# Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World

Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, Hélène Thiollet

► To cite this version:

Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, Hélène Thiollet (Dir.). Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World. Catherine Lejeune; Delphine Pagès-El Karoui; Camille Schmoll; Hélène Thiollet. Springer, 184 p., 2021, IMISCOE Research Series, 9783030673642. 10.1007/978-3-030-67365-9 . hal-03366748

HAL Id: hal-03366748

https://hal.science/hal-03366748

Submitted on 13 Mar 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World

Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, Hélène Thiollet

► To cite this version:

Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, Hélène Thiollet (Dir.). Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World. Catherine Lejeune; Delphine Pagès-El Karoui; Camille Schmoll; Hélène Thiollet. Springer, 184 p., 2021, IMISCOE Research Series, 9783030673642. 10.1007/978-3-030-67365-9 . hal-03366748

HAL Id: hal-03366748

https://hal.science/hal-03366748v1

Submitted on 13 Mar 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Catherine Lejeune
Delphine Pagès-El Karoui
Camille Schmoll
Hélène Thiollet Editors

Migration,
Urbanity and
Cosmopolitanism
in a Globalized
World

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Catherine Lejeune

Delphine Pagès-El Karoui

Camille Schmoll

Hélène Thiollet Editors

Migration,
Urbanity and
Cosmopolitanism
in a Globalized
World

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
IMISCOE Research Series
IMISCOE Research Series
Now accepted for Scopus! Content available on the Scopus site in spring 2021.

This series is the official book series of IMISCOE, the largest network of excellence on migration and diversity in the world. It comprises publications which present empirical and theoretical research on different aspects of international migration. The authors are all specialists, and the publications a rich source of information for researchers and others involved in international migration studies. The series is published under the editorial supervision of the IMISCOE Editorial Committee which includes leading scholars from all over Europe. The series, which contains more than eighty titles already, is internationally peer reviewed which ensures that the book published in this series continue to present excellent academic standards and scholarly quality. Most of the books are available open access.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13502
Now accepted for Scopus! Content available on the Scopus site in spring 2021.

This series is the official book series of IMISCOE, the largest network of excellence on migration and diversity in the world. It comprises publications which present empirical and theoretical research on different aspects of international migration. The authors are all specialists, and the publications a rich source of information for researchers and others involved in international migration studies. The series is published under the editorial supervision of the IMISCOE Editorial Committee which includes leading scholars from all over Europe. The series, which contains more than eighty titles already, is internationally peer reviewed which ensures that the book published in this series continue to present excellent academic standards and scholarly quality. Most of the books are available open access.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13502
Catherine Lejeune • Delphine Pagès-El Karoui

Camille Schmoll • Hélène Thiollet

Editors

Migration, Urbanity
and Cosmopolitanism
in a Globalized World

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Springer
Catherine Lejeune • Delphine Pagès-El Karoui

Camille Schmoll • Hélène Thiollet

Editors

Migration, Urbanity
and Cosmopolitanism
in a Globalized World

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Springer
Editors

Catherine Lejeune
LARCA, Université de Paris
Paris, France

Delphine Pagès-El Karoui
CERMOM, Institut National des Langues et
Civilisations Orientales, IC Migrations
Paris, France

Camille Schmoll
Géographie-Cités, École des Hautes Études
and Sciences Sociales, IC Migrations
Paris, France

Hélène Thiollet
CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations
Paris, France

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

ISSN 2364-4087

ISSN 2364-4095 (electronic)

IMISCOE Research Series

ISBN 978-3-030-67364-2

ISBN 978-3-030-67365-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67365-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021. This book is an open access publication.

**Open Access** This book 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 book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book'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.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Editors

Catherine Lejeune
LARCA, Université de Paris
Paris, France

Camille Schmoll
Géographie-Cités, École des Hautes Études
and Sciences Sociales, IC Migrations
Paris, France

Delphine Pagès-El Karoui
CERMOM, Institut National des Langues et
Civilisations Orientales, IC Migrations
Paris, France

Hélène Thiollet
CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations
Paris, France

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

ISSN 2364-4087
IMISCOE Research Series
ISBN 978-3-030-67364-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67365-9

ISSN 2364-4095 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-67365-9 (eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021. This book is an open access publication.

**Open Access** This book 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 book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book'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.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments

This book is the fruit of collaborative work among scholars coming from various disciplines (geography, sociology, anthropology, and political science) and specializing in different geographical areas. This interdisciplinary and comparative component is crucial in the book and it has been so since the start of our project. We would like to thank scholars around the world who engaged in the discussion on cosmopolitanism, migration, and world cities by participating in the conferences and international workshops we organized between 2015 and 2019 at the University of Paris, Inalco, and Sciences Po. We are grateful to these institutions for funding the research program *Sociétés Plurielles* which made these events and this publication possible. We also thank the authors who contributed to this book for the exciting and diverse perspectives they bring to the understanding of everyday cosmopolitanism across contexts.

We particularly wish to thank Elijah Anderson, Brenda Yeoh, Philip Kasinitz, Suzanne Hall, and Yasser el Sheshtawy for great discussions and insightful comments, and we convey our warmest gratitude to Anna Triandafyllidou and Irina Isaakyan for their support through the editorial process. We also thank Juliette Rogers, Elise Trogrlic, and Marius Hentea for their careful work in translating and editing the manuscript.
Acknowledgments

This book is the fruit of collaborative work among scholars coming from various disciplines (geography, sociology, anthropology, and political science) and specializing in different geographical areas. This interdisciplinary and comparative component is crucial in the book and it has been so since the start of our project. We would like to thank scholars around the world who engaged in the discussion on cosmopolitanism, migration, and world cities by participating in the conferences and international workshops we organized between 2015 and 2019 at the University of Paris, Inalco, and Sciences Po. We are grateful to these institutions for funding the research program *Sociétés Plurielles* which made these events and this publication possible. We also thank the authors who contributed to this book for the exciting and diverse perspectives they bring to the understanding of everyday cosmopolitanism across contexts.

We particularly wish to thank Elijah Anderson, Brenda Yeoh, Philip Kasinitz, Suzanne Hall, and Yasser el Sheshtawy for great discussions and insightful comments, and we convey our warmest gratitude to Anna Triandafyllidou and Irina Isaakyan for their support through the editorial process. We also thank Juliette Rogers, Elise Trogrlic, and Marius Hentea for their careful work in translating and editing the manuscript.
# Contents

1 **Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World: An Introduction** 1
Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, and Hélène Thiollet

## Part I Making Cosmopolitan Places in a Globalized World

2 **Generic Places, the Construction of Home and the Lived Experience of Cosmopolitanization** 17
Jan Willem Duyvendak and Melissa Ley-Cervantes

3 **Making Cosmopolitan Spaces: Urban Design, Ideology and Power** 29
Giovanni Semi

4 **Dakar by Night: Engaging with a Cosmopolitanism by Contrast** 41
Thomas Fouquet

5 **Urban Cosmopolitanisms in the Arab World: Contributing to Theoretical Debates from the Middle East** 55
Franck Mermier

## Part II Urbanity and Everyday Cosmopolitanism in Ordinary Places

6 **Cosmopolitan Dubai: Consumption and Segregation in a Global City** 69
Delphine Pagès-El Karoui

7 **Everyday Cosmopolitanism in African Cities: Places of Leisure and Consumption in Antananarivo and Maputo** 89
Catherine Fournet-Guérin
# Contents

1 **Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World: An Introduction** 1
Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, and Hélène Thiollet

## Part I Making Cosmopolitan Places in a Globalized World

2 **Generic Places, the Construction of Home and the Lived Experience of Cosmopolitanization** 17
Jan Willem Duyvendak and Melissa Ley-Cervantes

