1 Introduction

Cosmopolitanism is a concept with an ambivalent reputation. Its history is often told in a highly Eurocentric and hegemonic way leading to it being condemned for these very reasons. At the same time, after the end of the Cold War, when the new circumstances left many wondering about possible futures of the global order, the concept experienced a surge of academic attention and has had at least solid scholarly following ever since.

However, even this new cosmopolitanism of the 1990s and early 2000s has been under scrutiny from several directions. It typically builds on an understanding of cosmopolitanism that tells its history as a coherent evolution, most likely starting with ancient Greece leading to German enlightenment and, finally, to contemporary philosophy, meaning the respective work of those authors who tell this story. Colonialism might be briefly mentioned as a downside or misuse of an otherwise highly positively connoted concept, but a universal applicability and relevance is stressed. These narrations of the cosmopolitan (hi)story were particularly common in the early hype of post-Cold-War cosmopolitan thought and have left a strong imprint on cosmopolitanism as a concept. They were closely linked to liberal traditions of peacebuilding and therefore came under similar scrutiny.

Cosmopolitanism was a re-found treasure of modern Europe in this tradition. It was strongly based on universalist values that stemmed from Enlightenment thought and could be exported to other places (Ponzanesi 2018, p. 569). According to Sánchez-Flores (2010, p. 4–5), this liberal tradition of cosmopolitanism is based on three principles: individualism and the individual as the receiver of justice, an impartial and neutral viewpoint of the cosmopolitan perspective and the universalism of cosmopolitan principles. These principles and the core belief of liberal cosmopolitanism that “justice ought to transcend socially created borders between human beings” (Sánchez-Flores 2010, p. 6) then lead to a range of different interpretations depending on whether this basis is elaborated on a moral, social or political level. The cosmopolitan project has since broadened its horizons, not least due to a number of post- and decolonial efforts, although the liberal influence remains prominent in many contemporary cosmopolitanisms.

Cosmopolitan imaginations range from Sen’s and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach (Nussbaum 2007; 2013; Sen 2013) to Benhabib’s iterative judicial integration (Benhabib 2004, 2016) and Beck’s analytical take (Beck 2004). More recently, decolonial cosmopolitanism (Mignolo 2018a) and critical approaches (Delanty and Harris 2018) have introduced a variety of cosmopolitanisms that are pluriversal and empowering and take into account both the complicated historic legacy and the potential of the concept.

These are the cosmopolitan debates that will also be addressed in this paper. To this aim, cosmopolitanism is understood as a metacultural principle (Strydom 2018, p. 82) that is based on the appreciation of human difference (Bhabha 1994, p. 32) and exchange. It aims to place this ideal above any claim to difference. Styrdom’s notion of cosmopolitanism as a metacultural principle is his interpretation of two reflections (Apel 1997; Habermas 1997) on Kant’s notion of cosmopolitanism. It is firmly anchored in modernity. This metacultural dimension of cosmopolitanism is one of intuitiveness (Habermas 1997, p. 113) and goes beyond socio-cultural upbringing. Such an intuitive human notion of cosmopolitan values is not a universalistic law but a basic principle of connection and interaction and thus a metacultural principle. And while the authors mentioned above argue from a Eurocentric perspective, this paper aims to show empirically its existence beyond the European context in an exemplary way. It is specifically not a toolbox or a hands-on approach to peace but a mindset revolving around ideas of openness and appreciation of difference. By limiting the concept to such a wider understanding, the impulse of liberal peacebuilding to apply universal concepts to specific context can be avoided. Instead, the aforementioned mindset can be understood more as a framing, a basic belief that is compatible to many contexts and can be made sense of through local knowledge and practice. The meta-cultural principle necessarily goes through a process of local adaptation to become a full-fledged local norm or practice. In and of itself, it is too vague, too abstract to be a specific practice. Any definition that goes beyond such a minimal approach to conceptualisation inevitably becomes part of the conceptual problem of cosmopolitanism, as will become apparent over the course of this paper, and will therefore be avoided.

The aforementioned minimal definition of cosmopolitanism is of course crucial not only in everyday interaction and global politics, two of the main areas to which it is often applied (see, among others, Werbner 2018a; Gülmez 2018), but also for any kind of interaction in the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. As will be shown, there have been surprisingly few attempts to make cosmopolitanism useful as a concept for coping with conflicts, an issue that shall be addressed in the course of this paper. This is unfortunate, because cosmopolitanism and conflict resolution are a fairly intuitive connection. Cosmopolitan ideas form an antithesis to many of the common causes of conflict, as they prioritise shared humanity over differences and thus automatically oppose hegemonies. Of course, a cosmopolitanism rooted in ethnocentrism can never fully fulfil the promise it makes towards equality, as it implicitly favours one side over the other by prioritising one scientific tradition and one cultural narrative. A cosmopolitanism that wants to be relevant to conflict resolution on a global scale must therefore necessarily adopt a global perspective and favour a decolonial approach.

While this paper can show how limited our perspective on cosmopolitanism is, it cannot completely circumscribe our understanding. It can mention and problematise past and current misuses of the concept. It also advocates for giving it another chance as a concept with serious potential by opening up a perspective on the diversity it entails. Of course, I have been socialised in a European education system for most of my life and am used to approaching questions in a distinctly European tradition of thought. This limits the way I can formulate my criticism and my thoughts. It also impacts the way I can understand the cosmopolitanism that I could access by how I do research and the languages I read. So while I consider cosmopolitanism is a relevant topic, I also want to acknowledge that it needs to be supplemented, first and foremost from non-European perspectives, which I cannot provide.

