech-nological change. This study of contemporary fiction will argue that theconcept of cosmopolitanism provides a direct response to ways of living inrelation to others and answers urgent fears surrounding cultural conver-gence. As Bill Ashcroft notes, ‘cosmopolitanism is being reinvented as thelatest Grand-Theory-of-Global-Cultural-Diversity’ (2010: 77). The variousmodels of cosmopolitanism evident in the selected novels in this study areparticularly relevant in responding to the contemporary environment, andinform our thinking about how we may confront the interconnectednessand interdependence of global citizens and spaces. Literature is a late arrivalto the critical study of cosmopolitanism, and yet the term is uniquely suitedto literary analysis. Kwame Anthony Appiah recognises that the novel formfunctions ‘as a testing ground for [ . . . ] cosmopolitanism, with its emphasison dialogue among differences’; the novel itself being ‘a message in a bottle

© The Author(s) 2017K. Shaw, Cosmopolitanism in Twenty-First Century Fiction,DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52524-2_1

1

from some other position’ (2001: 207, 223). Literary studies as a disciplineoften employs cosmopolitanism as a synonym for the terms globalisationand transnationalism. Accurate definitions of the concept differ from thesetwo interrelated terms by emphasising an ethical dimension, operating atthe level of the individual. Indeed, cosmopolitanism is a highly malleableand multidimensional concept, leaving its specificities open to interpreta-tion. For this reason, there is much debate on how the term continues todefy a simple definition. By clarifying the concept and its usage in literarystudies, it is possible to enhance its analytical value in reflecting the culturalprocesses of globalised life. Although the concept has predominantlyremained the domain of philosophy and the social sciences, this study willsuggest the emergence of a growing cosmopolitan consciousness withinliterature as a direct result of post-millennial cultural conflict and fragility –indeed, global crises can be perceived as catalysts for a tentative and criticalcosmopolitanism. The following chapters build upon this approach todemonstrate how British and American fiction is beginning to imaginenew configurations of cultural identity, community and socio-politicalinterdependence to respond to accelerated changes in world society.

Despite their diverse subject matter, the selected fictions in this study allengage with contemporary concerns facing the globalised world, from the risein transnational mobilities, to radical technological change, to the threat ofecological disaster. Chapter 2 examines the global fiction of David Mitchell.BothGhostwritten: ANovel in Nine Parts (1999) andCloud Atlas (2004) areamixture of differing cultures, literary styles and genres that reflect the culturalrelationality and complex globality of the contemporary moment. Through adetailed analysis of these novels, the chapter will argue that Mitchell acknowl-edges a rise in the interrelation of global and local flows. Developing this idea,the next two chapters will concentrate on how cosmopolitanism specificallyrelates to local communities and landscapes. Chapter 3 concentrates on theurban suburbs of London in Zadie Smith’sNW (2012). It will be argued thatSmith’s limited geographical focus on north-west London (an area in whichshe was born and continues to reside) intimates that the social constructs ofthe family and local community are more conducive to developing ethicalvalues and meaningful social relations. Chapter 4 provides a transatlanticcomparison to Smith’s fiction by exploring the urban cityscapes of NewYork in Teju Cole’s Open City (2011). By paying attention to the non-elitemobilities of African migrants, Cole’s text reveals a critical cosmopolitanismthat questions the very nature of cultural empathy. Chapter 5 shifts the focusof the study by addressing the role of digital communicative technologies in

2 COSMOPOLITANISM IN TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FICTION

facilitating cross-cultural dialogue in Dave Eggers’s The Circle (2013) andHari Kunzru’sTransmission (2004).However, these fictions also complementCole’s focus on non-elite mobilities by interrogating the capitalist exploitationintrinsic to digital migrant labour, and the enforcement of Western culturalvalues on non-Western societies. In discussing these works, this study willtherefore attempt to identify a trend in contemporary fiction to engage withthe cosmopolitan.