3 **Making Cosmopolitan Spaces: Urban Design, Ideology and Power** 29
Giovanni Semi

4 **Dakar by Night: Engaging with a Cosmopolitanism by Contrast** 41
Thomas Fouquet

5 **Urban Cosmopolitanisms in the Arab World: Contributing to Theoretical Debates from the Middle East** 55
Franck Mermier

## Part II Urbanity and Everyday Cosmopolitanism in Ordinary Places

6 **Cosmopolitan Dubai: Consumption and Segregation in a Global City** 69
Delphine Pagès-El Karoui

7 **Everyday Cosmopolitanism in African Cities: Places of Leisure and Consumption in Antananarivo and Maputo** 89
Catherine Fournet-Guérin
<table><tr><td>8</td><td>What's in a Street? Exploring Suspended Cosmopolitanism in Trikoupi, Nicosia</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Karen Akoka, Olivier Clochard, Iris Polyzou, and Camille Schmoll</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Branding Cosmopolitanism and Place Making in Saint Laurent Boulevard, Montreal</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Marie-Laure Poulot</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Part III Migrant Cosmopolitanism: Fragile Belongings and Contested Citizenships

<table><tr><td>10</td><td>Sweeping the Streets, Cleaning Morals: Chinese Sex Workers in Paris Claiming Their Belonging to the Cosmopolitan City</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hélène Le Bail and Marylène Lieber</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>11</td><td>Cosmopolitanism in US Sanctuary Cities: Dreamers Claiming Urban Citizenship</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Catherine Lejeune</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>12</td><td>Migrant Cosmopolitanism in Emirati and Saudi Cities: Practices and Belonging in Exclusionary Contexts</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hélène Thiollet and Laure Assaf</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>13</td><td>Figures of the Cosmopolitan Condition: The Wanderer, the Outcast, the Foreigner</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Michel Agier</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>8</td><td>What's in a Street? Exploring Suspended Cosmopolitanism in Trikoupi, Nicosia</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Karen Akoka, Olivier Clochard, Iris Polyzou, and Camille Schmoll</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Branding Cosmopolitanism and Place Making in Saint Laurent Boulevard, Montreal</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Marie-Laure Poulot</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Part III Migrant Cosmopolitanism: Fragile Belongings and Contested Citizenships

<table><tr><td>10</td><td>Sweeping the Streets, Cleaning Morals: Chinese Sex Workers in Paris Claiming Their Belonging to the Cosmopolitan City</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hélène Le Bail and Marylène Lieber</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>11</td><td>Cosmopolitanism in US Sanctuary Cities: Dreamers Claiming Urban Citizenship</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Catherine Lejeune</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>12</td><td>Migrant Cosmopolitanism in Emirati and Saudi Cities: Practices and Belonging in Exclusionary Contexts</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hélène Thiollet and Laure Assaf</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>13</td><td>Figures of the Cosmopolitan Condition: The Wanderer, the Outcast, the Foreigner</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Michel Agier</td><td></td></tr></table>
Contributors

**Michel Agier** CEMS, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Karen Akoka** ISP, University of Paris Ouest Nanterre, Nanterre, France

**Laure Assaf** Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, Nanterre, France
NYU Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

**Hélène Le Bail** CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Olivier Clochard** CNRS MIGRINTER, Université de Poitiers, IC Migrations, Poitiers, France

**Jan Willem Duyvendak** University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

**Thomas Fouquet** CNRS IMAF, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France

**Catherine Fournet-Guérin** Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

**Catherine Lejeune** LARCA, Université de Paris, Paris, France

**Melissa Ley-Cervantes** Independent Researcher, Mexico City, Mexico

**Marylène Lieber** Institute for gender studies, Department of Sociology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

**Franck Mermier** CNRS IRIS, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France

**Delphine Pagès-El Karoui** CERMOM, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Iris Polyzou** Ecole Française d'Athènes, Athens, Greece

**Marie-Laure Poulot** University Paul Valery, Montpellier, France
Contributors

**Michel Agier** CEMS, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Karen Akoka** ISP, University of Paris Ouest Nanterre, Nanterre, France

**Laure Assaf** Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, Nanterre, France
NYU Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

**Hélène Le Bail** CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Olivier Clochard** CNRS MIGRINTER, Université de Poitiers, IC Migrations, Poitiers, France

**Jan Willem Duyvendak** University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

**Thomas Fouquet** CNRS IMAF, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France

**Catherine Fournet-Guérin** Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

**Catherine Lejeune** LARCA, Université de Paris, Paris, France

**Melissa Ley-Cervantes** Independent Researcher, Mexico City, Mexico

**Marylène Lieber** Institute for gender studies, Department of Sociology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

**Franck Mermier** CNRS IRIS, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France

**Delphine Pagès-El Karoui** CERMOM, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Iris Polyzou** Ecole Française d'Athènes, Athens, Greece

**Marie-Laure Poulot** University Paul Valery, Montpellier, France
**Camille Schmoll** Géographie-Cités, École des Hautes Études and Sciences Sociales, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Giovanni Semi** Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, TO, Italy

**Hélène Thiollet** CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations, Paris, France
**Camille Schmoll** Géographie-Cités, École des Hautes Études and Sciences Sociales, IC Migrations, Paris, France

**Giovanni Semi** Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, TO, Italy

**Hélène Thiollet** CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations, Paris, France
Chapter 1

# Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World: An Introduction

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, and Hélène Thiollet

Globalization and migration have generated acute and often contradictory changes: they have increased social diversity while inducing global homogenization; they have sharpened differentiation of spaces and statuses while accelerating and amplifying communication and circulations; they have induced more complex social stratification while enriching individual and collective identities. These changes happen to be strikingly visible in cities. Urban contexts, indeed, offer privileged sites of inquiry to understanding the social dynamics of globalization, informal belonging and local citizenships, transient and multi-layered identities, symbolic orders and exclusionary practices. But cities are also material sites and they create multisensorial scapes that shape experiences of globalization and social change. They operate through multiple scales, connecting horizontal extensions and vertical layers of the city with generic, landmark, interstitial and neglected places. Far from being mere contexts, cities are both changing and being changed by migration and globalization.

C. Lejeune (✉)

LARCA, Université de Paris, Paris, France

D. Pagès-El Karoui

CERMOM, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, IC Migrations,
Paris, France

C. Schmoll

Géographie-Cités, École des Hautes Études and Sciences Sociales, IC Migrations,
Paris, France

H. Thiollet

CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations, Paris, France

e-mail: helene.thiollet@sciencespo.fr
Chapter 1

# Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World: An Introduction

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Catherine Lejeune, Delphine Pagès-El Karoui, Camille Schmoll, and Hélène Thiollet

Globalization and migration have generated acute and often contradictory changes: they have increased social diversity while inducing global homogenization; they have sharpened differentiation of spaces and statuses while accelerating and amplifying communication and circulations; they have induced more complex social stratification while enriching individual and collective identities. These changes happen to be strikingly visible in cities. Urban contexts, indeed, offer privileged sites of inquiry to understanding the social dynamics of globalization, informal belonging and local citizenships, transient and multi-layered identities, symbolic orders and exclusionary practices. But cities are also material sites and they create multisensorial scapes that shape experiences of globalization and social change. They operate through multiple scales, connecting horizontal extensions and vertical layers of the city with generic, landmark, interstitial and neglected places. Far from being mere contexts, cities are both changing and being changed by migration and globalization.