This paper will therefore attempt to do two things. First, it will aim at showing how cosmopolitanism is a far more helpful concept if one leaves the Eurocentric perspective behind. To do this, it will first dispel some misconceptions and then propose an alternative view based on an understanding of cosmopolitanism as openness and give a working definition of a global, postcolonial cosmopolitanism. It will be called global to distinguish it from other current cosmopolitan ideas, as it aims to transcend the European perspective in favour of a global perspective. In doing so, I will show that it is not the core belief of cosmopolitan thinking, namely of human equality and connectedness beyond any borders, that needs to be scrutinised, but rather its appropriation into modernity and the liberal practice that has emerged from it. And second, it will make first steps towards showing how the concept is useful for peacebuilding by looking at the prevalent notions of cosmopolitan elitism among peacebuilders, and then proposing how hegemonic structures of international interventions could be subverted by a change in mindset. This is not to say that such a change would dismantle structures, but that it is a first step of critique on the individual level towards a larger goal and structural change that goes far beyond individual mindsets.

This shows how the theoretical aim of redefining cosmopolitanism is closely related to its empirical, so to speak real-life, implication. To this end, this paper will argue how cosmopolitanism as a concept is useful if it is rid of the liberal interpretations that have been used in many contexts in a way that is not compatible with the cosmopolitan idea, and will propose an approach to such a revised understanding of cosmopolitanism and its immediate potential for current debates around international interventions in conflict. At the centre of this project is the goal to suggest a redefinition of cosmopolitanism to open up space for a different debate on and with cosmopolitan thinking and practice.

2 Toward a global understanding of cosmopolitanism

As mentioned in the introduction, cosmopolitanism does not have the best reputation (see Bhambra 2018 for a postcolonial critique that is also of particular relevance to this paper; Gahir 2016; Miller 2002 for a critique towards the applicability of cosmopolitanism and Buzan et al. 1998 for a realist critique) and most of the widely discussed critical assumptions towards the concept cannot simply be dismissed as false, as they indeed reflect past and present experiences with interpretations of cosmopolitanism. There is often an air of privilege and elitism attached to the concept that is reinforced by the self-portrayal of so-called life style cosmopolitansFootnote 1. This is not helped by the fact that many definitions are extremely marginalising towards concepts beyond European history of thought and beyond the practices of certain well-educated and privileged elites. Furthermore, past wrongdoings in the name of cosmopolitanism are rarely addressed by proponents of the concept, leaving it in critical limbo where it is either idealized or condemned and with little room for constructive criticism.

Nevertheless, limiting the concept to its flaws is a misconception of the richness and diversity of approaches it offers. Moreover, it limits its conception of cosmopolitanism to a liberal, European understanding and thus perpetuates the already existing hegemony in the production and narration of knowledge and ideas. I will therefore attempt to address some of the main criticisms by sorting them into the three categories Eurocentrism, elitism and hegemony, and by suggesting ways of dealing with them. In doing so, space is opened for a definition of cosmopolitanism that can give the concept more depth and relevance to current debates.

a. Cosmopolitanism is Eurocentric

Cosmopolitanism is often said to be a Eurocentric concept. Following the aforementioned tradition of European appropriation and whitewashing of ancient Greek philosophy, through some early colonial Christian thinkers and secular enlightenment philosophy to contemporary thought, it has certainly become more diverse with the resurge of the concept over the last 35 years, but is still very much dominated by European and North American academics. This narration of cosmopolitanism is without any doubt highly Eurocentric.

However, this is not the only narration that exists, and its prevalence could be attributed to knowledge hegemonies within the scientific community rather than to its supposed singularity. This might be true for the term cosmopolitanism itself, which originated in Greece, but certainly not for the sentiment or values on which cosmopolitanism is based. This part of the paper will therefore attempt to show some of the diverse cosmopolitanisms that have been thought up and lived over the course of history.

To this end, some examples from different places and times will be used to give an initial idea of how diverse and ubiquitous cosmopolitan ideas can be. The five world religions are used as a starting point for two reasons. First, cosmopolitanism is associated with belief systems such as religion, which form the basis for values and morals as well as processes of world-making, in the sense of a set of beliefs through which believers makes sense of and thus create the world around them. The assertion that versions of cosmopolitanism can be found in all (global) religions is also made by several authors (Turner 2018; Roudometof 2018, p. 123; Iqtidar 2018, p. 160), but examples are rarely given (Roudometof 2018, p. 123–124). As there are, of course, cultural belief systems that are either secular or influenced by religions other than the five so-called world religions, this aspect will be acknowledged by briefly looking at other examples of cosmopolitan ideas.

In the three Abrahamic religions several narratives can be found that show similarities with cosmopolitanism, although there are of course also many differences (Al-Makassary 2019, p. 44; Roudometof 2018, p. 124). Appreciations of difference can be found in many religious contexts. A recurring motif is travelling, which is not a cosmopolitan ideal per se, but has been interpreted in cosmopolitan ways by various religious thinkers and philosophers.

The cosmopolitan understanding of travelling is expressed in the idea of learning to understand the unknown and to broaden one’s own horizon (Feener/Gedacht 2018, p. 9–11; Lawrence 2018, p. 37–38), but also the question of home and belonging (Feener and Gedacht 2018, p. 9; Eshel 2003, p. 121–122). In many religious contexts, the traveller is synonymous with the sage (Lawrence 2018, p. 37–38; Miller and Ury 2018, p. 587). Another motif would be the idea of a humanity that is of greater significance than that which separates it into smaller units. Although this motif is often applied only to those who share the same faith, there are examples of thinkers and traditions that are clearly inclusive of all people (Miller and Ury 2018, p. 587; Inglis 2018, p. 47–48), such as the current movement of world Christianity, which is particularly prominent on the African continent and which focuses very explicitly on the idea of a human universality that transcends religious boundaries (Kaunda 2020, p. 482–483).

Similarly, Hinduism and Buddhism also share motifs of cosmopolitanism. Both are often seen as tolerant and inclusive religions that allow for greater cultural and sometimes even religious mingling (Nicholson 2010, p. 195; Sharma 2011, p. 137–138). Intercultural and interreligious exchange are of central historical relevance and are valued (Padmanabhan 2018, p. 506–507). Both religions also share narratives of a united humanity. In Hinduism, there is the belief that humanity once was one and later split into different groups (Sharma 2011, p. 13–23).

