burned at the time of the “war of the camps” and the “internal war” between 1986 and 1987, at which point it was finally abandoned for medical purposes.<fnref n="8" /> According to stories collected in 2012, the Gaza Hospital squat was founded in 1987 by three Palestinian women wandering the streets of Sabra with their children in search of shelter after fleeing violence from the neighboring Chatila camp.<fnref n="9" /> They entered the building which had been completely deserted after a fire that had damaged several floors. The Syrian army which then occupied the Sabra zone allowed them to enter and settle in the partly ruined building. “Then in three days, people arrived and it was full,” one of the squat’s three founders explains. Other Palestinian refugees from Chatila joined them, then others again from other Beirut camps or other parts of the city.

Controlled today by two Palestinian families who have invested a great deal in transforming the building, Gaza Hospital is home to Palestinian and Lebanese-Palestinian families, Syrian families who have long been settled there, Syrian migrant workers and many Syrian refugees, Egyptian and Sudanese migrants, and, more recently, Bangladeshi women migrants. The latter rent rooms in the basement, which were built by a son of one of the two leading families. At the end of 2012 there were a total of 127 dwellings of various size (most often one or two rooms, with very few apartments of three or four rooms) and some 500 inhabitants.

The squat counted eight floors when it opened. It now counts ten, and an eleventh was under construction in 2012. No one has property rights, but a distinction is made without real conflict between an owner, who is housed for free, and a tenant. For a few, at least, the squat has become an object of investment (construction) and profit (renting), even if the overall impression is that of a “vertical favela,” extremely precarious in terms of hygiene, water and electricity supply, waste collection and waste water management. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), an NGO supported by the Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department of the European Commission, intervened in 2008 to improve health conditions in the building.

The people who have remained in the Gaza Hospital squat are the least legitimate and most fragile inhabitants from Chatila. They did not take part in the resettlement process that was organised under the aegis of UNRWA after the end of the “war of the camps,” when Chatila camp was rebuilt. They are illegitimate either because they lived in unofficial zones of Chatila outside the camp boundary or because they were housed or sublet without an occupancy title in the camp itself. In many respects, therefore, Gaza Hospital is an extension of the Chatila camp. It is under this rubric that the NRC, from its office in the Chatila camp, intervened. Family and friendship ties with Chatila inhabitants remain strong. The few hundred meters between one place and the other are crossed on a daily basis. But the squat,

<footnote n="8">⁸On the political and urban history of the Chatila camp, some 500 m from the Gaza Hospital squat in the Sabra district, see Abou Zaki 2014.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹The Chatila camp is a densely-populated urban neighborhood set up by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1949 as a space of refuge for Palestinian refugees. It witnessed mass massacres during the Lebanese civil war in September 1982 and since 2011 has hosted Syrian-Palestinian refugees.</footnote>
burned at the time of the “war of the camps” and the “internal war” between 1986 and 1987, at which point it was finally abandoned for medical purposes.<fnref n="8" /> According to stories collected in 2012, the Gaza Hospital squat was founded in 1987 by three Palestinian women wandering the streets of Sabra with their children in search of shelter after fleeing violence from the neighboring Chatila camp.<fnref n="9" /> They entered the building which had been completely deserted after a fire that had damaged several floors. The Syrian army which then occupied the Sabra zone allowed them to enter and settle in the partly ruined building. “Then in three days, people arrived and it was full,” one of the squat’s three founders explains. Other Palestinian refugees from Chatila joined them, then others again from other Beirut camps or other parts of the city.

Controlled today by two Palestinian families who have invested a great deal in transforming the building, Gaza Hospital is home to Palestinian and Lebanese-Palestinian families, Syrian families who have long been settled there, Syrian migrant workers and many Syrian refugees, Egyptian and Sudanese migrants, and, more recently, Bangladeshi women migrants. The latter rent rooms in the basement, which were built by a son of one of the two leading families. At the end of 2012 there were a total of 127 dwellings of various size (most often one or two rooms, with very few apartments of three or four rooms) and some 500 inhabitants.

The squat counted eight floors when it opened. It now counts ten, and an eleventh was under construction in 2012. No one has property rights, but a distinction is made without real conflict between an owner, who is housed for free, and a tenant. For a few, at least, the squat has become an object of investment (construction) and profit (renting), even if the overall impression is that of a “vertical favela,” extremely precarious in terms of hygiene, water and electricity supply, waste collection and waste water management. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), an NGO supported by the Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department of the European Commission, intervened in 2008 to improve health conditions in the building.

The people who have remained in the Gaza Hospital squat are the least legitimate and most fragile inhabitants from Chatila. They did not take part in the resettlement process that was organised under the aegis of UNRWA after the end of the “war of the camps,” when Chatila camp was rebuilt. They are illegitimate either because they lived in unofficial zones of Chatila outside the camp boundary or because they were housed or sublet without an occupancy title in the camp itself. In many respects, therefore, Gaza Hospital is an extension of the Chatila camp. It is under this rubric that the NRC, from its office in the Chatila camp, intervened. Family and friendship ties with Chatila inhabitants remain strong. The few hundred meters between one place and the other are crossed on a daily basis. But the squat,

<footnote n="8">⁸On the political and urban history of the Chatila camp, some 500 m from the Gaza Hospital squat in the Sabra district, see Abou Zaki 2014.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹The Chatila camp is a densely-populated urban neighborhood set up by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1949 as a space of refuge for Palestinian refugees. It witnessed mass massacres during the Lebanese civil war in September 1982 and since 2011 has hosted Syrian-Palestinian refugees.</footnote>
occupying a space that is entirely Lebanese and Beiruti, does not enjoy the exceptional legal and political status of the camp. On top of their illegitimate status vis-a-vis Chatila, the Gaza Hospital inhabitants face the illegality of their settlement in the Sabra district. There is, in fact, a legal void about the status and future of the property of the Palestinian Authority after its departure from Beirut. Added to this is a bad reputation bound up with the insalubrious nature of the place and rumors of arms traffickers – as if a Palestinian “contagion” spread from the camps to the city through Gaza Hospital.

How has the establishment and survival of this place been possible? How was it transformed and stabilized, to the point of becoming, twenty-six years after its opening, a place of enduring urban presence for several generations of refugees and migrants in a precarious situation, with a possible insertion (even if marginal) in the city? Gaza Hospital is, in fact, the culmination of several histories. A Palestinian history, of course, as we have briefly mentioned. But also a history of conflicts and displacements in the region, including the latest Syrian episode which has had substantial economic and social effects on the life of the squat. Many Syrian refugees (potential new tenants), in fact, are adding to the Syrian families and workers who have long been present. It is also a history of migrant workers coming from the region and beyond – mostly construction workers and domestic workers from Syria, Egypt, North and South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia – whose mobility and precarious living conditions in Beirut lead them to the squat as a way to access the city. Finally, an urban history, that of the city of Beirut, which has made Sabra a contemporary moral space, different from the “Palestinian grouping” that it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Commentators in Beirut now describe Sabra as a “zone of cosmopolitan misery,” most completely embodied by Gaza Hospital. The squat brings together several generations, several waves and types of migrants and refugees, and it has become a site of a renewed urban otherness as well as a site of mobility.