C. Lejeune (✉)

LARCA, Université de Paris, Paris, France

D. Pagès-El Karoui

CERMOM, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, IC Migrations,
Paris, France

C. Schmoll

Géographie-Cités, École des Hautes Études and Sciences Sociales, IC Migrations,
Paris, France

H. Thiollet

CNRS CERI, Sciences Po, IC Migrations, Paris, France

e-mail: helene.thiollet@sciencespo.fr
This book chooses cosmopolitanism as a crucial notion to study migration and mobility in contemporary cities. Central to debates in the early 1990s debates to describe the changes induced by the second modernity, cosmopolitanism was later reframed, recast, and criticized for its ambivalence and political loading, for its Western centrism, uprootedness and theoretical biases. We claim that it is the very “thickness” of the notion that makes it useful. Cosmopolitanism is both a normative and empirical notion which is made up of layers of methodological and theoretical controversies. The discussion on cosmopolitanism took an empirical turn in the early 2010s with ethnographic studies of cosmopolitan encounters, identities, practices and sites, leading David Harvey to speak of a “proliferation of hyphenated-cosmopolitanisms” and “counter-cosmopolitanisms” (Harvey 2009: 1) Building upon these controversies, this book uses the lens of cosmopolitan as a way to explore and make sense of urban diversity and migrant belonging in the global era.

While engaging with renewed empirical debates about cosmopolitanism, this book takes another turn, the urban turn, as a way to further specify the notion of cosmopolitanism and ground the discussion. Building upon empirical research and qualitative methods, we take stock of the varieties of cosmopolitanisms and urbanities in a globalized world. We do so by combining cases from the Global North and Global South at a time when most research on cosmopolitan urbanism have only looked at Northern contexts (Binnie et al. 2006). By doing so, we address a gap in both urban and migration research: while the urban frame is the obvious context of cosmopolitanism and the *polis* its philosophical and political grounding, the articulation between the two has been overlooked. In the literature on cosmopolitanism, cities have been mostly considered as a *décor* of cosmopolitan interactions. Conversely, urban scholarship has merely used cosmopolitanism as one descriptive category among others in an attempt to refer to specific forms of urban diversity connected to international migrations. Authors in this book shed new light on core notions in urban studies (global cities and mid-size cities, social and spatial stratification, gentrification, segregation, urban politics, public spaces, city branding) as well as migration and mobility studies (diversity, class-based mobilities, local incorporation and ethnic businesses).

In this book we propose to conceptualize cosmopolitanism as a series of tensions:

- The tension between material or legal configurations *and* social change or agency. This tension is nailed at the macro and micro levels, looking at historical changes and also daily negotiations with order and authority in their pragmatic and concrete forms.

- The tension between social hierarchies (inequalities) *and* emancipation. This tension is observed in how migrants and non-migrants use cosmopolitan situations and contexts.

- The tension between differentiation/exclusion *and* inclusion/belonging. By broadening perspectives, cosmopolitanism can precisely address this tension, which anyway needs to be situated in specific enclaves or sites and at specific moments.
This book chooses cosmopolitanism as a crucial notion to study migration and mobility in contemporary cities. Central to debates in the early 1990s debates to describe the changes induced by the second modernity, cosmopolitanism was later reframed, recast, and criticized for its ambivalence and political loading, for its Western centrism, uprootedness and theoretical biases. We claim that it is the very “thickness” of the notion that makes it useful. Cosmopolitanism is both a normative and empirical notion which is made up of layers of methodological and theoretical controversies. The discussion on cosmopolitanism took an empirical turn in the early 2010s with ethnographic studies of cosmopolitan encounters, identities, practices and sites, leading David Harvey to speak of a “proliferation of hyphenated-cosmopolitanisms” and “counter-cosmopolitanisms” (Harvey 2009: 1) Building upon these controversies, this book uses the lens of cosmopolitan as a way to explore and make sense of urban diversity and migrant belonging in the global era.

While engaging with renewed empirical debates about cosmopolitanism, this book takes another turn, the urban turn, as a way to further specify the notion of cosmopolitanism and ground the discussion. Building upon empirical research and qualitative methods, we take stock of the varieties of cosmopolitanisms and urbanities in a globalized world. We do so by combining cases from the Global North and Global South at a time when most research on cosmopolitan urbanism have only looked at Northern contexts (Binnie et al. 2006). By doing so, we address a gap in both urban and migration research: while the urban frame is the obvious context of cosmopolitanism and the *polis* its philosophical and political grounding, the articulation between the two has been overlooked. In the literature on cosmopolitanism, cities have been mostly considered as a *décor* of cosmopolitan interactions. Conversely, urban scholarship has merely used cosmopolitanism as one descriptive category among others in an attempt to refer to specific forms of urban diversity connected to international migrations. Authors in this book shed new light on core notions in urban studies (global cities and mid-size cities, social and spatial stratification, gentrification, segregation, urban politics, public spaces, city branding) as well as migration and mobility studies (diversity, class-based mobilities, local incorporation and ethnic businesses).

In this book we propose to conceptualize cosmopolitanism as a series of tensions:

- The tension between material or legal configurations *and* social change or agency. This tension is nailed at the macro and micro levels, looking at historical changes and also daily negotiations with order and authority in their pragmatic and concrete forms.

- The tension between social hierarchies (inequalities) *and* emancipation. This tension is observed in how migrants and non-migrants use cosmopolitan situations and contexts.

- The tension between differentiation/exclusion *and* inclusion/belonging. By broadening perspectives, cosmopolitanism can precisely address this tension, which anyway needs to be situated in specific enclaves or sites and at specific moments.
- The tension between conflict *and* cooperation. The “cosmopolitan coexistence” of migrants and non-migrants can therefore be studied through sets of conflictual and cooperative social interactions over time and space.

## 1.1 Cities and Urbanity

The city has long been central in the study of social interactions, cooperation and conflicts, as a site of social reproduction and change. Conceptualized by early sociological work (Simmel 1908; Wirth 1938), urban ways of life and “urbanism” should be understood as specific set of practices, skills and values (*urbanities*). Simmel, for instance, talked about the prototype of the Stranger as a trader with a specific function in the urban ecosystem, a particular position in urban society and a specific identity. The prototype embodies the city’s tension between distance and proximity, which is central to understanding cosmopolitanism and lived diversity (Schmoll forthcoming, Pagès-El Karoui forthcoming). Today, migrant traders and shopkeepers are still central figures in urban cosmopolitanism, as discussed in the chapters by Akoka et al. for shops in Nicosia (Cyprus) and Fournet Guérin for Maputo and Antananarivo. As Montesquieu already argued in the eighteenth century, commerce may act as an agent of pacification at the global level – and this liberal paradigm can also apply at the city level through interpersonal relations. Commercial relations function as symbolic exchanges between migrants and non-migrants and among migrants (Ma Mung 2006; Tarrius 2000). They induce new forms of cosmopolitanism as shown in the case of North African traders in the French city of Marseilles (Peraldi 2001) or Naples (Schmoll 2011).

Social geographers also characterize cities as places of density and diversity (Levy 1997). Richard Sennett explains that the sociological tradition of the Chicago School equates urbanity with cosmopolitanism, the urban condition being defined as a specific way to deal with alterity and diversity (Sennett 2002, 43). A recent debate was fueled notably by sociologist Saskia Sassen’s use of “cityness” to designate urban ways of life in a globalized world instead of “urbanity,” which, she argued, is charged with a Western sense of cosmopolitanism of what public space is or should be (Sassen 2005). Other work echoes the idea that urbanity is far too ethnic-centric as a concept and anchored in Western contexts and histories (Parnell and Oldfield 2014). In turn, we argue that the term “urbanity” can be used in a critical and polycentric perspective as long as it is connected to empirical case studies that are positioned in various spaces and contexts. We adopt Julie-Anne Boudreau’s definition as she builds on a century of urban research from Wirth to Bourdieu: “urbanity is a historically situated and unevenly distributed condition which influences lifestyles, modes of interactions, and collective and individual logics of action, no matter where one lives” (Boudreau 2015). We focus on the complex entanglements between urbanity and circulation. *Urbanity* thus describes the
- The tension between conflict *and* cooperation. The “cosmopolitan coexistence” of migrants and non-migrants can therefore be studied through sets of conflictual and cooperative social interactions over time and space.