WHAT IS COSMOPOLITANISM?This first chapter will return to a more detailed statement on the chosenauthors and novels discussed in the main body of the study, but first it isnecessary to examine a number of key concepts. Specifically, this chapterwill scrutinise the ways in which the term cosmopolitanism has been under-stood, both historically and in the contemporary period. Cosmopolitantheory itself stretches back to the Greek Stoics and is visibly apparent inImmanuel Kant’s Enlightenment philosophy. The Stoic’s classical concep-tion of the term introduced the idea that individuals may exist as citizens ofthe world, mediating between new and existing loyalties, and balancinglocal allegiances with an abstract commitment to global others. Kant, onthe other hand, tried to combine the philosophical concept with demo-cratic forms of governance; his work questioned the necessary institutionalspecifics responsible for allowing world citizens to share a common globaloccupancy. Earlier conceptions of cosmopolitanism possessed this purelynormative edge, resulting in the term evoking connotations of utopianism.The post-millennial environment requires a more critical investigation intousage of the term in order to confront the fragility and conflict of cosmo-political threats, as well as emphasising how the ethical ideals of culturalcooperation and empathy may possess a pragmatic function in addressingglobal inequalities. In recent years, cosmopolitan theory has re-emergedthrough the philosophical and sociological work of Martha Nussbaum,among others. Nussbaum’s claim that ‘we should give our first allegianceto the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings’demonstrates a turn away from localised forms of belonging and member-ship, neglecting the more realisable and everyday forms of cultural engage-ment (1996: 7). Nathan Glazer identifies that Nussbaum’s proposedapplication of a universal form of cosmopolitanism, reconfigured fromStoic philosophy, neglects the fact that the Stoics were citizens of ‘a near-universal state and civilization’ with ‘uniformity in rights and obligations’,

1 INTRODUCTION 3

whereas the contemporary world is ‘radically different’, not least withregards to cultural and socioeconomic inequalities (1996: 63).1 Moreimportantly, due to the progressive interdependence of national systems,one cannot simply rely on a polarised binary between the spheres of localityand globality. Although transnational mobilities, globalisation and tech-nological advancement have reconfigured the means by which attachmentslocal or otherwise are fostered and developed, the Stoic model neverthelessprovides the moral compass through which new conceptions of cosmopo-litan theory can navigate the concerns of globalised life.

The major problem with universal forms of cosmopolitan thought isthat they remain too utopian and abstract to be of any pragmatic use to thepost-millennium. In literary studies, however, the feasibility or practicalapplication of such frameworks is not restricted by the same reliance onpragmatism as other disciplines, allowing the tenets of cosmopolitanism tobe explored across imaginative fictional space while retaining the ethics ofthe theory itself. As Rosi Braidotti, Bolette Blaagaard and Patrick Hanafinidentify, ‘the cosmopolitan perspective is not in fact one that is accessiblethrough perception, only through imagination, because we cannot see thewhole of humanity’, thus being appropriate for fictional analysis (2013: 5).Fiction provides the means by which we can identify with those differentto ourselves, appreciate shared aims and aspirations, and also acknowledgecommon problems which need to be faced and overcome, making narra-tive concerns universal. This study will emphasise how fiction is a uniquemedium through which to imagine cosmopolitan reconfigurations not yetconceivable or accessible in the contemporary moment. In doing so, thefollowing chapters will demonstrate the multiplicity of ways the globalisedworld may be imagined, transformed, remembered, transnationalised anddeconstructed in literature. The main focus of this study, in spite of thisapproach, assumes a realistic stance towards cosmopolitan engagement,and draws heavily on the work of sociologist Ulrich Beck. Beck recognisesthat the unique conditions of millennial society necessitate ‘a new histor-ical reality [ . . . ] a cosmopolitan outlook in which people view themselvessimultaneously as part of a threatened world and as part of their localsituations and histories’ (2006: 48). Accordingly, ‘we must reorient andreorganize our lives and actions, our organizations and institutions along a“local-global” axis’ (Beck 1999: 11). In an attempt to answer how acosmopolitan outlook may serve a pragmatic function, in contrast to theempty platitudes of ethical idealism, his research marks a break away frommore universal and utopian paradigms, paying attention to the cultural