## 13.5 The “Tiers-Instruit” in His Labyrinth

Finally, let us turn the case of a forty-year-old Austrian-Jewish emigrant who settled in the United States in 1939 with his wife and children, dying there twenty years later. He was a sociologist and would soon be employed at the New School of Social Research in New York, which in the years of the Second World War became a place of refuge for Jewish European researchers and teachers in the social sciences and philosophy who were persecuted and threatened on account of their religious origins.

Alfred Schuetz, an emigrant sociologist, drew upon his experience to reflect on the experience of adjustment, interpretation and apprenticeship that is the lot of the foreigner everywhere. He was interested in the way that cultural models intersect and overlap, generating new “thinking as usual” that are singular and syncretic. The stranger “starts to interpret his new social environment in terms of his “thinking as
occupying a space that is entirely Lebanese and Beiruti, does not enjoy the exceptional legal and political status of the camp. On top of their illegitimate status vis-a-vis Chatila, the Gaza Hospital inhabitants face the illegality of their settlement in the Sabra district. There is, in fact, a legal void about the status and future of the property of the Palestinian Authority after its departure from Beirut. Added to this is a bad reputation bound up with the insalubrious nature of the place and rumors of arms traffickers – as if a Palestinian “contagion” spread from the camps to the city through Gaza Hospital.

How has the establishment and survival of this place been possible? How was it transformed and stabilized, to the point of becoming, twenty-six years after its opening, a place of enduring urban presence for several generations of refugees and migrants in a precarious situation, with a possible insertion (even if marginal) in the city? Gaza Hospital is, in fact, the culmination of several histories. A Palestinian history, of course, as we have briefly mentioned. But also a history of conflicts and displacements in the region, including the latest Syrian episode which has had substantial economic and social effects on the life of the squat. Many Syrian refugees (potential new tenants), in fact, are adding to the Syrian families and workers who have long been present. It is also a history of migrant workers coming from the region and beyond – mostly construction workers and domestic workers from Syria, Egypt, North and South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia – whose mobility and precarious living conditions in Beirut lead them to the squat as a way to access the city. Finally, an urban history, that of the city of Beirut, which has made Sabra a contemporary moral space, different from the “Palestinian grouping” that it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Commentators in Beirut now describe Sabra as a “zone of cosmopolitan misery,” most completely embodied by Gaza Hospital. The squat brings together several generations, several waves and types of migrants and refugees, and it has become a site of a renewed urban otherness as well as a site of mobility.

## 13.5 The “Tiers-Instruit” in His Labyrinth

Finally, let us turn the case of a forty-year-old Austrian-Jewish emigrant who settled in the United States in 1939 with his wife and children, dying there twenty years later. He was a sociologist and would soon be employed at the New School of Social Research in New York, which in the years of the Second World War became a place of refuge for Jewish European researchers and teachers in the social sciences and philosophy who were persecuted and threatened on account of their religious origins.

Alfred Schuetz, an emigrant sociologist, drew upon his experience to reflect on the experience of adjustment, interpretation and apprenticeship that is the lot of the foreigner everywhere. He was interested in the way that cultural models intersect and overlap, generating new “thinking as usual” that are singular and syncretic. The stranger “starts to interpret his new social environment in terms of his “thinking as
usual” … with in the scheme of reference brought from his home groups, but this soon proves inadequate as he has to orient himself in a new cultural world (language, customs, laws, folklore, fashions, etc.). “In other words, the cultural pattern of the approached group is not a shelter but a field of adventure” (Schuetz 1944, 506). It is even, he added, a “labyrinth in which he has lost all sense of his bearings” (Schuetz 1944, 507). From this test the foreigner draws two fundamental characteristics: on the one hand, objectivity and “intelligence of the world” (he has discovered that “the normal way of living is far from being as assured as it seemed” [507]) and, on the other, an “ambiguous loyalty” (507), or a reticent or incapability of entirely replacing one cultural model with another. The foreigner is thus made into “a cultural hybrid on the verge of two different patterns of group life, not knowing to which of them he belongs” (Schuetz 1944, 507).

A number of more recent publications have sought to describe and understand this ambivalent “border” position in which the emigrant/immigrant finds himself, a condition of double absence.<fnref n="10" /> The European immigrant in the United States in the mid-twentieth century and his cultural labyrinth prefigure an increasingly ordinary condition in the coming cosmopolitan world. The profusion of new walls and the toughening of border policies since the 1990s paradoxically create border spaces - where foreigners tend to spend an increasingly long time - and processes that are increasingly cosmopolitan. Wanderers, pariahs or alien become themselves sites for a new cosmopolitism.

## 13.6 A New Cosmopolitan Condition

The wandering of the vagabond traces a path with no return, contrary to Odysseus’s journeying, in which Ithaca is both the first and final staging-post. The “pariah” is set aside in a confined place for the undesirable on a border between societies and nation-states, a liveable “in-between” from which it is hard to escape. Aliens are submitted to unlimited exploitation and they live in urban spaces without real access to the “city,” without rights, socially undesirably yet economically useful. They squat, they camp, they live in the interstices of urban life. They all experience, with greater or lesser social and economic comfort, a cultural “labyrinth” in which their sense of belonging to the world grows while they move away from inherited identities.

The brief portraits of persons and places I have presented offer a sketch of various social figures that seeks a more general meaning. These persons help us understand the condition of the foreigner today. They are not exhaustive: individual “portraits” retain their singular character. The experience of anthropologists, in fact, is always marked by such singular encounters, often well hidden behind the

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Abdelmalek Sayad (1977) describes these two absences (of a home country and a receiving country) combined in a single person.</footnote>
usual” … with in the scheme of reference brought from his home groups, but this soon proves inadequate as he has to orient himself in a new cultural world (language, customs, laws, folklore, fashions, etc.). “In other words, the cultural pattern of the approached group is not a shelter but a field of adventure” (Schuetz 1944, 506). It is even, he added, a “labyrinth in which he has lost all sense of his bearings” (Schuetz 1944, 507). From this test the foreigner draws two fundamental characteristics: on the one hand, objectivity and “intelligence of the world” (he has discovered that “the normal way of living is far from being as assured as it seemed” [507]) and, on the other, an “ambiguous loyalty” (507), or a reticent or incapability of entirely replacing one cultural model with another. The foreigner is thus made into “a cultural hybrid on the verge of two different patterns of group life, not knowing to which of them he belongs” (Schuetz 1944, 507).