## 1.1 Cities and Urbanity

The city has long been central in the study of social interactions, cooperation and conflicts, as a site of social reproduction and change. Conceptualized by early sociological work (Simmel 1908; Wirth 1938), urban ways of life and “urbanism” should be understood as specific set of practices, skills and values (*urbanities*). Simmel, for instance, talked about the prototype of the Stranger as a trader with a specific function in the urban ecosystem, a particular position in urban society and a specific identity. The prototype embodies the city’s tension between distance and proximity, which is central to understanding cosmopolitanism and lived diversity (Schmoll forthcoming, Pagès-El Karoui forthcoming). Today, migrant traders and shopkeepers are still central figures in urban cosmopolitanism, as discussed in the chapters by Akoka et al. for shops in Nicosia (Cyprus) and Fournet Guérin for Maputo and Antananarivo. As Montesquieu already argued in the eighteenth century, commerce may act as an agent of pacification at the global level – and this liberal paradigm can also apply at the city level through interpersonal relations. Commercial relations function as symbolic exchanges between migrants and non-migrants and among migrants (Ma Mung 2006; Tarrius 2000). They induce new forms of cosmopolitanism as shown in the case of North African traders in the French city of Marseilles (Peraldi 2001) or Naples (Schmoll 2011).

Social geographers also characterize cities as places of density and diversity (Levy 1997). Richard Sennett explains that the sociological tradition of the Chicago School equates urbanity with cosmopolitanism, the urban condition being defined as a specific way to deal with alterity and diversity (Sennett 2002, 43). A recent debate was fueled notably by sociologist Saskia Sassen’s use of “cityness” to designate urban ways of life in a globalized world instead of “urbanity,” which, she argued, is charged with a Western sense of cosmopolitanism of what public space is or should be (Sassen 2005). Other work echoes the idea that urbanity is far too ethnic-centric as a concept and anchored in Western contexts and histories (Parnell and Oldfield 2014). In turn, we argue that the term “urbanity” can be used in a critical and polycentric perspective as long as it is connected to empirical case studies that are positioned in various spaces and contexts. We adopt Julie-Anne Boudreau’s definition as she builds on a century of urban research from Wirth to Bourdieu: “urbanity is a historically situated and unevenly distributed condition which influences lifestyles, modes of interactions, and collective and individual logics of action, no matter where one lives” (Boudreau 2015). We focus on the complex entanglements between urbanity and circulation. *Urbanity* thus describes the
interplay between spatial configurations and social practices, identities and repre-
sentations, an interplay which is geared towards circulation between worlds. It
expands practices and representations beyond the city itself, notably through trans-
national networks. The *city*, on the one hand, is organized as a site of differentiation
through architecture and socio-political regulations that separate classes, genders,
races and ethnicities, etc. *Urbanity*, on the other hand, temporarily counterbalances
social differentiation and distancing (Moraes Netto 2017; see Semi in this volume).
Such definitions therefore address urbanity both as a condition and as an experi-
ence. As urbanity renewed urban research in early sociological work and provided
a framework to rethink modernity in the twentieth century, we reckon that *cosmo-
politanism as urbanity* generates a fruitful paradigm to understand contemporary
world transformations at the global level.

1.2 Cosmopolitanisms

Cosmopolitanism stands out as a radical political project that travelled from politi-
cal philosophy to social theory. Interest for the notion was renewed by the social,
cultural, political and economic changes of the modern globalized era in the 1990s:
cosmopolitanism was reframed as the normative project of a “second modernity”
(Beck 1996, 2016). Recently, it has become an object of study in empirical research
under the auspices of new anthropological research (Werbner 2008). Used, over-
used and misused across disciplines and times, its semantic trajectory has gone from
fame to shame, summits to downfalls. More importantly, cosmopolitanism some-
times even eschews proper definition (Breckenridge et al. 2002, 1–14) and therefore
fails to actually describe and characterize cosmopolitan subjects and contexts.
Despite this blurriness, cosmopolitanism has generated a great wealth of social sci-
ence literature and, alongside other key notions like nationalism, citizenship, and
sovereignty, has shaped the sociological imagination of scholars. Research is
strongly polarized between extremely theoretical endeavors (based on abstract and
normative reasoning from philosophy to social theory) and empirically grounded
studies focusing on one or several case studies. This polarization prevents us from
thinking the complexity of cosmopolitanism in the making and processes of social
changes in the global era.

From its Greek philosophical roots to social theory, cosmopolitanism has
changed with time, spanning a multitude of meanings that may even be contradic-
tory at times. Cosmopolitanism involves both normative concerns, pragmatic
accounts of social interactions and empirical descriptions of spaces, sites and places.
However, with its focus on militant concerns for democratic theory, it has some-
times lost sight of the lives, lifestyles, practices, interactions, tastes, places and
spaces dwelled and claimed by “cosmopolitan subjects.” As a political project
enshrining rights and duties, cosmopolitanism, it is fair to say, has failed to become
a reference point for contemporary political systems or in national and international
discourses still dominated by methodological nationalism and state sovereignty.
interplay between spatial configurations and social practices, identities and repre-
sentations, an interplay which is geared towards circulation between worlds. It
expands practices and representations beyond the city itself, notably through trans-
national networks. The *city*, on the one hand, is organized as a site of differentiation
through architecture and socio-political regulations that separate classes, genders,
races and ethnicities, etc. *Urbanity*, on the other hand, temporarily counterbalances
social differentiation and distancing (Moraes Netto 2017; see Semi in this volume).
Such definitions therefore address urbanity both as a condition and as an experi-
ence. As urbanity renewed urban research in early sociological work and provided
a framework to rethink modernity in the twentieth century, we reckon that *cosmo-
politanism as urbanity* generates a fruitful paradigm to understand contemporary
world transformations at the global level.

1.2 Cosmopolitanisms

Cosmopolitanism stands out as a radical political project that travelled from politi-
cal philosophy to social theory. Interest for the notion was renewed by the social,
cultural, political and economic changes of the modern globalized era in the 1990s:
cosmopolitanism was reframed as the normative project of a “second modernity”
(Beck 1996, 2016). Recently, it has become an object of study in empirical research
under the auspices of new anthropological research (Werbner 2008). Used, over-
used and misused across disciplines and times, its semantic trajectory has gone from
fame to shame, summits to downfalls. More importantly, cosmopolitanism some-
times even eschews proper definition (Breckenridge et al. 2002, 1–14) and therefore
fails to actually describe and characterize cosmopolitan subjects and contexts.
Despite this blurriness, cosmopolitanism has generated a great wealth of social sci-
ence literature and, alongside other key notions like nationalism, citizenship, and
sovereignty, has shaped the sociological imagination of scholars. Research is
strongly polarized between extremely theoretical endeavors (based on abstract and
normative reasoning from philosophy to social theory) and empirically grounded
studies focusing on one or several case studies. This polarization prevents us from
thinking the complexity of cosmopolitanism in the making and processes of social
changes in the global era.