asymmetries that govern global relations. Beck was also one of the firsttheorists to recognise that a ‘cosmopolitan society means a cosmopolitansociety and its enemies’, acknowledging that there will always be those whobenefit less from globalising processes (2002a: 83 – emphasis added).With this in mind, the concept does not necessarily involve ‘consensus’but often ‘conflict’, as global communities ‘enter into mutually confirmingand correcting relations’ in an effort to mediate between diverse perspec-tives and heterogeneous cultures (2006: 60). Contemporary fiction isbeginning to answer such reasoning, demonstrating how a networkedculture of global flows opens up spaces of cooperation as well as conflict,as new potentialities for connectivity are tempered by a new awareness ofglobal risk. It is therefore necessary to examine how the authors discussedin this study identify and tackle the present conditions of the emergingtwenty-first century, and also how the future will be shaped by the sharedconsequences of cultural interdependence. Indeed, an increased awarenessof global others emerges as contemporary cosmopolitanism’s dominantmode. Several of the fictions in this study, predominantly the works ofMitchell, consequently imagine coordinated strategies of collaborationthat respond to the inherent common problems which cultural and cos-mopolitical interconnection brings.

One of the key concerns in clarifying the usage of cosmopolitanism isidentifying the ethical ideals associated with the concept. Steven Vertovecand Robin Cohen attempt to both pin down its meaning and acknowledgeits multiplicity, defining it as: ‘a socio-cultural condition’ arising as a resultof contemporary globalising processes; ‘a kind of philosophy or world-view’ that acknowledges the common values existing between all humansregardless of race or affiliation; a project aimed towards ‘building transna-tional institutions’ that override the potency of the nation-state; a ‘politicalproject for recognizing multiple identities’ and the multiple allegiances acitizen feels with regards to local, national and global concerns; ‘an attitu-dinal or dispositional orientation’ that demonstrates an openness to cul-tural experience and otherness; or simply ‘a mode of practice’ thatacknowledges and embraces the internal effects of globalisation on culturesand communities (2002: 9). The following chapters will draw upon thesedefinitions, as well as those of other theorists, in attempting to identify thevarious manifestations of the term operating in the selected fictions.Crucially, while much research has predominantly focused on cosmopoli-tanism as the purview of nation-states and governmental organisations, thisstudy shall suggest that the term is the purview of ethical agency.2 Literary

1 INTRODUCTION 5

fiction, because of its ability to present characters’ points of view andsubjective experiences of the world, is a particularly appropriate mediumfor conveying the individual’s relationship towards the lived experience ofdifferent environments and cultures. In this way, cosmopolitanism involvesan active ethical agency and emphasises the importance of affective practicetowards establishing cultural attachments. As Zlatko Skrbiš and IanWoodward emphasise, a socio-cultural disposition of openness is particu-larly important and requires a ‘performative dimension’ that reveals theempathetic outlook of global actors (2013: 27). Pnina Werbner comple-ments this approach, considering cosmopolitanism to involve ‘reaching outacross cultural differences through dialogue, aesthetic enjoyment, andrespect’, and necessitates ‘living together with difference’ (2008b: 2). Inthe search for a term that simultaneously reflects both the diversity andcultural interdependence of the globalised world, cosmopolitanism seemsto be an exceptionally fecund appellation. Following this reasoning, the useof the term ‘cosmopolitan’ in this study will be twofold, referring to bothculturally-diverse societies and the practice of ethical values traditionallyassociated with the term in general. Defining cosmopolitanism in thisfashion allows for dialogue and overlap with the usage of the term acrossthe social sciences and complements existing approaches towards unpack-ing its specific ethical ideals and values.