A number of more recent publications have sought to describe and understand this ambivalent “border” position in which the emigrant/immigrant finds himself, a condition of double absence.<fnref n="10" /> The European immigrant in the United States in the mid-twentieth century and his cultural labyrinth prefigure an increasingly ordinary condition in the coming cosmopolitan world. The profusion of new walls and the toughening of border policies since the 1990s paradoxically create border spaces - where foreigners tend to spend an increasingly long time - and processes that are increasingly cosmopolitan. Wanderers, pariahs or alien become themselves sites for a new cosmopolitism.

## 13.6 A New Cosmopolitan Condition

The wandering of the vagabond traces a path with no return, contrary to Odysseus’s journeying, in which Ithaca is both the first and final staging-post. The “pariah” is set aside in a confined place for the undesirable on a border between societies and nation-states, a liveable “in-between” from which it is hard to escape. Aliens are submitted to unlimited exploitation and they live in urban spaces without real access to the “city,” without rights, socially undesirably yet economically useful. They squat, they camp, they live in the interstices of urban life. They all experience, with greater or lesser social and economic comfort, a cultural “labyrinth” in which their sense of belonging to the world grows while they move away from inherited identities.

The brief portraits of persons and places I have presented offer a sketch of various social figures that seeks a more general meaning. These persons help us understand the condition of the foreigner today. They are not exhaustive: individual “portraits” retain their singular character. The experience of anthropologists, in fact, is always marked by such singular encounters, often well hidden behind the

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Abdelmalek Sayad (1977) describes these two absences (of a home country and a receiving country) combined in a single person.</footnote>
“informant,” through which the scholar has found a real friend and often a fine con-
noisseur of the society that he has come to study. The figures proposed here illus-
trate the social possibilities of relative foreignness in which the dimensions of work,
residence, personal and family itinerary are essential, as well as the contexts in
which they each live their foreignness and cultural transformation. The wanderer,
the pariah, the alien, and the *tiers-instruit* seek to be historical and relational, thus
universal in their foundation and their processes, rather than ethnically specific and
particularistic. These figures do not embody social categories but rather illustrate
ways of being foreign or a condition of foreignness. They are present to a greater or
lesser extent in every person in the process of living a border situation, representing
a moment of uncertainty and relative foreignness.

The figures of “border dwellers” presented above thus lead us to extend the investigation and reconsider the cosmopolitan condition today as a whole. This presupposes de-nationalizing as much as de-ethnicizing the way of thinking the foreigner (Beck 2007). How do we become foreigners, and how do we cease to be so? By multiplying borders while the means of mobility have spread across the planet, is globalization making the condition of foreigner disappear? Or is it, on the contrary, making it the most widely shared condition in the world, despite inherited identities? Border dwellers lead us to borderlands of various kinds where one can experience cosmopolitan life as both specific and universal, ordinary and anticipatory.

The displaced or the people on the move that I have written about are remote
from the mobile global class who travel in sealed aseptic bubbles. They are different
from these usual champions of world citizenship whose paths they sometimes cross.
Their cosmopolitanism derives from the fact that they necessarily have the world in
their head, even if they did not chose to do so, even without a personal theory about
it. We find here the basic principle of the cosmopolitan realism of Immanuel Kant:
we have to understand one another “because the earth is round.” In a negative sense,
as Étienne Balibar notes, we probably do live in “a single world, in the sense that it
is no longer in anyone’s power to escape the effects of the actions of others, and in
particular from their destructive effects” (Balibar 2010, 41). Being in a world wider
than local or even national boundaries can be a painful and dangerous experience,
but it also brings expectations and hopes, projections into a distant future of “home,”
that are built in a de facto multilocality.<fnref n="11" /> The spirit of adventure and the perception
of a cultural labyrinth are clear expressions of a cosmopolitan consciousness. The
feeling of being “of the world” but undesirable in the world, or at least less desirable
than others, is also a form of cosmopolitan consciousness, that of the alien, the wan-
derer or the pariah. The world imposes itself onto them in relation to others and this
cosmopolitanism is both pragmatic and relational. Being in the world at the border
forces one to deal with the organization of everyday life and the definition of one’s
place in society. Ordinary cosmopolitanism arises from the concrete everyday

<footnote n="11">¹¹I use the term “multilocality” in preference to “trans-” or “supralocality” in order to keep the concrete reference to places and multiple anchoring rather than to uprooting.</footnote>
"informant," through which the scholar has found a real friend and often a fine con-
noisseur of the society that he has come to study. The figures proposed here illus-
trate the social possibilities of relative foreignness in which the dimensions of work,
residence, personal and family itinerary are essential, as well as the contexts in
which they each live their foreignness and cultural transformation. The wanderer,
the pariah, the alien, and the tiers-instruit seek to be historical and relational, thus
universal in their foundation and their processes, rather than ethnically specific and
particularistic. These figures do not embody social categories but rather illustrate
ways of being foreign or a condition of foreignness. They are present to a greater or
lesser extent in every person in the process of living a border situation, representing
a moment of uncertainty and relative foreignness.

The figures of “border dwellers” presented above thus lead us to extend the investigation and reconsider the cosmopolitan condition today as a whole. This presupposes de-nationalizing as much as de-ethnicizing the way of thinking the foreigner (Beck 2007). How do we become foreigners, and how do we cease to be so? By multiplying borders while the means of mobility have spread across the planet, is globalization making the condition of foreigner disappear? Or is it, on the contrary, making it the most widely shared condition in the world, despite inherited identities? Border dwellers lead us to borderlands of various kinds where one can experience cosmopolitan life as both specific and universal, ordinary and anticipatory.