From its Greek philosophical roots to social theory, cosmopolitanism has
changed with time, spanning a multitude of meanings that may even be contradic-
tory at times. Cosmopolitanism involves both normative concerns, pragmatic
accounts of social interactions and empirical descriptions of spaces, sites and places.
However, with its focus on militant concerns for democratic theory, it has some-
times lost sight of the lives, lifestyles, practices, interactions, tastes, places and
spaces dwelled and claimed by “cosmopolitan subjects.” As a political project
enshrining rights and duties, cosmopolitanism, it is fair to say, has failed to become
a reference point for contemporary political systems or in national and international
discourses still dominated by methodological nationalism and state sovereignty.
If cosmopolitanism was intensely discussed in the 1990s, it has now lost momentum
in the research agendas, findings and rhetoric of contemporary empirical social sci-
ence. It is absent from the discourse of political leaders and practitioners of social
fields in a presumably cosmopolitan world made up of global cities, diasporic net-
works, transnational social fields, diverse neighborhoods. Indeed, Kant and the
Enlightenment tradition equate cosmopolitanism with a “utopian horizon” of
humanist values and tolerance opposing the narrow perspectives of nationally-based
identities and rights. The international dimension of cosmopolitanism tends to be
understood, by Beck, for instance, as a means to subvert the sovereign order and
bind nation-states rather than as a ground for a perpetual peace in a hierarchical
world order, as Kant foresaw it (Beck 2002; Brown 2009). This early tradition,
however, remains quite foreign to the discussion on diversity within nation states or
cities. Kant simply equates domestic cosmopolitanism with some sort of legal indif-
ference to otherness (the rule of law applied to all regardless of their nationality/citi-
zenship). As such, the cosmopolitan claim has been considered mostly as a move
away from a state-centric perspective on social and political dynamics and a way to
shun methodological nationalism (Beck 2007).

Cosmopolitanism in its plural forms is embedded within complex “geometries of
power” (Massey 1999). In recent postcolonial and gender perspectives, cosmopoli-
tanism acquired an ambivalent meaning, moving away from the moral projects of
Enlightenment theorists and its political implementations. Cosmopolitanism bears a
primarily cultural meaning (Pollock et al. 2002, Appadurai 1996), referring to
hybrid cultures that emerge from colonial empires. It remains connected to relations
of domination in colonial orders and their aftermath, and cosmopolitan cultures and
practices are part and parcel of the postcolonial condition. Reminding researchers
of the prevalence of power relations even within cosmopolitan contexts and situa-
tions certainly shatters the fantasy of a universalist morality. Postcolonial writers
certainly changed the meaning of cosmopolitanism: dynamics of cultural hybridiza-
tion and practices of mobility are always embedded in hierarchies of race, gender,
class, etc.

Pnina Werbner has criticized the class bias of cosmopolitanism, its failure to
address the diversity of classes, groups and hierarchies within cosmopolitan encoun-
ters and configurations (Werbner 1999; see also Calhoun 2002; Schiller et al. 2011;
Vertovec and Cohen 2002). The *cosmopolis* of the “frequent traveler” and that of the
transnational “helot” (Cohen 1988) are worlds apart. The spaces and characteristics
of “their” cosmopolitan experience, their cosmopolitan subjectivity, cover radically
diverse traits. Cosmopolitanism, we argue alongside these authors, should unveil
and reflect upon the hierarchies and power relations of the globalized world, together
with its hybridity and fluidity. Cosmopolitans are described along the class-based
differentiation between mobile transnational elites (Ong 1999) or managerial elites
enacting the *habitus* of a translocal (hyper)bourgeoisie and working-class migrants
enacting their “working class or vernacular cosmopolitanisms” (Werbner 1999,
2006), forming the two “global” classes identified by Saskia Sassen (2001). The
middle class, however, has received far less attention, and this book certainly fills a
gap in this regard (see Lejeune, Pagès-El Karoui, Poulot, Semi in this volume). This
If cosmopolitanism was intensely discussed in the 1990s, it has now lost momentum
in the research agendas, findings and rhetoric of contemporary empirical social sci-
ence. It is absent from the discourse of political leaders and practitioners of social
fields in a presumably cosmopolitan world made up of global cities, diasporic net-
works, transnational social fields, diverse neighborhoods. Indeed, Kant and the
Enlightenment tradition equate cosmopolitanism with a “utopian horizon” of
humanist values and tolerance opposing the narrow perspectives of nationally-based
identities and rights. The international dimension of cosmopolitanism tends to be
understood, by Beck, for instance, as a means to subvert the sovereign order and
bind nation-states rather than as a ground for a perpetual peace in a hierarchical
world order, as Kant foresaw it (Beck 2002; Brown 2009). This early tradition,
however, remains quite foreign to the discussion on diversity within nation states or
cities. Kant simply equates domestic cosmopolitanism with some sort of legal indif-
ference to otherness (the rule of law applied to all regardless of their nationality/citi-
zenship). As such, the cosmopolitan claim has been considered mostly as a move
away from a state-centric perspective on social and political dynamics and a way to
shun methodological nationalism (Beck 2007).

Cosmopolitanism in its plural forms is embedded within complex “geometries of
power” (Massey 1999). In recent postcolonial and gender perspectives, cosmopoli-
tanism acquired an ambivalent meaning, moving away from the moral projects of
Enlightenment theorists and its political implementations. Cosmopolitanism bears a
primarily cultural meaning (Pollock et al. 2002, Appadurai 1996), referring to
hybrid cultures that emerge from colonial empires. It remains connected to relations
of domination in colonial orders and their aftermath, and cosmopolitan cultures and
practices are part and parcel of the postcolonial condition. Reminding researchers
of the prevalence of power relations even within cosmopolitan contexts and situa-
tions certainly shatters the fantasy of a universalist morality. Postcolonial writers
certainly changed the meaning of cosmopolitanism: dynamics of cultural hybridiza-
tion and practices of mobility are always embedded in hierarchies of race, gender,
class, etc.

Pnina Werbner has criticized the class bias of cosmopolitanism, its failure to
address the diversity of classes, groups and hierarchies within cosmopolitan encoun-
ters and configurations (Werbner 1999; see also Calhoun 2002; Schiller et al. 2011;
Vertovec and Cohen 2002). The *cosmopolis* of the “frequent traveler” and that of the
transnational “helot” (Cohen 1988) are worlds apart. The spaces and characteristics
of “their” cosmopolitan experience, their cosmopolitan subjectivity, cover radically
diverse traits. Cosmopolitanism, we argue alongside these authors, should unveil
and reflect upon the hierarchies and power relations of the globalized world, together
with its hybridity and fluidity. Cosmopolitans are described along the class-based
differentiation between mobile transnational elites (Ong 1999) or managerial elites
enacting the *habitus* of a translocal (hyper)bourgeoisie and working-class migrants
enacting their “working class or vernacular cosmopolitanisms” (Werbner 1999,
2006), forming the two “global” classes identified by Saskia Sassen (2001). The
middle class, however, has received far less attention, and this book certainly fills a
gap in this regard (see Lejeune, Pagès-El Karoui, Poulot, Semi in this volume). This
critique also applies for race, gender and generational differentiation in access to space, culture, recognition and identity, bringing intersectionality into the scientific and political debates.

This book questions the relationship between mobility and cosmopolitanization in times of increasing circulations. Beck pointed at travelers and migrants as major protagonists of processes of cosmopolitanization (2002). However, whether the intensification of mobility and circulation is producing more cosmopolitanism in cities still needs to be proven. In this book we show that the relationship between mobility and cosmopolitanism is ambivalent and complex. Exiles stranded in border cities (like the one described by Michel Agier, Chap. 13, in this volume) may be more cosmopolitan than the global elite circulating between generic places (as described by Jan Duyvendak and Melissa Ley-Cervantes) or city makers (as described by Semi).