Contemporary religious leaders in particular promote the thought that, based on this premise, the strengthening of a global community of all humans, regardless of their religion, is a religious duty. Since all humans strive to attain liberation and truth and can succeed in doing so, and since they all have the same origin, distinctions become less relevant (Nicholson 2010, p. 204; Padmanabhan 2018, p. 510–512).

Contemporary Buddhism, on the other hand, emphasises the interconnectedness of all humans. This is due to the fact that our perception of ourselves as separate entity with a self and distinct identity are but an illusion. This belief is grounded in the traditional Buddhist worldview of the interconnectedness of everything including all living beings (Albahari 2011; Rizvi and Choo 2020, p. 5). Consequently, it makes no particular sense to divide humanity into groups or even assign them different attributes (Ward 2013, p. 142–145).

It is important to stress again that religious belief systems are not cosmopolitan or communitarian per seFootnote 2. Rather, they are diverse, with different interpretations and appropriations by individuals and groups, which then lead to complex and at times contradictory variations of central themes, some of which are cosmopolitan. What is striking is that in all of them there are ideas that can and have been interpreted as cosmopolitan. At the same time, of course, the world is not limited to these five religions, although their combined influence on large parts of the world, even beyond the immediate sphere of believers, gives them tremendous cultural significance. Many regions where these religions are practiced were also part of a lively exchange of ideas and goods long before European colonialism forced them into even closer connection (Frederiks 2020, p. 30).

To illustrate that cosmopolitan ideas go beyond these contexts, a few more examples of cosmopolitan thinking should be mentioned. The examples listed below are both spiritual and profane in nature, but are not directly linked to any of the five religions already mentioned. They can also all be considered pre-colonial in origin though some have survived until today.

The first case to be mentioned are historical findings from Mesoamerica. Several individual groups there were bound together by the shared belief in Quetzalcoatl and shared cultural knowledge. Although there is no written evidence from this period, archaeologists have found that these intercultural exchanges, facilitated by travelling merchants, were extremely important to the region and that a secular attitude and behaviour was seen as preferable. These can be interpreted as a cosmopolitan lifestyle where openness to difference and intercultural competence were seen as advantages (Halperin 2017, p. 352–359).

Another historical example can be found in China. It is similarly based on trade and cultural exchange and was also ended by colonialism. The imperial Confucianist system of tianxia (“all under heaven”) was based on military and commercial expansion with the aim of unifying all peoples. It can be argued that despite its imperial endeavour, tianxia still can be considered cosmopolitan in that it did not entail cultural hegemony and fostered intercultural exchange towards both the centre and the periphery. What makes the example cosmopolitan, even if it is not desirable for emulation, is the appreciation of the plurality of lifestyles and belief systems that not only allowed people to live out their cultural heritage but also encouraged exchange and mutual influence (Rofel 2018, p. 517–518).

In the meantime, other examples of pre-colonial cosmopolitan worldviews have survived and are still part of our world today. A fairly well-known example is the concept of Ubuntu (“connectedness” or “interdependence” are perhaps approximate but not exact translations) that has translations in several African languages and is known to many cultures in sub-Saharan Africa. According to Ubuntu, one’s existence is always related to others and to one’s environment, so that any type of interaction is an affirmation of one’s humanity through open and respectful behaviour towards all (Graness 2018, p. 396–397).

Similarly, a Melanesian cosmopolitan worldview has survived to this day, which has benefited immensely from the geographical remoteness of the region. In this perspective, each tribe or people stands at the centre of its world. The more other people gravitate towards one’s own centre, the more powerful one’s people are seen to be. Consequently, meeting people who come from other places is seens as a goal in itself, as is learning from the foreigners and being changed by the new knowledge. Is is also assumed that recognition is only reciprocal, which is why getting to truly know the other is also an act of reaffirmation of the self (Hirsch 2008).

All of the above-mentioned traditions and approaches clearly show that the only thing that might be strictly European about cosmopolitanism is the dominant narration of its European origin. Cosmopolitanism seems to be present in two major currents: narratives about the unity of humanity and ideas centred around travel, knowledge and the appreciation of novelty and difference. Both perspectives can be found and often cumulate in contemporary accounts of cosmopolitanism. If this history is retold with a broader perspective and less academic gatekeeping, we will clearly see that it is not the cosmopolitan ideas that are Eurocentric but the academic world. This has already been made clear by the fact that we are dealing almost exclusively with historical ideas in this paper.

The limitations that we impose on knowledge through a Eurocentric perspective, especially in academia, also affect conflict resolution. They affect the way scholars and practitioners make sense of the world, not only on a cosmopolitan level but also when it comes to international politics and global crises. A Eurocentric explanation to conflict and conflict dynamics limits the possible solutions. This struggle is closely linked to an assumed lack of knowledge and expertise in the global South by large parts of the international community of workers in conflict resolution and related fields, who typically come from the global North (Pingeot 2020, p. 271). This prejudice in turn leads to a prioritisation of practices and thoughts from the Global North and drives the initial problem further in a spiral of exclusion. This is not only a question of global hegemony, but also has serious consequences for the practice of conflict resolution and the way it is taught with a Eurocentric bias (Bilgin 2019).

b. Cosmopolitanism is elitist

Another common conception of cosmopolitanism is that it is an inherently elitist concept. This conception is in turn closely related to the Enlightenment current of cosmopolitan thought, which still is so influential on today’s conception of what cosmopolitanism means. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were well-educated in several areas of study, well-read and (in some cases) widely travelled.

And similar ideas of what a cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world, is have become part of the narrative of cosmopolitanism in modernity and late modernity (Harrington 2018, p. 72; Chernilo 2018, p. 32–33). The cosmopolitan is still commonly considered to be a well-travelled person, but never a (forced) migrant who travels out of necessity. Exceptions can be made for European celebritiesFootnote 3 who can be both refugees and cosmopolitans but certainly not for ordinary people from the global South (Bhambra 2018, p. 321–322). Of course, this understanding of cosmopolitanism is one that is elitist as the mere ability to live this lifestyle requires significant financial resources as well as access to education and role models to follow.