The displaced or the people on the move that I have written about are remote
from the mobile global class who travel in sealed aseptic bubbles. They are different
from these usual champions of world citizenship whose paths they sometimes cross.
Their cosmopolitanism derives from the fact that they necessarily have the world in
their head, even if they did not chose to do so, even without a personal theory about
it. We find here the basic principle of the cosmopolitan realism of Immanuel Kant:
we have to understand one another “because the earth is round.” In a negative sense,
as Étienne Balibar notes, we probably do live in “a single world, in the sense that it
is no longer in anyone’s power to escape the effects of the actions of others, and in
particular from their destructive effects” (Balibar 2010, 41). Being in a world wider
than local or even national boundaries can be a painful and dangerous experience,
but it also brings expectations and hopes, projections into a distant future of “home,”
that are built in a de facto multilocality.<fnref n="11" /> The spirit of adventure and the perception
of a cultural labyrinth are clear expressions of a cosmopolitan consciousness. The
feeling of being “of the world” but undesirable in the world, or at least less desirable
than others, is also a form of cosmopolitan consciousness, that of the alien, the wan-
derer or the pariah. The world imposes itself onto them in relation to others and this
cosmopolitanism is both pragmatic and relational. Being in the world at the border
forces one to deal with the organization of everyday life and the definition of one’s
place in society. Ordinary cosmopolitanism arises from the concrete everyday

<footnote n="11">¹¹I use the term “multilocality” in preference to “trans-” or “supralocality” in order to keep the concrete reference to places and multiple anchoring rather than to uprooting.</footnote>
experience of the border, denoting a condition that is not *substantially* bound to
particular social categories or impoverished classes of migrants, even if it is largely
on these that my reflections are based. It seems to me that we can draw from these
migrant experiences a decentred perspective on the world. Building upon Edward
Said's reflections on exile (2002), philosopher Seloua Luste Boulbina situates the
most clearly “decolonized” thought, emancipated from any assignment of identity,
in what she calls “between-worlds”: those “between” worlds that are formed by
experience and the “science of the concrete” – the experience of migrants on their
travels (Luste Boulbina 2013; Said 2002).

This knowing-how-to-be in the world is strengthened by the duration and repeti-
tion of the border position for those women and men who move around and thus live
more than others the encounter between different local worlds. With the spatial and
temporal widening of borders, this condition is potentially generalizable, anticipat-
ing a culture of borders as a global culture in the process of becoming. This is a
cosmopolitanism both wider and more universal, more genuine and authentic, than
the elite cosmopolitans often opposed to the locals (Bauman 2001). It is also differ-
ent from the abstract cosmopolitan “consciousness” of Ulrich Beck (2006) or the
cosmopolitics of transnational activists (Agier 2020; Tassin 2003). The three most
common usages of the “cosmopolitan” word and idea (global class, cosmopolitan
consciousness, cosmopolitics) do not describe the cosmopolitan *condition* in the
sense of a lived experience, the everyday and ordinary experience of sharing the
world, no matter how inegalitarian and violent it may be. My different conception
of cosmopolitanism is drawn rather from the experience of border situations, in the
broad sense in which I have used the term. The monopolization of the cosmopolitan
idea by the global media class, by the cosmopolitanism of world citizens, or by
globalized events, shows that cosmopolitanism, just like global mobility, is marked
by multiple inequalities, and that its definition is an object of conflict.

It is crucial in this context to say from where and of whom one is speaking when talking about cosmopolitanism: “whose cosmopolitanism?” is the essential question. It is also important to conclude with the most accurate possible description of cosmopolitism: to answer the question “which cosmopolitanism?”

In a context of identity-based enclosure – nationalist, urban, neo-local or neo-
tribal – which highlights the difficulty of understanding and living these border situ-
ations, the everyday and ordinary cosmopolitan condition cannot simply be reduced
to its sociological component: the circulation of the poor, a “popular,” “transna-
tional” or “migratory” cosmopolitanism. In anthropological terms, it is formed by
the experience of the border, which globalization is generalizing, and with which
we have to learn to live.
experience of the border, denoting a condition that is not *substantially* bound to
particular social categories or impoverished classes of migrants, even if it is largely
on these that my reflections are based. It seems to me that we can draw from these
migrant experiences a decentred perspective on the world. Building upon Edward
Said's reflections on exile (2002), philosopher Seloua Luste Boulbina situates the
most clearly “decolonized” thought, emancipated from any assignment of identity,
in what she calls “between-worlds”: those “between” worlds that are formed by
experience and the “science of the concrete” – the experience of migrants on their
travels (Luste Boulbina 2013; Said 2002).

This knowing-how-to-be in the world is strengthened by the duration and repeti-
tion of the border position for those women and men who move around and thus live
more than others the encounter between different local worlds. With the spatial and
temporal widening of borders, this condition is potentially generalizable, anticipat-
ing a culture of borders as a global culture in the process of becoming. This is a
cosmopolitanism both wider and more universal, more genuine and authentic, than
the elite cosmopolitans often opposed to the locals (Bauman 2001). It is also differ-
ent from the abstract cosmopolitan “consciousness” of Ulrich Beck (2006) or the
cosmopolitics of transnational activists (Agier 2020; Tassin 2003). The three most
common usages of the “cosmopolitan” word and idea (global class, cosmopolitan
consciousness, cosmopolitics) do not describe the cosmopolitan *condition* in the
sense of a lived experience, the everyday and ordinary experience of sharing the
world, no matter how inegalitarian and violent it may be. My different conception
of cosmopolitanism is drawn rather from the experience of border situations, in the
broad sense in which I have used the term. The monopolization of the cosmopolitan
idea by the global media class, by the cosmopolitanism of world citizens, or by
globalized events, shows that cosmopolitanism, just like global mobility, is marked
by multiple inequalities, and that its definition is an object of conflict.

It is crucial in this context to say from where and of whom one is speaking when talking about cosmopolitanism: “whose cosmopolitanism?” is the essential question. It is also important to conclude with the most accurate possible description of cosmopolitism: to answer the question “which cosmopolitanism?”

In a context of identity-based enclosure – nationalist, urban, neo-local or neo-
tribal – which highlights the difficulty of understanding and living these border situ-
ations, the everyday and ordinary cosmopolitan condition cannot simply be reduced
to its sociological component: the circulation of the poor, a “popular,” “transna-
tional” or “migratory” cosmopolitanism. In anthropological terms, it is formed by
the experience of the border, which globalization is generalizing, and with which
we have to learn to live.
## References

Abaza, M. (2001). Shopping malls, consumer culture and the reshaping of public space in Egypt. *Theory, Culture & Society*, 18(5), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051986.

Agier, M. (2020). *The stranger as my guest. A critical anthropology of hospitality*. Cambridge: Polity press.

Agier, M., & Prestianni, S. (2011). “Je me suis réfugié là !”: bords de routes en exil. Paris: Éd. Donner Lieu.

Akinci, I. (2019). Dressing the nation? Symbolizing Emirati national identity and boundaries through national dress. *Ethnic and Racial Studies*, (September), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1665697.