Authors in this book vary in their use of the notion of cosmopolitanism: according to contexts and disciplines it can be loaded with political and normative dimensions or merely descriptive. It can refer solely to international migrants and asylum seekers (Agier, Thiollet and Assaf, Pagès el-Karoui, Schmoll Clochard Akoka and Polyzou, Fournet-Guérin), migrant youths and descendants of migrants (Lejeune) or also to internal migrants or non-migrants (Mermier, Chap. 5, Fouquet, Chap. 4, Poulot, Chap. 9, Fournet-Guérin, Chap. 7, in this book) and travelers (Semi, Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes). In some chapters, cosmopolitanism is an *etic* concept used by researchers and others, an *emic* category employed by actors such as urban planners and architects in Giovanni Semi's chapter. Some authors engage with the debates on the variety of cosmopolitanisms and the critiques of the concept, others use it with more caution and resort to other notions such as conviviality, diversity, belonging and acts of citizenship (Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes, Le Bail and Lieber, Semi, Lejeune). In the course of this book, the notion is therefore contested, challenged and put to the test of variegated empirical and epistemic contexts.

## 1.3 Situating Cosmopolitanisms

Although often mentioned, the spatial and/or local dimension of the “cosmopolitan situation” is often barely conceptualized or discussed as such. In the wake of David Harvey’s call for the analysis of the conditions for the emergence of cosmopolitanisms in their historical and geographical contexts (Harvey 2009), some geographers have emphasized the eminently geographical dimension of cosmopolitanism (Yeoh 2004), a tendency used with greater frequency in recent years (see Poulot and Fournet-Guérin in this volume). Such a stance implies looking at specific local situations of encounters, such as coffee places and streets (see chapters from Akoka et al. and Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes). The book thus pays particular attention to the *sites* of interaction, the *canopies* theorized by Elijah Anderson (2012), to capture cosmopolitanism as a process (Beck 2016).
critique also applies for race, gender and generational differentiation in access to space, culture, recognition and identity, bringing intersectionality into the scientific and political debates.

This book questions the relationship between mobility and cosmopolitanization in times of increasing circulations. Beck pointed at travelers and migrants as major protagonists of processes of cosmopolitanization (2002). However, whether the intensification of mobility and circulation is producing more cosmopolitanism in cities still needs to be proven. In this book we show that the relationship between mobility and cosmopolitanism is ambivalent and complex. Exiles stranded in border cities (like the one described by Michel Agier, Chap. 13, in this volume) may be more cosmopolitan than the global elite circulating between generic places (as described by Jan Duyvendak and Melissa Ley-Cervantes) or city makers (as described by Semi).

Authors in this book vary in their use of the notion of cosmopolitanism: according to contexts and disciplines it can be loaded with political and normative dimensions or merely descriptive. It can refer solely to international migrants and asylum seekers (Agier, Thiollet and Assaf, Pagès el-Karoui, Schmoll Clochard Akoka and Polyzou, Fournet-Guérin), migrant youths and descendants of migrants (Lejeune) or also to internal migrants or non-migrants (Mermier, Chap. 5, Fouquet, Chap. 4, Poulot, Chap. 9, Fournet-Guérin, Chap. 7, in this book) and travelers (Semi, Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes). In some chapters, cosmopolitanism is an *etic* concept used by researchers and others, an *emic* category employed by actors such as urban planners and architects in Giovanni Semi's chapter. Some authors engage with the debates on the variety of cosmopolitanisms and the critiques of the concept, others use it with more caution and resort to other notions such as conviviality, diversity, belonging and acts of citizenship (Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes, Le Bail and Lieber, Semi, Lejeune). In the course of this book, the notion is therefore contested, challenged and put to the test of variegated empirical and epistemic contexts.

## 1.3 Situating Cosmopolitanisms

Although often mentioned, the spatial and/or local dimension of the “cosmopolitan situation” is often barely conceptualized or discussed as such. In the wake of David Harvey’s call for the analysis of the conditions for the emergence of cosmopolitanisms in their historical and geographical contexts (Harvey 2009), some geographers have emphasized the eminently geographical dimension of cosmopolitanism (Yeoh 2004), a tendency used with greater frequency in recent years (see Poulot and Fournet-Guérin in this volume). Such a stance implies looking at specific local situations of encounters, such as coffee places and streets (see chapters from Akoka et al. and Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes). The book thus pays particular attention to the *sites* of interaction, the *canopies* theorized by Elijah Anderson (2012), to capture cosmopolitanism as a process (Beck 2016).
As such, this book investigates the role of the city in cosmopolitanism by docu-
menting cosmopolitan practices in the city and focusing on *situated* versions of
cosmopolitanisms. It interrogates what the city does to cosmopolitanism and what
cosmopolitanism does to the city. Researching cosmopolitanism, then, requires
investigating the meaning of places that are constantly negotiated, debated, ques-
tioned. Rather than branding some specific cities or sites as more cosmopolitan than
others, our intent is to contextualize cosmopolitanism as urbanity in space and time.

Across space, the book thus offers comparisons between various scales and spa-
tial levels: global cities and smaller towns, neighborhoods, streets, refugee camps,
borders, and airports in various world regions (Africa, Europe, North America,
Middle East), therefore overcoming the usual Western approach to cosmopolitan-
ism. This approach breaks with the usual empirical divide between cities in the
North and South (Robinson 2002). This comparative and descriptive approach
echoes other studies that have engaged with diversity in specific contexts (Glick
Schiller and Çağlar 2011).

Across time, the authors in this volume adopt a diachronic take on cosmopolitan interactions: they study daytime street life and the urban nightlife, workplaces and waiting spaces, hotels and coffee places in between travels, family life and the home, picnic areas and shopping malls, etc. The chapters also pay attention to the historical dynamics of urban settings, architecture, and the material configurations of urbanity. They consider the history of migration, citizenship and mobility regimes to embed the local variations of cosmopolitanism within historical contexts.

Urbanity can thus be conceptualized fully, not only as geographically and his-
torically situated but also as a momentary experience of transcending differences: as
such, urbanity urges us to look at moments of ordinary life, such as the differentia-
tion between day and night (see Fouquet, Chap. 4, in this book), or at the making of
temporary situations, such as urban interstices (see Akoka et al., Chap. 8, in
this book).

By comparing spaces and moments, histories and sites, we contribute to theoreti-
cal debates opened up by urban ethnographers and migration researchers who have
sought to characterize cosmopolitanism and diversity (Vertovec 2007; Wessendorf
2013). Several notions are used to analyze the cosmopolitan dynamics and prac-
tices, such as the cosmopolitan situation (Rinaudo and Hily 2003), rooted (Appiah
2006), circumstantial (Berthomière 2003), ordinary (Lamont and Aksartova 2002),
everyday (Schmoll 2003), vernacular (Pollock et al. 2002, Werbner 1999), tactical
cosmopolitanism, wounded (Rose 2015) and subaltern cosmopolitanism (Zeng
2014). Building upon these more specific notions, the various chapters explore the
tensions mentioned above between structure and agency, hierarchies and emancipa-
tion, inclusion and exclusion, conflict and cooperation. They thus bring pluralistic
views on a cosmopolitanism of practices and encounters embodied in contacts and
trajectories, emotions and positions anchored in the spatial dimension of social and
power relations of urban settings.
As such, this book investigates the role of the city in cosmopolitanism by docu-
menting cosmopolitan practices in the city and focusing on *situated* versions of
cosmopolitanisms. It interrogates what the city does to cosmopolitanism and what
cosmopolitanism does to the city. Researching cosmopolitanism, then, requires
investigating the meaning of places that are constantly negotiated, debated, ques-
tioned. Rather than branding some specific cities or sites as more cosmopolitan than
others, our intent is to contextualize cosmopolitanism as urbanity in space and time.

Across space, the book thus offers comparisons between various scales and spa-
tial levels: global cities and smaller towns, neighborhoods, streets, refugee camps,
borders, and airports in various world regions (Africa, Europe, North America,
Middle East), therefore overcoming the usual Western approach to cosmopolitan-
ism. This approach breaks with the usual empirical divide between cities in the
North and South (Robinson 2002). This comparative and descriptive approach
echoes other studies that have engaged with diversity in specific contexts (Glick
Schiller and Çağlar 2011).