However, understanding cosmopolitanism as a lifestyle is precisely the way in which this approach is limited. One can even argue that it is not (necessarily) cosmopolitanism at all, as the mere fact of travelling a lot is not synonymous with a cosmopolitan mindset. One can travel without being interested in or learning about the places one in travelling to, or even just reinforcing one’s intrinsic racism. This becomes obvious in the many ways mass tourism shapes destinations to be similar to the places of origins of their customers and in numerous stories of uninformed and disrespectful tourists. This is not to say that travelling cannot help individuals develop a cosmopolitan mindset, it is just not a guaranteed outcome (Strydom 2018, p. 86–87).

On the other hand, cosmopolitanism can also be local and does not always require mobility or even very diverse environments, making it much more relevant for people who are not part of the elites. This goes back to the understanding that cosmopolitanism is first and foremost a mindset, which can be obtained and cultivated in various ways.

Several authors have taken it upon themselves to define a cosmopolitanism that counters the elitist cosmopolitan understanding of the European Enlightenment. These approaches go by names such as rooted (Halperin 2017, p. 353), vernacular (Werbner 2018a, p. 144) and subaltern cosmopolitanism (Balakrishnan 2018, p. 578) or cosmopolitanism from below (Yeoh and Lin 2018, p. 308).

Rooted or vernacular cosmopolitanism approaches are closely related concepts and focus on the local level of cosmopolitan experience and practice. They emphasise that if we want to understand cosmopolitanism as an actual, applicable mindset and not just an abstract theory, it must be situated and show that cosmopolitan practices are as present throughout the world today as they have been throughout history. Rooted cosmopolitanism pays more attention to the local level, while vernacular cosmopolitanism is often understood both as distinctly non-European and as focussing on the complex interface where the local and the global meet in a postcolonial setting (Werbner 2018b, pp. 108–113).

Subaltern cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitanism from below describe approaches that start from the postcolonial marginality of their subjects. They intentionally deviate from the Eurocentric narrative of the privileged White traveler in order to show postcolonial cosmopolitans and cosmopolitanisms with a particular focus on critical approaches and anti-hegemonic practices (Ingram 2016).

All these approaches to cosmopolitanism share the understanding that cosmopolitanism must include notions of class, (post)coloniality and gender. They are strongly situated in local empirical cases and argue for a broad understanding of cosmopolitan lifestyles that emphasises their uniqueness in order to determine cosmopolitan attitudes among migrant workers with the same standards as among jet-setters (Bhambra 2018, p. 321–322). They address the fact that although elites from the Global South may be more similar and more welcomed to the rich classes of the Global North in many ways, they are still part of the Global South and cannot escape these hierarchies (Werbner 2018b, pp. 110–113). And they demonstrate intercultural, interreligious and multilingual working class solidarity and comradeship not only in organised international contexts, but above all with the workers alongside them (Werbner 2018b, p. 114). In short, they show a diversity of ways of life that all can be subsumed under cosmopolitanism by aligning the term with attitudes rather than privileges.

To make it clearer to what extent the aforementioned stereotype of the rich cosmopolitan elite is removed from the concept of cosmopolitanism, it is advisable to consider it against the backdrop of globalisation, of which cosmopolitanism is considered a critique (Delanty/Harris 2018, p. 95). If cosmopolitanism is understood as a counter-project to globalisation, it does not serve to describe international economic elites, but is part of a critique of global capitalist structures. Instead of corporate structures, it is about individuals and human connections (Werbner 2018a, p. 143).

The decentring of who may be considered a cosmopolitan is therefore a question of interpretation of what types of behaviour and lifestyle can be included in the above definition of cosmopolitanism. But it is also a question of inclusion. We must ask ourselves who is allowed to participate in the application of which definition. This is particularly relevant in the context of the postcolonial criticism of power dynamics. Through one definition of cosmopolitanism or another, certain groups of individuals can be included or excluded, making this process always both scientific and political.

However, a key change must be made and accepted for this non-elitist, postcolonial and situated approach to cosmopolitanism to work. With the clichéd understanding of cosmopolitanism in the Enlightenment tradition comes a strong notion of self-reflection and self-titling, or what Werbner calls the ‘cosmopolitan consciousness’ (2018b, p. 113). In this context, being cosmopolitan is at least as much an identity as it is a mindset. This attitude is not exclusive to the global North, but is common among certain types of well-educated elites, where there is pride in being well-travelled and educated on cultural matters. In short, being cosmopolitan is mostly a self-ascribed notion. Of course this does not work if one broadens the spectrum of cosmopolitanism in the directions mentioned above, as the terminology itself as well as the implicit self-perception is directly linked to a privileged upbringing and socialisation either in the global North or with strong reference to its history of thought. Cosmopolitan consciousness in a narrower sense requires very specific forms of education with strong references to European intellectual history. Even in a broader understanding, it requires knowledge of cosmopolitanism as a concept or at least an academically socialised type of critical self-perception and the ability to situate oneself in abstract concepts—terms that are clearly not essential to cosmopolitan action. To take cosmopolitan consciousness out of the equation is therefore another step towards understanding cosmopolitanism as less elitist and to refrain from unnecessary gatekeeping. One does not have to be able to give a textbook definition of cosmopolitanism to act cosmopolitan.

Elitism and tendencies of gatekeeping, often in combination with racist behaviour, are also well known to international peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Here, elitist notions concern several different groups and relationships. On the one hand, the relationship between international interveners and the local population tends to be structured by strong power asymmetries, in which the expertise supposedly only held by the international actors not only leads to different agency, but also to elitist views of the local (Pingeot 2020). On the other hand, gatekeeping is also prevalent within the peacekeeping community, where race and nationality along with whether one was trained in the Global North, lead to major differences in privilege, opportunity and security. While these behaviours need to be discussed in terms of their clearly structurally violent basis and inherent racism, they also entail an elitism in the understanding of a network of professionals that is very hard to access and where certain violent and highly problematic worldviews and practices are perpetuated (Podder/Manzillo 2021; Njeri 2021).

c. Cosmopolitanism is hegemonic

A third criticism often levelled against cosmopolitanism is its hegemonic nature, which has been brought up by various scholars, first and foremost from critical and postcolonial schools. This criticism is primarily based on the observation of practices that are perceived as hegemonic and violent while being labelled cosmopolitan.