Anderson, E. (2011). *The cosmopolitan canopy race and civility in everyday life*. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Assaf, L. (2013a). 3. Autour d'un café. Sociabilité des jeunes à Abu Dhabi. In *Jeunesses arabes* (pp. 53–62). Cahiers libres. Paris: La Découverte. https://www.cairn.info/jeunesses-arabes%2D%2D9782707177155-p-53.htm

Assaf, L. (2013b). La Corniche d'Abu Dhabi: Espace Public et Intimités à Ciel Ouvert. *Chroniques Yéménites*, 2(September). https://doi.org/10.4000/cy.2625.

Assaf, L. (2017a). *Arab youths of Abu Dhabi: Status categories, urban sociability and the shaping of subjectivities in the United Arab Emirates*. Paris: Ouest Nanterre.

Assaf, L. (2017b). Le Shopping Mall Comme Moment Urbain: Pratiques Citadines et Transformations Des Espaces Marchands Aux Émirats Arabes Unis. *Ateliers d'anthropologie*, 44(August). https://doi.org/10.4000/ateliers.10413.

Assaf, L., & Camelin, S. (2017). Introduction. *Ateliers d'anthropologie*, 44(August). https://doi.org/10.4000/ateliers.10365.

Balibar, E. (2010). Csomopolitisme, Internationalisme, Cosmopolitique. In B. Ogilvie, D. Sardinha, & F. O. Wolf (Eds.), *Vivre En Europe: Philosophie, Politique et Science Aujourd'hui*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Bauman, Z. (2001). *Globalization: The human consequences* (Reprint). New York: Columbia University Press.

Beaugrand, C. (2018). *Stateless in the Gulf: Migration, Nationality and Society in Kuwait*. Library of Modern Middle East Studies. I.B.Tauris Publishers 9781780765662.

Beck, U. (2006). *The cosmopolitan vision*. Cambridge/Malden: Polity.

Beck, U. (2007). The cosmopolitan condition: Why methodological nationalism fails. *Theory, Culture & Society*, 24(7–8), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764070240072505.

Brachet, J. (2009). *Migrations Transsahariennes: Vers Un Désert Cosmopolite et Morcelé, Niger. Collection Terra*. Croquant: Bellecombe-en-Bauges.

Castles, S. (2001). Studying social transformation. *International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique*, 22(1), 13–32.

Clifford, J. (1992). Traveling cultures. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), *Cultural studies* (pp. 96–116). New York: Routledge.

Collectif Précipité. (2011). Manuel Pour Les Habitants Des Villes 1/3: Nous Sommes Dans La Frontière Enquête En Centre d'hébergement d'urgence et de Réinsertion Sociale. https://www.jefklak.org/manuel-pour-les-habitants-des-villees-1-3-nous-sommes-dans-la-frontiere/

De Genova, N., & Peutz, N. M. (Eds.). (2010). *The deportation regime: Sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Dresch, P. (2006). Foreign matter: The place of strangers in gulf societies. In J. W. Fox, N. Mourtada-Sabbah, & M. al-Mutawa (Eds.), *Globalization and the Gulf* (pp. 200–222). London: Routledge.

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2010). Redrawing Boundaries: Dubai, an emerging global city. In Y. Elsheshtawy (Ed.), *Planning Middle Eastern cities: An urban kaleidoscope in a globalizing world* (pp. 169–199). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
References

Abaza, M. (2001). Shopping malls, consumer culture and the reshaping of public space in Egypt. *Theory, Culture & Society*, 18(5), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051986.

Agier, M. (2020). *The stranger as my guest. A critical anthropology of hospitality*. Cambridge: Polity press.

Agier, M., & Prestianni, S. (2011). “Je me suis réfugié là !”: bords de routes en exil. Paris: Éd. Donner Lieu.

Akinci, I. (2019). Dressing the nation? Symbolizing Emirati national identity and boundaries through national dress. *Ethnic and Racial Studies*, (September), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1665697.

Anderson, E. (2011). *The cosmopolitan canopy race and civility in everyday life*. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Assaf, L. (2013a). 3. Autour d'un café. Sociabilité des jeunes à Abu Dhabi. In *Jeunesses arabes* (pp. 53–62). Cahiers libres. Paris: La Découverte. https://www.cairn.info/jeunesses-arabes%2D%2D9782707177155-p-53.htm

Assaf, L. (2013b). La Corniche d'Abu Dhabi : Espace Public et Intimités à Ciel Ouvert. *Chroniques Yéménites*, 2(September). https://doi.org/10.4000/cy.2625.

Assaf, L. (2017a). *Arab youths of Abu Dhabi: Status categories, urban sociability and the shaping of subjectivities in the United Arab Emirates*. Paris: Ouest Nanterre.

Assaf, L. (2017b). Le Shopping Mall Comme Moment Urbain: Pratiques Citadines et Transformations Des Espaces Marchands Aux Émirats Arabes Unis. *Ateliers d'anthropologie*, 44(August). https://doi.org/10.4000/ateliers.10413.

Assaf, L., & Camelin, S. (2017). Introduction. *Ateliers d'anthropologie*, 44(August). https://doi.org/10.4000/ateliers.10365.

Balibar, E. (2010). Csomopolitisme, Internationalisme, Cosmopolitique. In B. Ogilvie, D. Sardinha, & F. O. Wolf (Eds.), *Vivre En Europe: Philosophie, Politique et Science Aujourd'hui*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Bauman, Z. (2001). *Globalization: The human consequences* (Reprint). New York: Columbia University Press.

Beaugrand, C. (2018). *Stateless in the Gulf: Migration, Nationality and Society in Kuwait*. Library of Modern Middle East Studies. I.B.Tauris Publishers 9781780765662.

Beck, U. (2006). *The cosmopolitan vision*. Cambridge/Malden: Polity.

Beck, U. (2007). The cosmopolitan condition: Why methodological nationalism fails. *Theory, Culture & Society*, 24(7–8), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764070240072505.

Brachet, J. (2009). *Migrations Transsahariennes: Vers Un Désert Cosmopolite et Morcelé, Niger. Collection Terra*. Croquant: Bellecombe-en-Bauges.

Castles, S. (2001). Studying social transformation. *International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique*, 22(1), 13–32.

Clifford, J. (1992). Traveling cultures. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), *Cultural studies* (pp. 96–116). New York: Routledge.

Collectif Précipité. (2011). Manuel Pour Les Habitants Des Villes 1/3: Nous Sommes Dans La Frontière Enquête En Centre d'hébergement d'urgence et de Réinsertion Sociale. https://www.jefklak.org/manuel-pour-les-habitants-des-villees-1-3-nous-sommes-dans-la-frontiere/

De Genova, N., & Peutz, N. M. (Eds.). (2010). *The deportation regime: Sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Dresch, P. (2006). Foreign matter: The place of strangers in gulf societies. In J. W. Fox, N. Mourtada-Sabbah, & M. al-Mutawa (Eds.), *Globalization and the Gulf* (pp. 200–222). London: Routledge.