Across time, the authors in this volume adopt a diachronic take on cosmopolitan interactions: they study daytime street life and the urban nightlife, workplaces and waiting spaces, hotels and coffee places in between travels, family life and the home, picnic areas and shopping malls, etc. The chapters also pay attention to the historical dynamics of urban settings, architecture, and the material configurations of urbanity. They consider the history of migration, citizenship and mobility regimes to embed the local variations of cosmopolitanism within historical contexts.

Urbanity can thus be conceptualized fully, not only as geographically and his-
torically situated but also as a momentary experience of transcending differences: as
such, urbanity urges us to look at moments of ordinary life, such as the differentia-
tion between day and night (see Fouquet, Chap. 4, in this book), or at the making of
temporary situations, such as urban interstices (see Akoka et al., Chap. 8, in
this book).

By comparing spaces and moments, histories and sites, we contribute to theoreti-
cal debates opened up by urban ethnographers and migration researchers who have
sought to characterize cosmopolitanism and diversity (Vertovec 2007; Wessendorf
2013). Several notions are used to analyze the cosmopolitan dynamics and prac-
tices, such as the cosmopolitan situation (Rinaudo and Hily 2003), rooted (Appiah
2006), circumstantial (Berthomière 2003), ordinary (Lamont and Aksartova 2002),
everyday (Schmoll 2003), vernacular (Pollock et al. 2002, Werbner 1999), tactical
cosmopolitanism, wounded (Rose 2015) and subaltern cosmopolitanism (Zeng
2014). Building upon these more specific notions, the various chapters explore the
tensions mentioned above between structure and agency, hierarchies and emancipa-
tion, inclusion and exclusion, conflict and cooperation. They thus bring pluralistic
views on a cosmopolitanism of practices and encounters embodied in contacts and
trajectories, emotions and positions anchored in the spatial dimension of social and
power relations of urban settings.
## 1.4 Migrants and (Urban) Change

Since the 2010s, border policies and migration controls have progressively toughened and the question of migrants' agency has become more stringent. Renewed nationalist discourses and identity politics are also contributing to the increased fragility of some migrants and foreign communities in the Global North and the Global South, both in liberal and illiberal contexts. Local policies, in turn, have a crucial role in the multiscalar governance of migration. Migrant-friendly policies implemented on the local level include contemporary sanctuary cities which promote new forms of citizenship (Isin 2002) or cities of refuge (see Lejeune in this volume). At the other end of the spectrum, local policies may foster segregation and abjection. The positions of cities towards migrants may differ totally from national policies, as shown during the 2015 "refugee crisis" in Europe. Expanding upon the universalist claims of the right to cosmopolitanism formulated by Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida introduced the idea of "city of refuge," which enacts the principle of cosmopolitan hospitality in urban settings (Derrida 1997).<fnref n="1" /> His call has been taken extremely seriously by scholars (see Agier, Chap. 13, in this book) and some European mayors - most notably Leoluca Orlando of Palermo in 2015 - who have declared their constituencies "cities of refuge" in the context of the refugee crisis. Cosmopolitan hospitality is thus opposed in the policy making arena to the current wake of nationalism and populism.

In this wider context, migrants are easily turned into objects of migration and integration policies, powerless victims of state policies. A strong trend of contemporary scholarship in migration studies, however, seeks to capture the contribution of migrants to urban and social change and the agency of mobile individuals, regardless of their status (Mainwaring 2016).

This book fits in this literature and acknowledges that migrants are actors in the process of cosmopolitanization or counter-cosmopolitanization (Glick Schiller 2015). It offers a novel take on the agency of migrants and mobile individuals. Their presence and circulation contribute to the production of meanings and feelings for both migrants and non-migrants. Nick Van Hear thus defends the idea that "taking account of migrants' agency, perceptions and aspirations" allows us to link micro-level understanding of migration to macro-level trends in development and globalisation (Van Hear 2010). We contend that despite structurally unequal settings, migrants and even refugees can contribute to social change, even if their methodological victimization often prevents us from seeing the transformative impact of their presence in both host, transit and origin countries. They do so through everyday and subtle forms of participation, production and even

<footnote n="1">¹The Kantian definition of hospitality as "a moral and legal relation which hold among individuals across bounded communities" (Benhabib 2004) was used as a way to limit "the law of world citizenship to conditions of universal hospitality." Kant's definition was, at the time, extremely narrow, as it concerned merely a right to be treated "neutrally" (not a right to residency or belonging), and it did not apply to groups and races considered unworthy of the ethical acknowledgement.</footnote>
## 1.4 Migrants and (Urban) Change

Since the 2010s, border policies and migration controls have progressively toughened and the question of migrants' agency has become more stringent. Renewed nationalist discourses and identity politics are also contributing to the increased fragility of some migrants and foreign communities in the Global North and the Global South, both in liberal and illiberal contexts. Local policies, in turn, have a crucial role in the multiscalar governance of migration. Migrant-friendly policies implemented on the local level include contemporary sanctuary cities which promote new forms of citizenship (Isin 2002) or cities of refuge (see Lejeune in this volume). At the other end of the spectrum, local policies may foster segregation and abjection. The positions of cities towards migrants may differ totally from national policies, as shown during the 2015 "refugee crisis" in Europe. Expanding upon the universalist claims of the right to cosmopolitanism formulated by Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida introduced the idea of "city of refuge," which enacts the principle of cosmopolitan hospitality in urban settings (Derrida 1997).<fnref n="1" /> His call has been taken extremely seriously by scholars (see Agier, Chap. 13, in this book) and some European mayors - most notably Leoluca Orlando of Palermo in 2015 - who have declared their constituencies "cities of refuge" in the context of the refugee crisis. Cosmopolitan hospitality is thus opposed in the policy making arena to the current wake of nationalism and populism.

In this wider context, migrants are easily turned into objects of migration and integration policies, powerless victims of state policies. A strong trend of contemporary scholarship in migration studies, however, seeks to capture the contribution of migrants to urban and social change and the agency of mobile individuals, regardless of their status (Mainwaring 2016).

This book fits in this literature and acknowledges that migrants are actors in the process of cosmopolitanization or counter-cosmopolitanization (Glick Schiller 2015). It offers a novel take on the agency of migrants and mobile individuals. Their presence and circulation contribute to the production of meanings and feelings for both migrants and non-migrants. Nick Van Hear thus defends the idea that "taking account of migrants' agency, perceptions and aspirations" allows us to link micro-level understanding of migration to macro-level trends in development and globalisation (Van Hear 2010). We contend that despite structurally unequal settings, migrants and even refugees can contribute to social change, even if their methodological victimization often prevents us from seeing the transformative impact of their presence in both host, transit and origin countries. They do so through everyday and subtle forms of participation, production and even

<footnote n="1">¹The Kantian definition of hospitality as "a moral and legal relation which hold among individuals across bounded communities" (Benhabib 2004) was used as a way to limit "the law of world citizenship to conditions of universal hospitality." Kant's definition was, at the time, extremely narrow, as it concerned merely a right to be treated "neutrally" (not a right to residency or belonging), and it did not apply to groups and races considered unworthy of the ethical acknowledgement.</footnote>
subversion in workplaces (Scheibelhofer 2019) and private and public places (see Thiollet and Assaf, Chap. 12, in this book).