Such use of the term cosmopolitanism can be observed in both colonial and postcolonial practices as well as in some cosmopolitan literature. Similar to the first two claims, it is related to a very specific understanding of what cosmopolitanism is (supposed to be). One could easily argue that if we define cosmopolitanism as equal and respectful interaction and appreciation of difference, anything that does not adhere to these standards is simply not cosmopolitan. And while it can be argued that this argument is valid—something cannot be considered cosmopolitan simply because it claims to be, while at the same time violating the core of what cosmopolitanism is supposed to be—it is not enough to dismiss these claims when they relate to a history of violent oppression and global injustice. This criticism needs to be handled differently.

While both Eurocentrism and elitism can be targeted fairly directly to broaden the debate, renarrate the story and redefine the concept, this is not enough to address claims of hegemony as it is no longer just about an abstract concept but instead about violent structures that need to be addressed, acknowledged and consciously changed. We need to target what is done under cosmopolitan pretences.

The European colonial project was strongly supported by scientists and philosophers of the time. It is again in the tradition of the ideas of the Enlightenment, which centred on cosmopolitanism as an ideal of the privileged European lifestyle and theories about the evolution of human races.

Many legitimisations of colonialism are based on ideas of Europe’s superiority and that exchange would help the rest of the world to develop faster to their standards. While all these ideas have long been scientifically disproven and are of course racist, their grounding in cosmopolitanism, albeit a very skewed understanding of cosmopolitanism, is undeniable. The so-called ‘discovery’ of the world was fostered by an interest in the Other—which was, of course, a mostly degrading and greedy interest tied to the European self-perception as the supposed centre of the world (Bhambra and Narayan 2017; Mignolo 2018b; Rodríguez-Salgado 2017).

The aforementioned European perspective was easily transported into a postcolonial era, even though the geographical perception of its centre may have shifted slightly. At the same time, the way in which cosmopolitanism adapts to global hegemonies has changed in many ways. Neoliberal agendas erased the terminology of colonialism and replaced it with that of economic growth and globalisation, repeatedly falling back on cosmopolitan narratives as legitimisation. However, the global power dynamic remained similar and was maintained by institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Often criticised as neo-imperial, Bhambra and Narayan explicitly label the postcolonial Europe and its neo-liberal global drive as anti-cosmopolitan, as it is not open to the world and its practices are hegemonic and racist (2017, p. 5–6).

Keeping in mind the close links between global (post)colonial hegemonies and cosmopolitan legitimisation, it becomes clear why postcolonial thinkers have a rather ambivalent perspective on cosmopolitanism. However, one complicated question remains to be addressed. Since postcolonial states are a triumph of the independence movements and were often fought for at great costs, the modern state as it exists today and is internationally recognised, remains a European invention (Kothari 1997). Transnational endeavours, on the other hand, are central to the anti- and decolonial movement (Pape 2019; Stenner 2019). At the same time, the call for cosmopolitanism, especially when it is conceived beyond the current state order, is met with suspicion, as it would ultimately also involve the abolition of the postcolonial states that are meant to guarantee postcolonial nations a certain degree of independence from the postcolonisers. The past has shown how easily cosmopolitanism can be used to strengthen (neo)colonial endeavours (Uimonen 2020, p. 92; Rao 2014, p. 167, 172).

Nevertheless, there is a large body of postcolonial work on cosmopolitanism. According to Balibar, the decolonisation project itself can be seen as an act of cosmopolitan practice (Stråth 2018, p. 67). Anti- and decolonial thinkers such as Rabindranath Tagore, Kwame Nkrumah and Frantz Fanon presented a wide range of ideas of cosmopolitan connectedness (Uimonen 2020, p. 91–93; Rao 2014, p. 179–180; Go 2013, p. 216–219). More current authors such as Mignolo (2018a) and Bhambra (2018) also work on decolonised notions of cosmopolitanism that go beyond universalism and Eurocentrism. Spivak’s conception of planetarity even proposes a new terminology (2015). As their efforts show, there is the promise of a postcolonial cosmopolitanism that manages to renarrate the concept in a decolonial way while keeping in mind its dangers and violent history.

Of course, the debate about hegemony is also present in the literature on conflict resolution and peacebuilding. One of the most widespread forms is obviously the critique of liberal peace, with its tendency to impose liberal norms on societies through international intervention in conflicts. Even if some consider the concept of liberal peace to be outdated, liberal approaches to peace are far from extinct, especially in the field (Richmond and Ginty 2015). The ‘local turn’ and its new focus on appreciation and inclusion of local conflict resolution structures have certainly helped the cause (Brigg and Bleiker 2011; Yousaf and Poncian 2018). However, postcolonial scholars criticise the fact that the fundamental ideas of international conflict resolution are strongly informed by an almost colonial focus on governance over people (Jabri 2016, p. 155–160). The relationship between cosmopolitanism and conflict resolution thus exists not only at the level of dealing with similar issues that are part of a tradition of Eurocentric hegemony, but also relates to the question of governance and the nation state as a supposed one-size-fits-all solution for conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Here, the nation state, as an invention of European modernity, is considered the only possible form of organisation and is enforced with its institutions through state building. At the same time, it is a central point of discussion for theories of cosmopolitanism, a word whose etymology emphasises the global over national citizenship. To summarise, it can be said that cosmopolitanism can be—and often already is—much more than what its critics concede it to be. This does not mean that the criticised versions of cosmopolitanism do not exist. Quite the opposite: as long as these views play an important role in both academic and public debates, they dominate the agenda to a large extent. A cosmopolitanism that wants to overcome these dominant narratives and thus label itself as a postcolonial cosmopolitanism can never simply ignore them or consider them a thing of the past. Instead, it must constantly recognise them as a form of respect for the past and prevention for the future. Historical consciousness is therefore an important feature of postcolonial cosmopolitanism, as it is the basis for any claim that cosmopolitanism can be non-hegemonic. By recognizing it, cosmopolitanism can become a global, postcolonial, non-hegemonic cosmopolitanism. In doing so, it must also ensure that it does not reproduce common power structures within academic knowledge production and academic gatekeeping and be aware of the definition and narration of cosmopolitanism that it reproduces.