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2010). Redrawing Boundaries: Dubai, an emerging global city. In Y. Elsheshtawy (Ed.), *Planning Middle Eastern cities: An urban kaleidoscope in a globalizing world* (pp. 169–199). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Elsheshtawy, Y. (2019a). *Temporary cities: Resisting transience in Arabia*. Milton Park/Abingdon/
Oxon: Routledge.

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2019b). *Temporary cities: Resisting transience in Arabia*. Routledge: S.I.,

Gardner, A., Pessoa, S., Diop, A., Al-Ghanim, K., Le Trung, K., & Harkness, L. (2013). A portrait of low-income migrants in contemporary Qatar. *Journal of Arabian Studies, 3*(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21534764.2013.806076.

Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. W. (Eds.). (2001). *Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage*. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. *Theory, Culture & Society, 7*(2–3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002014.

Human Rights Watch. (2014). 'I already bought you'. Abuse and exploitation of female migrant domestic workers in the United Arab Emirates. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/10/22/i-already-bought-you/abuse-and-exploitation-female-migrant-domestic-workers-united

Khalaf, S. (2006a). The evolution of the Gulf City type, oil and globalization. In J. W. Fox, N. Mourtada-Sabbah, & M. al-Mutawa (Eds.), *Globalization and the Gulf* (pp. 244–265). London: Routledge.

Khalaf, S. (2006b). The evolution of the Gulf City type, oil, and globalization. *Globalization and the Gulf. September, 27*, 2006. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965306-23.

Khalaf, A., AlShehabi, O., & Hanieh, A. (2014a). *Transit states: Labour, migration and citizenship in the Gulf*. London: Pluto Press.

Khalaf, A., AlShehabi, O., & Hanieh, A. (Eds.). (2014b). *Transit states: Labour, migration and citizenship in the Gulf*. London: Pluto Press.

Lamont, M., & Aksartova, S. (2002). Ordinary cosmopolitanisms: Strategies for bridging racial boundaries among working-class men. *Theory, Culture & Society, 19*(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276402019004001.

Le Renard, A. (2014). *A society of young women: opportunities of place, power, and reform in Saudi Arabia*. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Longva, A. N. (1999). Keeping migrant workers in check: The Kafala system in the Gulf'. *Middle East Report, 211*. https://merip.org/1999/06/keeping-migrant-workers-in-check/

Longva, A. N. (2005). Neither autocracy nor democracy but ethnocracy citizens expatriates. In P. Dresch & J. P. Piscatori (Eds.), *Monarchies and nations: Globalisation and identity in the Arab states of the Gulf* (pp. 114–135). London/Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord: I. B. Tauris.

Lori, N. (2011). National security and the management of migrant labor: A case study of the United Arab Emirates. *Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 20*(3–4), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719681102000304.

Lori, N. (2019). *Offshore citizens: Permanent temporary status in the Gulf* (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108632560.

Lussault, M. (2013). Visibilité (régime de). In J. Lévy & M. Lussault (Eds.), *Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l'espace des sociétés*. Paris: Belin.

Luste Boulbina, S. (2013). La décolonisation des savoirs et ses théories voyageuses. *Rue Descartes, 78*(2), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdes.078.0019.

Mau, S. (2010). Mobility citizenship, inequality, and the liberal state: The case of visa policies. *International Political Sociology, 4*(4), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2010.00110.x.

Ménoret, P. (2018). Urban sprawl and politics in Saudi Arabia.” In E. Woertz & M. Ajl (Eds.), “Wise cities” in the Mediterranean?: Challenges of urban sustainability (pp. 201–211).

Mermier, F. (2015). *Récits de villes: D'Aden à Beyrouth: Essai. Sindbad*. Paris: Actes Sud.

Nyers, P. (2003). Abject cosmopolitanism: The politics of protection in the anti-deportation movement. *Third World Quarterly, 24*(6), 1069–1093.

Okruhlik, G. (1999). Excluded essentials: The politics of ethnicity, oil and citizenship in Saudi Arabia. In P. Batur-Vanderlippe (Ed.), *The global color line: Racial and ethnic inequality*
Elsheshtawy, Y. (2019a). *Temporary cities: Resisting transience in Arabia*. Milton Park/Abingdon/
Oxon: Routledge.

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2019b). *Temporary cities: Resisting transience in Arabia*. Routledge: S.I.·

Gardner, A., Pessoa, S., Diop, A., Al-Ghanim, K., Le Trung, K., & Harkness, L. (2013). A portrait of low-income migrants in contemporary Qatar. *Journal of Arabian Studies, 3*(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21534764.2013.806076.

Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. W. (Eds.). (2001). *Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage*. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. *Theory, Culture & Society, 7*(2–3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002014.

Human Rights Watch. (2014). 'I already bought you'. Abuse and exploitation of female migrant domestic workers in the United Arab Emirates. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/10/22/i-already-bought-you/abuse-and-exploitation-female-migrant-domestic-workers-united

Khalaf, S. (2006a). The evolution of the Gulf City type, oil and globalization. In J. W. Fox, N. Mourtada-Sabbah, & M. al-Mutawa (Eds.), *Globalization and the Gulf* (pp. 244–265). London: Routledge.

Khalaf, S. (2006b). The evolution of the Gulf City type, oil, and globalization. *Globalization and the Gulf. September, 27*, 2006. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965306-23.

Khalaf, A., AlShehabi, O., & Hanieh, A. (2014a). *Transit states: Labour, migration and citizenship in the Gulf*. London: Pluto Press.

Khalaf, A., AlShehabi, O., & Hanieh, A. (Eds.). (2014b). *Transit states: Labour, migration and citizenship in the Gulf*. London: Pluto Press.

Lamont, M., & Aksartova, S. (2002). Ordinary cosmopolitanisms: Strategies for bridging racial boundaries among working-class men. *Theory, Culture & Society, 19*(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276402019004001.

Le Renard, A. (2014). *A society of young women: opportunities of place, power, and reform in Saudi Arabia*. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Longva, A. N. (1999). Keeping migrant workers in check: The Kafala system in the Gulf'. *Middle East Report, 211*. https://merip.org/1999/06/keeping-migrant-workers-in-check/

Longva, A. N. (2005). Neither autocracy nor democracy but ethnocracy citizens expatriates. In P. Dresch & J. P. Piscatori (Eds.), *Monarchies and nations: Globalisation and identity in the Arab states of the Gulf* (pp. 114–135). London/Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord: I. B. Tauris.

Lori, N. (2011). National security and the management of migrant labor: A case study of the United Arab Emirates. *Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 20*(3–4), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719681102000304.