That being said, no matter how the concept and its ideals are defined,when confronting the deeply unequal cultural and political systems in theage of globalisation it becomes clear that ‘cosmopolitanism is the name notof the solution but of the challenge’ (Appiah 2006: xiii). More realisableand pragmatic forms of cultural engagement are necessary in facing thechallenges of an increasingly interconnected world. With this in mind,Appiah correctly adopts a partial cosmopolitanism which rejects the‘exalted attainment’ of classical models, instead simply positing that ‘inthe human community, as in national communities, we need to develophabits of coexistence’ (2006: xvii). Gerard Delanty furthers this pragmaticmodern conception of the concept, claiming it provides ‘a normativecritique of globalization’ which accepts that while the contemporaryworld ‘may be becomingmore andmore globally linked by powerful globalforces [ . . . ] this does not make the world more cosmopolitan’ (2012a: 41;2012b: 2). He goes on to argue that the concept offers social theory ameans of engaging with emergent forms of belonging ranging from ‘softforms of multiculturalism to major re-orientations in self-understanding inlight of global principles or re-evaluations of cultural heritage and identity


as a result of inter-cultural encounters’ (2012a: 42). On this basis, it shouldbe emphasised that cosmopolitanism is not simply a condition of rootless-ness or hybridity (as it is so often perceived in literary studies especially),but rather a process of creative engagement between peoples and culturesin developing an openness to forms of alterity and the negotiation of amore interdependent world.

Cosmopolitanism, then, offers new forms of identification aside frommerely communal or ethnic allegiances, and becomes a ‘project of citizen-ship that can cope with subjects’ multiple affiliations [ . . . ] as an alternativeto “tired”models of multiculturalism’ (Germain and Radice 2006: 112). Bythe same reasoning, the concept should not suggest an emergent nomad-ism, devoid of connectivity or belonging to territorial space; instead, thisstudy follows Bruce Robbins in emphasising the situatedness of cosmopo-litanism, dependent on ‘a density of overlapping allegiances rather than theabstract emptiness of non-allegiance’ (1998a: 250). The pragmaticapproach proposed in this study acknowledges the necessity for discordand antagonism in cross-cultural community-building (whereby culturalmingling rejects definitive assimilation) and echoes Beck’s assessment thatthe ‘everyday experience of cosmopolitan interdependence is not a loveaffair of everyone with everyone. It arises in a climate of heightened globalthreats, which create an unavoidable pressure to cooperate’ (2006: 23).Ethical agency regarding openness to the world and hospitality to othernessshould avoid the need for homogeneity, while retaining the positive ideol-ogy at the heart of the concept. Given cosmopolitanism’s multidisciplinarynature, the chapters engage with sociological, political, anthropological andliterary theory to reveal the pluralistic frameworks surrounding its usage.The imaginative representations of the globalised world articulated in thefictions will be argued to provide a direct response to new developmentsconfronting the contemporary moment.

In spite of cosmopolitanism’s more optimistic connotations, it must beacknowledged that the cultural interconnectedness of global interdepen-dencies fails to naturally engender a resultant ethical response to radicalinequalities of access. As Jonathan Xavier Inda and Renato Rosaldo argue,the world is not ‘a seamless whole without boundaries. Rather, it is a spaceof structured circulations, of mobility and immobility. It is a space of denseinterconnections and black holes’ (2008: 35). Developing this thought, thisstudy will interrogate who exactly may be termed a ‘cosmopolitan’ in theseselected fictions. In Ulf Hannerz’s pioneering essay, ‘Cosmopolitans andLocals in World Culture’, he proposes that ‘cosmopolitans’ are an elite