3 Cosmopolitanism through openness

As has been shown, the concept of cosmopolitanism is difficult to grasp, as its definition depends on a number of factors, such as the way the narrative of cosmopolitan history is told, the awareness of the wrongdoings that have happened under its pretence, and what it is actually intended to be used for.

So far, we have only established that cosmopolitanism is to be understood as a mindset. So now that it has now been shown that cosmopolitanism is far more than various critics of the concepts would have us believe, it is time to look at what cosmopolitanism might be instead. This is not meant to be a completed new conceptualization, but rather some suggestions as to where such a project could find its starting point. Decolonisation and renarration is a much larger project.

As previously mentioned, one of the main problems of cosmopolitanism, which is related to the liberal understanding, is its universalism. The past has shown that universalist claims are mostly Eurocentric and leave little room for equal interaction (Mota 2018, p. 450–451). Universalist claims also harbour at least the danger of imperial and totalitarian tendencies, even if they seek to overcome the colonial context of Eurocentric universalism. The mere claim of universalism is in direct opposition to the value of difference (Ingram 2018). A global cosmopolitanism can therefore not make a universalist claim. Instead, it is based on a concept of openness and a minimal definition. Etymologically, the word cosmopolitanism is based on the assumption of being a citizen of the world, which means prioritising this status over other affiliations such as nationality, gender or ethnicity.

Cosmopolitan mindsets can therefore be understood as attitudes in which belonging to humanity, or even planet EarthFootnote 4, is valued higher than any category of difference. Cosmopolitan practice is any practice that recognizes all humans, possibly even all living beings, as equal while showing appreciation and respect for their differences. As difference is recognized and valued, cosmopolitanism can never be a fixed set of rules or a clear way of behavior, as it would be almost impossible to encompass all different needs and perspectives. This is also primarily where the concept differs from liberal views, which set similar parameters but then ascribe them to a universalist claim and standardised implications. Instead, it is a metacultural principle (Strydom 2018, p. 82) of human coexistence that leaves room for adaptation and individual processes of making sense. It not only tolerates local appropriation, but explicitly welcomes it. A cosmopolitanism that is not hegemonic can only ever be a broad framework that gives space to those who are willing to fill it with meaning, and that can also only ever be its definition.

However, this should not be seen as a shortcoming, but as an opportunity for discourse and the exchange of what is possible within this framework, which is why it can be understood as cosmopolitanism as openness. It may seem too vague at first glance to really make a difference, but it is part of a tradition of thought that encourages both academics and practitioners, particularly from the Global North, to stop trying to impose what they think to be true or right on the world, but to facilitate processes that empower those affected and their opinions and solutions. Of course, this also applies to this paper, which was written by a white European woman. Talking about an issue without making hegemonic claims to knowledge is a difficulty in itself and is a way in which the open and minimalist approach to cosmopolitanism becomes relevant even in the writing of this paper. In proposing universalist cosmopolitan values, I would take a similarly problematic position to the writings I criticise in this paper. This is precisely why the idea of a cosmopolitan mindset of openness only works on the described meta-level of suggesting a framing that is relatable to many through the process of appropriation in the context of local knowledge traditions and sets of values. It can be seen as a frame that allows for a shared basis on which to debate individual perspectives and opinions.

The cosmopolitanism that is proposed here is therefore open in two ways. It promotes the value of openness towards others as a minimal claim of what cosmopolitanism should be. And it is based in openness as a course of action of how cosmopolitanism should be filled with individual meaning.

The first contentual level of openness is nothing new, of course. Quite the opposite, Woodward and Skrbiš find openness (towards difference) to be the one common denominator of cosmopolitan ideas throughout time and disciplines (2018a, p. 52). Openness here is a key component to cosmopolitanism in that it fits perfectly with the proclaimed aim of this paper to limit cosmopolitanism to a minimal definition in order to avoid hegemonic universalism as it is a necessary component of any cosmopolitan mindset. Unfortunately, in the past, openness has mostly been conceptualized in relation to lifestyle cosmopolitanism, leading to apparent empirical link between cosmopolitan openness and elitism, as elite classes tend to be more likely to engage in cosmopolitan consumerism. However, if cosmopolitan openness is understood more in terms of a mindset that is not necessarily linked to consumerism choices, and taking into consideration the findings of vernacular cosmopolitanism, this link becomes increasingly weaker (Ollivier 2008, p. 122–126). Ethical openness must at least to be seen as a type of its own kind. It is linked to the ability to think critically (Álvarez-Huerta et al. 2022, p. 2–3) and the willingness to engage with diverse experiences in a non-hierarchical way and without the desire to assimilate (Woodward and Skrbiš 2018a, p. 61). This appreciation of difference is central to the understanding of cosmopolitanism through openness and relates to its second level, where openness in fact does not mean the streamlining of ideas into a universal approach, but using openness to the other as well as to difference as a starting point for individual adaptation and appreciative exchange.

Of course, openness must also be discussed with regard to its limits. It is by no means the aim of this paper to propose a moral relativism. The understanding of openness proposed here is not to be equated with acceptance of or indifference to all opinions and actions. On the contrary, it allows for all sides involved to maintain their points of views. Rather, cosmopolitan openness is a framework in which differences can be discussed on a common basis and with mutual appreciation and respect. Anything else would be not acceptable, as it would lead to hegemonic universalism on the one hand and complicit indifference on the other. Consequently, openness is not the solution to conflict and disagreement in and of itself. It is merely a starting point for constructive debate and a mindset within the cosmopolitan framework of how to approach communication, especially in complex and different settings.

In this understanding, it is also a counter to the continuation of the colonial-national in which the difference leads to dominance and division rather than communication and learning. Here, openness and cosmopolitanism intersect in that they understand the common aspects of humanity while recognising differences.

