|
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Hybridity is often used to refer to “the creation of new transcultural forms within the contact zone produced by colonisation” in an age of globalization (Ashcroft et al 118). Cosmopolitanism, on the other hand, is the happy mingling of cultures that emerges from the cross-pollenization of traditions. In fact, if globalization is the medium, Eric Kaufmann observes, then cosmopolitanism is the message. These two forces have different origins: globalism is the political impulse for domination; cosmopolitan is the emergence of cultural minglings from the alchemical transformation of the global citizen through education and the media (Kaufmann 33). Ever since the wandering Cynic Diogenes coined the word to proclaim himself a “citizen of the world”, the person who passes through the membrane between cultures has been seen as a sophisticated traveler who can navigate the complexities of diversity and difference. More and more, as educated citizens of an urban landscape under the shadow of globalism, we are all becoming immersed in the vast web of a networked and familiarized global cultural framework. By definition though that means that we must also stand simultaneously outside of all systems by virtue of our cosmopolitanism: in exile as a queer agent in the contact zone.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
2/153
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|