1 INTRODUCTION 7

sector of society who possess the means to enjoy global mobility. Through asustained concentration on localised engagement and belonging, the fol-lowing chapters will argue against Hannerz’s false dichotomy between so-called ‘cosmopolitans’, whose affluence permits a freedom unhindered bynational borders or geographical distance, and ‘locals’, who remainrestricted by socioeconomic or cultural immobility (1990: 238).Hannerz’s reasoning accounts for the mobile practices of Western elites,but fails to address the day-to-day cultural practices of global others.Instead, the fiction of Mitchell, Smith and Cole will demonstrate thatcultural convergence and deterritorialisation of territory can result in anindividual’s life becoming subject to global forces without even leaving theirlocality. Mitchell and Smith in particular imagine ‘glocal’ spaces in whichthe dynamic tension and creative interplay of global and local systemscomplicate existing forms of belonging and questions of cultural identity,demonstrating how cosmopolitanism can be integral to parochial culturalencounters and can operate within localities.3

Moreover, cosmopolitanism should concern itself with non-elite citi-zens and unprivileged positions, in order to prove its inherent value as apragmatic and applicable social concept. Tellingly, Hannerz’s positioningof cosmopolitanism as an elite practice contradicts his statement that theconcept ‘is first of all an orientation’ that one can assume (1996: 103). Hisproposed binary (of cosmopolitans and locals) fails to acknowledge boththe emergence of non-elite agencies arising from the progressive empow-erment of immigrants and refugees, and, more importantly, the centralityof ethical agency that makes cosmopolitanism so much more than a con-dition of transnational mobility. Nor should we agree with Hannerz’sreasoning that cosmopolitanism ‘has to do with a sense of the world asone’ (2007: 83). He begins his seminal essay with the bold claim that ‘thereis now a world culture’, neglecting the very multiplicity and heterogeneityof cultures that remain marginalised by Western hegemonic structures(1990: 237). Such optimism perceives the world to already exist in a fullyglobalised state, rather than in the process of coming to terms with pro-gressive global interconnectedness. Cosmopolitanism is vital to such pro-gressive interaction, involving the mediation between diverse lifeworldsand cultures, while proposing that a potential cross-cultural dialogue maybe established that moves beyond hegemonic discourses. Accordingly,David Held argues that only by adopting a cosmopolitan outlook may weaccommodate ourselves to ‘a more global era, marked by overlappingcommunities of fate’ (57). Proposing a unified global culture merely


strengthens the criticism that cosmopolitan theory envisions an unrealistic(if well-intentioned) form of universal harmony that glosses over socio-economic inequalities in favour of a Western vision of cultural homogeni-sation or assimilation. For this reason, many still perceive cosmopolitanismto remain a Western elitist paradigm, sustaining and replicating ideals firstespoused in colonial projects. The study will show that the works ofMitchell, Cole and Kunzru are fundamentally at odds with Western oridealised visions of a harmonious global culture, and challenge the culturaldiscrepancies governing the contemporary moment.

GLOBALISATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS

Globalisation is intimately tied up with contemporary forms of cosmopo-litanism and the two terms complement one another in several ways.Roland Robertson defines globalisation as ‘the compression of the worldand the intensification of a consciousness of the world as a whole’ (1992:8). This consciousness has a direct influence on the emergence of ethicalorientations, activating new connectivities and complex forms of culturalbelonging. As Paul Hopper argues, globalisation encourages and gener-ates the rise of cultural engagement rather than merely reinforcing isolatednationalistic, parochial or ethnic frameworks: ‘people in a global era canpotentially foster attitudes and outlooks that transcend national bound-aries. Greater geographical mobility ensures increased contact with differ-ent cultures, and greater familiarity might develop understanding, insightand even tolerance’ (2006: 54). Globalisation, while not a natural catalystfor empathetic dispositions, holds the potential to be a facilitator ofcultural convergence, acting as a potent mechanism in the spread of ethicalvalues, and opening established national allegiances or ethnic ties up to amore cosmopolitan ethos.