Lori, N. (2019). *Offshore citizens: Permanent temporary status in the Gulf* (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108632560.

Lussault, M. (2013). Visibilité (régime de). In J. Lévy & M. Lussault (Eds.), *Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l'espace des sociétés*. Paris: Belin.

Luste Boulbina, S. (2013). La décolonisation des savoirs et ses théories voyageuses. *Rue Descartes, 78*(2), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdes.078.0019.

Mau, S. (2010). Mobility citizenship, inequality, and the liberal state: The case of visa policies. *International Political Sociology, 4*(4), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2010.00110.x.

Ménoret, P. (2018). Urban sprawl and politics in Saudi Arabia.” In E. Woertz & M. Ajl (Eds.), “Wise cities” in the Mediterranean?: Challenges of urban sustainability (pp. 201–211).

Mermier, F. (2015). *Récits de villes: D'Aden à Beyrouth: Essai. Sindbad*. Paris: Actes Sud.

Nyers, P. (2003). Abject cosmopolitanism: The politics of protection in the anti-deportation movement. *Third World Quarterly, 24*(6), 1069–1093.

Okruhlik, G. (1999). Excluded essentials: The politics of ethnicity, oil and citizenship in Saudi Arabia. In P. Batur-Vanderlippe (Ed.), *The global color line: Racial and ethnic inequality*
*and struggle from a global perspective* (Research in politics and society, 6) (pp. 215–236). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Osella, C., & Bristol-Rhys, J. (2016). Neutralized bachelors, infantilized Arabs: Between migrant and host gendered and sexual stereotypes in Abu Dhabi. In N. Lindisfarne & A. Cornwall (Eds.), *Masculinities under neoliberalism* (pp. 111–124). London: Zed. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/21442/.

Parreñas, R. S., Silvey, R., Hwang, M. C., & Choi, C. A. (2018). Serial labor migration: Precarity and itinerancy among Filipino and Indonesian domestic workers. *International Migration Review*, October, 019791831880476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918318804769.

Partrick, N. (2012). Nationalism in the Gulf states. In D. Held & K. Ulrichsen (Eds.), *The transformation of the Gulf: Politics, economics and the global order*. Abingdon/New York/Oxon: Routledge.

Peterson, M. A. (2011). *Connected in Cairo: Growing up cosmopolitan in the modern Middle East*. Public Cultures of the Middle East and North Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pian, A. (2009). *Aux nouvelles frontières de l'Europe: l'aventure incertaine des Sénégalais au Maroc*. Paris: Dispute.

Pilati, K. (2016). Migrants’ political participation in exclusionary contexts: From subcultures to radicalization. In *Palgrave pivot*. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

Portes, A. (2010). Migration and social change: Some conceptual reflections. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36*(10), 1537–1563. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2010.489370.

Puig, N., & Bontemps, V. (Eds.). (2014). *Composer (avec) la frontière: passages, parcours migratoires et échanges sociaux* (Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 30.2014.2). Potiers: Univ.

Riefler, P. (2015). Consumer cosmopolitanism. In D. T. Cook & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), *The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and Consumer Studies* (pp. 1–2). Oxford: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118989463.wbeccs247.

Robinson, J. (2013). *Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development*. London: Routledge.

Said, E. W. (2002). *Reflections on exile and other essays*. 3. Print. Convergences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Schiller, N. G., & Irving, A. (2015). Introduction. In N. G. Schiller & A. Irving (Eds.), *Whose Cosmopolitanism? Critical perspectives, relationalities and discontents* (1st ed., pp. 1–22). Berghahn Books. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qd17s.5.

Schuetz, A. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. *American Journal of Sociology*, 49(6), 499–507.

Seccombe, I. J., & Lawless, R. (1986). Foreign worker dependence in the Gulf, and the international oil companies: 1910-50. *International Migration Review, 20*(3), 548. https://doi.org/10.2307/2545704.

Sennett, R. (1992). *The conscience of the eye: The design and social life of cities*. 1. paperback ed. New York: Norton.

Serres, M. (1994). *Le tiers-instruit*. Collection Folio Essais 199. Paris: Gallimard.

Serres, M. (1998). *The Troubadour of knowledge*. Trans. S. Glaser & W. Paulson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9722.

Shachar, A. (2006). The race for talent: Highly skilled migrants and competitive immigration regimes. *New York University Law Review*, 81(1), 148–233.

Shachar, A., & Hirschl, R. (2014). On citizenship, states, and markets. *Journal of Political Philosophy*, 22(2), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12034.

Streiff-Fenart, J., & Kabwe-Segatti, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). *The challenge of the threshold: Border closures and migration movements in Africa*. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Tassin, E. (2003). *Un Monde Commun: Pour Une Cosmo-Politique Des Conflits*. La Couleur Des Idées. Paris: Seuil.

Thiollet, H. (2010). Nationalisme d'Etat et nationalisme ordinaire en Arabie Saoudite: la nation saoudienne et ses immigrés [State nationalism and banal nationalism in Saudi Arabia: The
*and struggle from a global perspective* (Research in politics and society, 6) (pp. 215–236). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Osella, C., & Bristol-Rhys, J. (2016). Neutralized bachelors, infantilized Arabs: Between migrant and host gendered and sexual stereotypes in Abu Dhabi. In N. Lindisfarne & A. Cornwall (Eds.), *Masculinities under neoliberalism* (pp. 111–124). London: Zed. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/21442/.

Parreñas, R. S., Silvey, R., Hwang, M. C., & Choi, C. A. (2018). Serial labor migration: Precarity and itinerancy among Filipino and Indonesian domestic workers. *International Migration Review*, October, 019791831880476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918318804769.

Partrick, N. (2012). Nationalism in the Gulf states. In D. Held & K. Ulrichsen (Eds.), *The transformation of the Gulf: Politics, economics and the global order*. Abingdon/New York/Oxon: Routledge.

Peterson, M. A. (2011). *Connected in Cairo: Growing up cosmopolitan in the modern Middle East*. Public Cultures of the Middle East and North Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pian, A. (2009). *Aux nouvelles frontières de l'Europe: l'aventure incertaine des Sénégalais au Maroc*. Paris: Dispute.

Pilati, K. (2016). Migrants’ political participation in exclusionary contexts: From subcultures to radicalization. In *Palgrave pivot*. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

Portes, A. (2010). Migration and social change: Some conceptual reflections. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36*(10), 1537–1563. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2010.489370.

Puig, N., & Bontemps, V. (Eds.). (2014). *Composer (avec) la frontière: passages, parcours migratoires et échanges sociaux* (Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 30.2014.2). Potiers: Univ.