And while the academic process of historically conscious renarration and decolonisation is hugely important, it is equally important to consider the immediate impact of cosmopolitanism on the practical side of peace and conflict. This is why the final part of this paper will shed some light on the possible implications of this global understanding of cosmopolitanism for the fields of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

4 Cosmopolitan mindsets in peacebuilding

There is surprisingly little literature on cosmopolitanism as an approach to conflict situationsFootnote 5, even when the context is not limited to conflict resolution in the narrow sense, but extended to peacebuilding and similar concepts. This is surprising as both intra- and inter-state wars are in many cases closely linked to issues of statehood and territoriality, be it through separatism, occupation, contestation of governance or the establishment of sovereign nations, so the link between conflict and cosmopolitanism as an approach to global citizenship seem obvious.

Most of the existing literature dates from the late 1990s and early 2000s, which illustrates well the rise in interest in cosmopolitanism during this period. As might be expected, the understanding of cosmopolitanism used in these texts tend to follow the liberal-universalist school of Eurocentric thought, which this paper seeks to move beyond. Furthermore, many of these texts focussed specifically on peacekeeping and therefore treated cosmopolitanism as part of a liberal peacekeeping or UN agendas such as R2P or as a set of values to be implemented in post-conflict societies such as human rights. In this mindset, cosmopolitan values need to be activated as a countermeasure to identity politics and nationalism through processes of norm diffusion by international peacebuilders (Björkdahl 2005).

Cosmopolitanism has also been used as an argument to strengthen international interventions by framing it under the notion of global responsibility and cosmopolitan ethics (Gilmore 2014). While there was a general awareness of the potential of cosmopolitanism for peace, it was predominantly understood as a measure or tool of the Global North to be implemented in and/or taught in the Global South, emphasising its usefulness for all phases from prevention to resolution and from peacebuilding to justice (van den Anker 2000; Björkdahl 2005; Woodhouse and Ramsbotham 2005).

However, even more recent texts, i.e. those that emerged after the local turn in peacebuilding, tend to understand cosmopolitanism in the context of conflict (resolution) as a liberal concept in that it promotes classically liberal values and is to be exported to (post-)conflict regions. In many cases, cosmopolitanism becomes another tool in the toolbox of post-liberal peacebuilding and concrete principles of international action (Dietrich 2020). Even bottom-up and local approaches are prescribed by the international community (Martell 2011, p. 625). And while some of the ideas, such as Dietrich’s critical political cosmopolitanism, are strongly inspired by localisation, dialogic approaches and critical theory and therefore contain important insights, they are nevertheless incompatible with cosmopolitanism as presented in this paper, as they are still strongly based on liberal values and fixed principles of engagement (2020). And while the desire for structure and handbook-like explanations that make cosmopolitanism useful for practitioners is understandable, I argue that cosmopolitanism is primarily relevant at the level of attitudes and mindsets of international personnel in conflict resolution and peacebuilding, as such mindsets are followed by corresponding actions.

The attitudes of people on the ground matter and are crucial to how they influence interactions during projects and their outcome. In the following, I will focus on the attitudes of civilian international staff in peacebuilding and conflict resolution projects, disregarding the organisations they are working for. As will become clear in this chapter, this group is particularly interesting due to their typically cosmopolitan attitude (Goetze and Bliesemann de Guevara 2014, p. 792) in combination with their tendency to move from conflict to conflict and thus bring their values and attitudes with them (Autesserre 2017, p. 120–121). As a result, similar mindsets can be found in various international peacebuilding contexts around the globe. An empirical study by Goetze and Bliesemann de Guevara has shown that among civilian peacebuilders in post-conflict societies, most have a kind of cosmopolitan mindset, but also that their understanding of cosmopolitanism is in most cases rather close to limited liberal approach shown above (Goetze and Bliesemann de Guevara 2014). The omnipresence of cosmopolitan thinking among people working in IOs and NGOs is not particularly surprising, but fits well with the aforementioned elitist background of many international workers in peacebuilding contexts. Such environments tend to be full of people who have enjoyed a privileged upbringing in which cosmopolitan values and an appreciation—and knowledge—of international experiences in general are encouraged (Strijbis et al. 2019). This tendency emphasises the importance of examining how, not just whether, such a concept is part of the immediate reality of those who engage in peacebuilding and conflict resolution. This is particularly important given the criticism levelled at some understandings of cosmopolitanism throughout this paper. Goetze and Bliesemann de Guevara distinguished three types of cosmopolitanism, elite, glocal and localisable. Their study shows that their target group mostly understood cosmopolitanism in the elite sense, which they defined as universalist liberalist.

Some showed traits of glocal cosmopolitanism defined by international and globalised values. However, the localisable cosmopolitanism, defined as sensitive to the conflict context and inclusive of local agents, could not be found in any case (Goetze and Bliesemann de Guevara 2014, p. 800–801). Their findings are also confirmed by other researchers (Pingeot 2020, p. 270–271). Even if they do not use the terminology of cosmopolitanism to contextualise their findings, the accounts of on values, opinions and mindsets of peacebuilders and conflict workers are by no means scarce. Autesserre describes the extent to which peacebuilders share assumptions and practices in a way that goes beyond their background (2017, p. 120). These ‘peacebuilder mindsets’ emerge through the typical careers of peacebuilders and, due to the high mobility of the profession, are spread from place to place and thus across the world, leading to very similar mindsets in very different places. This in turn is favoured by the assumption of universal transferability of peacebuilding knowledge that is part of this mindset. Furthermore, the power structures of peacebuilding missions foster an environment in which it is advantageous to believe in this peacebuilding from the outset, and new workers are socialised into this mindset (Autesserre 2017, p. 120–121). This usually also includes ideas about the superiority and necessity of international interventions (Autesserre 2017, p. 124–125; Pingeot 2020, p. 275). Autesserre goes on to explain that many of these assumptions are not scrutinised and that there is even empirical evidence that this mindset and the practices derived from it are counterproductive for peace efforts (2017, p. 121–122). Elitist mindsets in peacebuilding are therefore not only contestable on a moral level, but also pose a concrete threat to peacebuilding. This view is supplemented by Rinck and Boege in their comparison of peacebuilding efforts in Sierra Leone and Bougainville, which also takes up Autesserre’s criticism of the peacebuilders’ assumptions that the societies in which they intervene are deficient (Boege and Rinck 2019, p. 20–21). This is accompanied by a lifestyle that supports a mindset that is often characterised by gated communities, distance from local population and racist ideas about the society in which they intervene (Pingeot 2020, p. 275–276).