Through the penetration of global forces into local lives and landscapes,communities become shaped and defined by how they respond to culturalinterdependence, leading Zygmunt Bauman to conclude that ‘we are allbeing “globalized”’ (1998: 1). In this regard, cosmopolitanism emerges as aresponse to globalisation. Following Walter D. Mignolo, the terms aredistinguishable in that while globalisation concerns ‘a set of designs tomanage the world’, cosmopolitanism specifically denotes ‘a set of projectstoward planetary conviviality’ (2000: 721). Yet cosmopolitanism should notbe perceived as a universal remedy to the troubles of globalisation, norshould a dichotomy exist between individual cosmopolitan agency on the

1 INTRODUCTION 9

one hand, and institutional frameworks for implementing global processeson the other. The various fictions examined in this study demonstratehow individuals and communities both resist and work through globalisingprocesses, individually and institutionally, to define new ways of being in theworld. Stuart Hall claims that such global interdependencies ‘constitute aprofoundly new historical moment. They may even constitute the momentwhen such a universal vision of belonging is potentially realisable’; however,he appreciates that in the contemporary era interconnectedness is still basedon a ‘structure of global power, and therefore of global or transnationalinequalities and conflicts rather than the basis of a benign cosmopolitanism’

(2008: 345, 346). Globalisation will therefore be positioned as both aneconomic and cultural phenomenon, responsible for engendering an emer-gent convergence culture of mutual dependence, while simultaneouslydeepening radical inequalities of access. An increased awareness of culturalotherness understandably reveals the asymmetrical power relations govern-ing globalised life. For this reason, Mike Featherstone is wary of positioningglobalisation as synonymous with universalism. Conceptualising the globeas ‘a single place’ creates ‘a sense of false concreteness and unity’; instead,global culture should involve ‘heaps, congeries, and aggregates of culturalparticularities juxtaposed together on the same field’ (1996: 70). Linkingthe idea of universalism to globalisation implies a form of homogenisationwhich neglects the heterogeneity of world cultural experience (often arisingfrom active resistance to globalising processes). Globalisation is ultimately acomplex process that leads to forms of exclusion and segregation as much asinterconnection and integration. With this in mind, literary critics PeterChilds and James Green rightly argue that globalisation ‘in literature is notbest seen as an aesthetic representation of the universal in the local, but as afiction staged against an awareness of the interconnected, interdependent,but unequal world’ (2013: 2). It is only by working through globalisingdiscourses that cosmopolitanism may offer new outlooks on the twenty-firstcentury condition, establishing new forms of personal and communalconnectivity, from the local scales of daily life to the abstract levels ofplanetary togetherness.

Although cosmopolitanism is often perceived as a synonym for glo-balisation, Ulrich Beck and Natan Sznaider focus on the local/globaldynamic to distinguish the terms: globalisation occurs ‘out there’, whilecosmopolitanisation involves an internalisation of globalisation and ‘hap-pens “from within”’ (2010: 389). Such internalisation enables cosmo-politanisation to operate as ‘a non-linear, dialectical process in which the


universal and the particular, the similar and the dissimilar, the global andthe local are to be conceived, not as cultural polarities but as intercon-nected and reciprocally interpenetrating principles’, which force indivi-duals to acknowledge ‘the real, internal cosmopolitanization of theirlifeworlds and institutions’ (Beck 2006: 72–3, 2). Despite this, thecriticism remains that global theories of cultural interaction retain anapparent disregard for world citizens who are unable to participate in theglobal arena or for whom mobility is not an option. The works of Smithand Cole address this limitation by revealing contemporary forms ofcosmopolitanism to be as intimately concerned with local contexts asmuch as transnational mobilities, interrogating pragmatic forms ofengagement by non-elite citizens. Appropriately, Beck acknowledgesthat cosmopolitanisation of territory reveals an awareness of ‘thedynamics of global risks, of mobility and migration’ engendered by anengagement with transnational concerns in localised settings (2008: 27).For example, Cole’s fiction reveals the ways by which parochial settingsoperate as microcosmic analogies for the global relations of the widerworld. Crucially, however, borderlessness is no longer a necessaryrequirement for cross-cultural interaction, with many of the tensionsand concerns raised as a direct result of nation-state allegiances or localties. Rather, this study follows Robbins in perceiving cosmopolitanism toinvolve an inscription of ‘(re)attachment, multiple attachment, or attach-ment at a distance’ (1998b: 3). What the fictions discussed in this studyshare is an embrace of wider connectivities, operating alongside existingbonds, in formulating a sense of global belonging, and demonstrate theemergence of a critical cosmopolitan outlook that specifically interro-gates assumptions regarding ethnic heritage or racial grouping.

As Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri suggest, globalisation ‘is not onething, and the multiple processes that we recognize as globalization arenot unified or univocal’ (2000: xv). This study will therefore attempt toaddress the context-specific manifestations of globalising processes in thedisparate fictions, questioning whether these forces foster a more cosmo-politan outlook – concerning a greater understanding and empathy for thelives of cultural others, coupled with an acknowledgement of the necessityfor cross-border interdependencies – or create resistance towards widerallegiances and cultural attachments. Similarly, while this study will followWerbner in acknowledging that globalisation can be perceived as the‘(mainly Western) spread of ideas and practices’, and cosmopolitanisminvolves an inherent ‘complicity with Western hegemony’, it will be

1 INTRODUCTION 11

argued that the twenty-first century environment offers an unprecedentedmoment whereby the formation of new cross-border dependencies andassociations of peoples, goods and communications activates an ethicalresponse to the lives of others (2008b: 2; 2008a: 49). Attempting toostracise or ignore the fate of fellow citizens simply ensures their fatesinvariably become our own, and cultural relations are increasingly fosteredthrough an awareness of inhabiting a shared, but not unified, world.Globalisation, then, ‘has become central to understanding the complextransformations reshaping social, political, economic and cultural spheresat the beginning of the new century’, and is integral to any discussion ofethical relationality in contemporary fiction (Childs and Green 2013: 3).Moreover, globalisation is especially pertinent to any discussion of con-temporary literature from Britain or the United States – elite nation-statesthat are subject to unprecedented levels of globalisation and transnationalmobilities.4 As Inda and Rosaldo argue, ‘the nation-states of the Westhave become homes to a host of diverse and sometimes incommensurablecultures [ . . . ] They have developed into sites of extraordinary culturalheterogeneity’ (2008: 23). Further, English is undoubtedly a global lan-guage, mirroring globalisation in its imposition of a unitary code con-stantly being adapted to specific cultures and localities, justifying thisstudy’s concentration on British and American fiction.

The cultural connectivities revealed in the work of David Mitchellcorrespond to Hardt and Negri’s notion of the ‘multitude’: ‘a networkthat provides the means of encounter so that we can work and live incommon’ (2004: xiv). In their two interrelated works, Empire (2000) andMultitude (2004), Hardt and Negri position the multitude as operating inopposition to dominant forms of globalisation and capitalist exploitation,which they term ‘Empire’. While Empire represents the rampant forces ofWestern homogenisation, the multitude is a counterforce offering a formof liberation through heterogeneity, being ‘composed of innumerableinternal differences that can never be reduced to a unity or a singleidentity’ and offering ‘different ways of living; different views of theworld’ (2004: xiv). They acknowledge, however, that for many the notionof the multitude is arguably only applicable to the Western world ‘andcannot apply to the subordinate regions in the global south: “You arereally just elite philosophers from the global north pretending to speak forthe entire world!”’ (2004: 226). Yet by demonstrating how the multituderesponds to non-elite concerns and practices, they reveal how the conceptis composed of these new ‘creative subjectivities’ that arise as a result of


cosmopolitanism in twenty-first

Documents