Riefler, P. (2015). Consumer cosmopolitanism. In D. T. Cook & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), *The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and Consumer Studies* (pp. 1–2). Oxford: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118989463.wbeccs247.

Robinson, J. (2013). *Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development*. London: Routledge.

Said, E. W. (2002). *Reflections on exile and other essays*. 3. Print. Convergences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Schiller, N. G., & Irving, A. (2015). Introduction. In N. G. Schiller & A. Irving (Eds.), *Whose Cosmopolitanism? Critical perspectives, relationalities and discontents* (1st ed., pp. 1–22). Berghahn Books. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qd17s.5.

Schuetz, A. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. *American Journal of Sociology*, 49(6), 499–507.

Seccombe, I. J., & Lawless, R. (1986). Foreign worker dependence in the Gulf, and the international oil companies: 1910-50. *International Migration Review, 20*(3), 548. https://doi.org/10.2307/2545704.

Sennett, R. (1992). *The conscience of the eye: The design and social life of cities*. 1. paperback ed. New York: Norton.

Serres, M. (1994). *Le tiers-instruit*. Collection Folio Essais 199. Paris: Gallimard.

Serres, M. (1998). *The Troubadour of knowledge*. Trans. S. Glaser & W. Paulson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9722.

Shachar, A. (2006). The race for talent: Highly skilled migrants and competitive immigration regimes. *New York University Law Review*, 81(1), 148–233.

Shachar, A., & Hirschl, R. (2014). On citizenship, states, and markets. *Journal of Political Philosophy*, 22(2), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12034.

Streiff-Fenart, J., & Kabwe-Segatti, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). *The challenge of the threshold: Border closures and migration movements in Africa*. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Tassin, E. (2003). *Un Monde Commun: Pour Une Cosmo-Politique Des Conflits*. La Couleur Des Idées. Paris: Seuil.

Thiollet, H. (2010). Nationalisme d'Etat et nationalisme ordinaire en Arabie Saoudite: la nation saoudienne et ses immigrés [State nationalism and banal nationalism in Saudi Arabia: The
Saudi nation and its immigrants]. *Raisons politiques*, 37(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.037.0089.

Thiollet, H. (2015). Migration et (contre)révolution dans le Golfe : politiques migratoires et politiques de l'emploi en Arabie saoudite [Migration and (counter)revolution in the Gulf. Migration and Labour market policies in Saudi Arabia]. *Revue européenne des migrations internationales*, 31(3-4), 121-143.

Thiollet, H. (2019). *Immigrants, markets, brokers and states. The politics of illiberal migration governance in the Arab Gulf*. Working Paper. IMI Working Paper Series. Amsterdam: International Migration Institute.

Thiollet, H., & Assaf, L. (2018). *Cosmopolitanism in Denial. The illiberal politics of migration and everyday diversity in the gulf cities*. Presented at the Symposium “Migration: displacement and development in the MENA region, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, January 27.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). *International migration report 2017* (ST/ESA/SER.A/403). New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017.pdf

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. *Ethnic and Racial Studies*, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465.

Vora, N. (2013). Impossible citizens: Dubai’s Indian diaspora. In *Durham. London: Duke University Press*.

Walsh, K. (2014). Placing transnational migrants through comparative research: British migrant belonging in five GCC cities: Placing transnational migrants through comparative research. *Population, Space and Place*, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1798.

Werbner, P. (1999). Global pathways. Working class cosmopolitans and the creation of trans-national ethnic worlds*. *Social Anthropology*, 7(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.1999.tb00176.x

Wihtol de Wenden, C. (2010). *La question migratoire au XXIe siècle. Migrants, réfugiés et relations internationales*. Références. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. https://www.cairn.info/la-question-migratoire-au-xxie-siecle%2D%2D9782724611816.htm

Wilson, T. M., & Donnan, H. (Eds.). (2012). *A companion to border studies* (Blackwell companions to anthropology) (Vol. 19). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Yamani, M. (2009). *Cradle of Islam: The Hijaz and the quest for identity in Saudi Arabia*. London: I.B.Tauris.

Yeoh, B. S. A. (2004). Cosmopolitanism and its exclusions in Singapore. *Urban Studies*, 41(12), 2431–2445. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980412331297618.

Zeng, M. (2014). Subaltern cosmopolitanism: Concept and approaches. *The Sociological Review*, 62(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12137.

Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. *Urban Studies*, 35(5-6), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098984574.
Saudi nation and its immigrants]. *Raisons politiques*, 37(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.037.0089.

Thiollet, H. (2015). Migration et (contre)révolution dans le Golfe : politiques migratoires et politiques de l'emploi en Arabie saoudite [Migration and (counter)revolution in the Gulf. Migration and Labour market policies in Saudi Arabia]. *Revue européenne des migrations internationales*, 31(3-4), 121–143.

Thiollet, H. (2019). *Immigrants, markets, brokers and states. The politics of illiberal migration governance in the Arab Gulf*. Working Paper. IMI Working Paper Series. Amsterdam: International Migration Institute.

Thiollet, H., & Assaf, L. (2018). *Cosmopolitanism in Denial. The illiberal politics of migration and everyday diversity in the gulf cities*. Presented at the Symposium “Migration: displacement and development in the MENA region, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, January 27.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). *International migration report 2017* (ST/ESA/SER.A/403). New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017.pdf

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. *Ethnic and Racial Studies*, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465.

Vora, N. (2013). Impossible citizens: Dubai’s Indian diaspora. In *Durham*. London: Duke University Press.

Walsh, K. (2014). Placing transnational migrants through comparative research: British migrant belonging in five GCC cities: Placing transnational migrants through comparative research. *Population, Space and Place*, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1798.

Werbner, P. (1999). Global pathways. Working class cosmopolitans and the creation of trans-national ethnic worlds*. *Social Anthropology*, 7(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.1999.tb00176.x

Wihtol de Wenden, C. (2010). *La question migratoire au XXIe siècle. Migrants, réfugiés et relations internationales*. Références. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. https://www.cairn.info/la-question-migratoire-au-xxie-siecle%2D%2D9782724611816.htm

Wilson, T. M., & Donnan, H. (Eds.). (2012). *A companion to border studies* (Blackwell companions to anthropology) (Vol. 19). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Yamani, M. (2009). *Cradle of Islam: The Hijaz and the quest for identity in Saudi Arabia*. London: I.B.Tauris.

Yeoh, B. S. A. (2004). Cosmopolitanism and its exclusions in Singapore. *Urban Studies*, 41(12), 2431–2445. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980412331297618.

Zeng, M. (2014). Subaltern cosmopolitanism: Concept and approaches. *The Sociological Review*, 62(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12137.

Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. *Urban Studies*, 35(5–6), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098984574.
**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>
**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>