Nevertheless, this is of course not primarily a problem of individuals with elitist values. As already indicated, there are severe power relations at play in peacebuilding. Not only are individual international peacebuilders drawn into adapting the aforementioned peacebuilding mindset with heavy influence from national and international peacebuilding actors and donors (Autesserre 2017, p. 121). There are also strong power dynamics at work between international and national or local peacebuilders and between international actors and the societies or communities in conflict. These are often seen in a local-international binary that is even reinforced by localisation efforts (Pingeot 2020, p. 268). The problem is both hegemonic and a form of epistemic injustice in the way interveners and their knowledge are prioritised and placed in opposition to ‘the local’. It tends to stand in a historical continuity of modern-colonial oppression.

Pingeot describes how the relationships between local actors and interveners are similar to those between colonisers and colonised. He goes on to explain that the interveners are in many ways close to and similar to the ruling elites in the places where they have intervened. It can therefore be difficult for the people to the conflict to distinguish them from the institution of the state, especially when the state itself is a party to the conflict or remains abstract for many people, leading to inevitable resistance to the interveners (Pingeot 2020, p. 271–275). As a result, problems in peacebuilding and rifts between interveners and intervened must be understood primarily as hegemonic problems and addressed as such: as structural issues related to a (quasi)colonial power dynamic (Pingeot 2020, p. 280).

This raises the question of how such structural problems can be addressed. As Pingeot rightly mentions, we need to discuss whether international interventions can be justified at all (2020: 283). However, as long as we do not have a satisfactory answer as to what the alternative could be, it must be an option to also think about reforming peacebuilding. Here it makes sense to return to the very helpful distinction between three types of cosmopolitanism explained above. The third variant of localisable cosmopolitanism is very similar to the postcolonial cosmopolitanism presented in this paper, although the latter goes further in its requirements for openness and its absence is therefore an indicator of a similarly lacking cosmopolitan mindset, not only among individuals but also at a structural and systemic level. It can be assumed that if localisable cosmopolitanism is not present locally, it will not be fostered by structures and institutions. And although there are certainly exceptions to this rule, the generally prevalent presence of elitist cosmopolitan mindsets with liberal-universalist values is likely to reinforce top-down approaches with fixed agendas and hegemonic designs. This has also been empirically demonstrated by the authors mentioned above.

It has been shown that even the local turn is not sufficient, as it still creates a gap between the international and the local. I therefore argue that in precisely these contexts a shift of mindsets following the direction of the localisable towards a postcolonial cosmopolitan mindset could have concrete positive effects. It would be more aware of the dangers of hegemony and could create a truly open approach that promotes cooperation for sustainable peace and adheres less to the past logics of intervention and liberal agenda-setting. Instead, it could promote open dialogue (Boege and Rinck 2019, p. 21). Following Pingeot, recognition is not fulfilled by acknowledging a person’s otherness, but by ensuring that interactions take place at eye level (Pingeot 2020, p. 282). Here, an attitude of cosmopolitan openness makes it possible to recognise and appreciate difference and to openly address others as partners in a process towards peace who bring valuable knowledge and do not need paternalistic guidance.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, I have provided an overview of various criticisms of the concept of cosmopolitanism and shown why I do not consider the concept itself to be problematic, but rather see these shortcomings as the consequence of knowledge hegemony and a neo-colonial tendency in academia. By re-narrating cosmopolitanism through decolonisation and broadening the academic perspective to include historical and current examples of cosmopolitanism beyond Eurocentric scholarship, the potential of the concept becomes clear. Its global validity stems from it being thought up independently all over the world, time and time again. It therefore has the unique characteristic of being simultaneously local and global, which makes it a relevant concept for all kinds of intercultural interaction, including conflict resolution and peacebuilding. To avoid the mistakes of the past in this area, it is particularly necessary to free it from its liberal-universalist contextualisation, which has turned it into an instrument of liberal peacebuilding and of oppression.

Instead, it must be seen as a mindset that is specifically meant for local appropriation and is thus both flexible and a means of connection. Even if this makes the concept seem vague and unusable, it is precisely this radical openness that prevents it from becoming yet another hegemonic tool of international intervention.

The clear potential for abuse of cosmopolitanism has been demonstrated time and again in various episodes of (neoliberal) imperialism and colonialism. It is easy to frame interventions and conquests as cosmopolitan by applying a logic of hierarchy between human beings, peoples and nations and calling it an attempt to help. To avoid falling into that trap, cosmopolitanism can only ever be a framework of valuing the other, of openness and of recognising a common humanity. Beyond that, it must be filled with meaning by the individual and can guide interaction without imposing one’s own principles to the other.

Although this paper does not aim to provide an empirical argument, the implications of its theoretical considerations for real live cannot be ignored.

By establishing global cosmopolitanism as a mindset, it also automatically becomes a prerequisite for any type of actual engagement with conflict that seeks to adhere to its goals and standards. As it is a moral foundation and a perspective through which to see the whole world, it can only ever be a starting point on which (inter)actions can be built, but not a new toolbox for interventions. Considering a cosmopolitan mindset is therefore one way to address some of the major criticisms against peacebuilding and a start to work towards a less hegemonic approach to conflict and the global responsibility that come with it.

A postcolonial cosmopolitanism can only ever be a framework that needs to be filled in specific contexts according to people’s needs and experiences. This is another reason why it is important to take this debate beyond Eurocentric academic world into the hands of researchers and practitioners from the Global South and to work on it as a joint project, which in turn allows for difference and appropriation.