ABSTRACT
Cosmopolitan theory as applied to education has received sustained and energetic interest. As I found in a study of philosophy of education journals from 2000–2011, cosmopolitanism was the sixth most-referenced theory behind such concepts as liberalism, postmodernism, and pragmatism, and ahead of such concepts as realism, multiculturalism, and humanism (2012a). This interest has resulted in attempts to define, describe, explain, and circumscribe the field of cosmopolitan education. Most of these attempts have relied on philosophical conceptualizations of cosmopolitanism as applied to morality and politics, utilizing various sub-groupings therein. In the field of educational theory and philosophy most articles on cosmopolitanism include references to Diogenes and his profession to be a citizen of the world and the typology of cosmopolitanism constructed by Pauline Kleingeld (1999; Kleingeld and Brown, 2013). Such research owes a great debt to this typology, which has made it possible for interesting and thought-provoking questions to be asked in the attempt to understand cosmopolitan philosophy in education. However, as the body of research on cosmopolitan education grows and questions are asked in response to both that research and emerging conditions in the world and education, it has become apparent that the existing categories may not adequately serve the needs of present and future research. Kleingeld originally formulated a list of six types of cosmopolitanism – moral, political, legal, cultural, market, and romantic – by examining 18th-century German cosmopolitan theory (1780–1800) that emerged in response to that period’s “public debate about cosmopolitanism, nationhood, and patriotism” (Kleingeld, 1999: 506). Kleingeld and Brown have further revised down the original list to four broader categories – moral, political, cultural, economic – that retain much of their original characteristics, but are informed by more comprehensive historical and disciplinary examples (Kleingeld and Brown, 2013). In contrast, the recent increase in scholarship on cosmopolitanism can be attributed largely to the effects of globalization and the increased connectedness of global networks, national economies, and persons. This research reveals distinctly clear and different categorizations of cosmopolitan education debates for which the existing categories may no longer be adequate.