Glick Schiller and Caglar (2011) also showed that migrants and mobile agents participate in the scaling and re-scaling of cities. They contribute to changing the image of the city towards the outside world via international ranking, reputation and branding (see Mermier, Chap. 5, Pagès-El Karoui, Chap. 6, Poulot, Chap. 9, and Semi, Chap. 3, in this book). They reshape representations of cities from within via gentrification or impoverishment, via multiculturalization or segregation (see Lebail and Lieber, Chap. 10, in this book). This perspective moves away from cities as segregated spaces where interactions are entirely controlled through spatial partitions, a view that needs rethinking given the fluidity of urban changes and the changing dynamics of differentiation. They also move away from the idea that cosmopolitanization and its correlate changes are necessarily framed as positive. The figure of the migrant inducing social change does not leave aside the structural social, political and economic domination migrants suffer under. It also does not underplay the complex feelings of otherness or differential belonging that migrant experiences carry and their subjective alienation in national and local contexts (as Michel Agier investigates in his chapter). In fact, at various scales, the access to rights, the limited agency and the systems of domination and exploitation of migrants co-exist with regimes of privileges, those of the highly mobile elites and transient bourgeoisies who benefit from unlimited access to spaces. Political and economic inequalities across classes, ethnicities, nationalities, gender and age shape urban interactions but also the feelings and experiences of place, as shown for bourgeois travelers (see the chapter by Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes) or for urban designers (see the chapter by Semi). Such unequal cosmopolitan conditions are embodied and play out in the urban field in a variety of ways, according to material, spatial, symbolic, bodily, and timely contexts.

To concretely illustrate this theoretical stance, this book pays particular attention to consumption practices both in their substantial, spatial and ideational dimension: what do migrants and non-migrants consume? how and where do they consume it? what narratives or feelings are attached to consumption? Consumption involves key experiences of belonging or alienation, integration, hybridization or differentiation. As such, it works as an entry point to investigating the role of migrants in city changes, illustrating, for instance, how cities of production have become cities of *consumption* (Germann Molz 2011; Zukin 1998). In globalization studies, consumption is often referred to as a key indicator in assessing theories of cultural convergence, differentiation or hybridization: consuming global goods and frequenting generic places mean greater cosmopolitan feelings or a greater willingness to engage with diversity and the other (Hannerz 1990). On the contrary, ethnic consumption (and ethnic economies) would lead to fragmentation of cultures, social practices and relations of production (Fischer and Massey 2000). In between, some see signs of global hybridization and mixing in consumption. This book does not adhere to clear-cut views on consumption but rather explores the varieties of meanings and processes it carries which induce incremental changes for interactions, representations and material spaces. As such, consumption seems to rather operate
subversion in workplaces (Scheibelhofer 2019) and private and public places (see
Thiollet and Assaf, Chap. 12, in this book).

Glick Schiller and Caglar (2011) also showed that migrants and mobile agents
participate in the scaling and re-scaling of cities. They contribute to changing the
image of the city towards the outside world via international ranking, reputation and
branding (see Mermier, Chap. 5, Pagès-El Karoui, Chap. 6, Poulot, Chap. 9, and
Semi, Chap. 3, in this book). They reshape representations of cities from within via
gentrification or impoverishment, via multiculturalization or segregation (see Lebail
and Lieber, Chap. 10, in this book). This perspective moves away from cities as
segregated spaces where interactions are entirely controlled through spatial parti-
tions, a view that needs rethinking given the fluidity of urban changes and the
changing dynamics of differentiation. They also move away from the idea that cos-
mopolitanization and its correlate changes are necessarily framed as positive. The
figure of the migrant inducing social change does not leave aside the structural
social, political and economic domination migrants suffer under. It also does not
underplay the complex feelings of otherness or differential belonging that migrant
experiences carry and their subjective alienation in national and local contexts (as
Michel Agier investigates in his chapter). In fact, at various scales, the access to
rights, the limited agency and the systems of domination and exploitation of
migrants co-exist with regimes of privileges, those of the highly mobile elites and
transient bourgeoisies who benefit from unlimited access to spaces. Political and
economic inequalities across classes, ethnicities, nationalities, gender and age shape
urban interactions but also the feelings and experiences of place, as shown for bour-
geois travelers (see the chapter by Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes) or for urban
designers (see the chapter by Semi). Such unequal cosmopolitan conditions are
embodied and play out in the urban field in a variety of ways, according to material,
spatial, symbolic, bodily, and timely contexts.

To concretely illustrate this theoretical stance, this book pays particular attention
to consumption practices both in their substantial, spatial and ideational dimension:
what do migrants and non-migrants consume? how and where do they consume it?
what narratives or feelings are attached to consumption? Consumption involves key
experiences of belonging or alienation, integration, hybridization or differentiation.
As such, it works as an entry point to investigating the role of migrants in city
changes, illustrating, for instance, how cities of production have become cities of
consumption (Germann Molz 2011; Zukin 1998). In globalization studies, con-
sumption is often referred to as a key indicator in assessing theories of cultural
convergence, differentiation or hybridization: consuming global goods and fre-
quenting generic places mean greater cosmopolitan feelings or a greater willingness
to engage with diversity and the other (Hannerz 1990). On the contrary, ethnic con-
sumption (and ethnic economies) would lead to fragmentation of cultures, social
practices and relations of production (Fischer and Massey 2000). In between, some
see signs of global hybridization and mixing in consumption. This book does not
adhere to clear-cut views on consumption but rather explores the varieties of mean-
ings and processes it carries which induce incremental changes for interactions,
representations and material spaces. As such, consumption seems to rather operate
as one of the many factors of social and urban change, intersecting with other processes such as gentrification, suburbanization, and *touristification*, which is thus combined with dynamics of intersectional differentiation. Such a view builds upon previous research that showed how business directed to ethnic groups radically change the landscape and *sensescapes* of cities (Rhys-Taylor 2013).

The chapters of this book thus engage with the complexity of consumption practices and the variety of meanings consumption can acquire for migrants and non-migrants. Shopping malls built around the world display an immense variety of goods and stage cosmopolitan consumption even when societies remain extremely segregated and exclusionary (see the chapters by Pagès-El Karoui and Thiollet and Assaf). For buyers, strategies of consumption reflect the ambiguities of individual and collective identities: integrating into globalization, maintaining ethnic distinction, claiming cultural roots, adhering to local tastes, etc. In Cyprus, Mozambique, Madagascar or Québec, street-level consumption reveals contradictory cultural and social dynamics (see Akoka et al., Chap. 8, and Fournet-Guérin, Chap. 7, in this book) which are instrumentalized by local authorities for city branding and propaganda (see Poulot, Chap. 9, in this book). Cosmopolitanism has also been used in the Middle East and the Gulf since the 2000s as a form of nation branding (see Mermier, Chap. 5, and Pages El Karoui, Chap. 6, in this book). The book looks at the plurality of contexts in which the term is in use and branded in link with consumption in order to question cosmopolitanization at a time when illiberal migration regimes enforce increasingly exclusionary regulations.

Beyond consumption, none of the practices we observe at the city level are devoid of political meaning even if they seem to be depoliticized. Some of the authors in this book find that these practices contribute to what we could call a moral economy of cosmopolitanism as urbanity (see Thiollet and Assaf, Chap. 12, in this book). Following Didier Fassin, we define moral economy as “the production, distribution, circulation, and use of moral sentiments, emotions and values, and norms and obligations in social space” (2009, 37). Everyday urban habits and policies jointly and iteratively define urban moral regimes, deciding who deserves to be empowered or attracted in/by the city, and, conversely, who does not deserve to have access to the city or some of its spaces (see Lebail and Lieber, Chap. 10, Pagès el-Karoui, Chap. 6, in this book). They also rule on migrants’ visibility: who is entitled to be seen and who should remain invisible in public spaces like working class migrant men in the Gulf countries (se Pagès el-Karoui, Chap. 6, Thiollet and Assaf, Chap. 12, in this book) or chinese sex workers in Paris (Le Bail and Lieber, Chap. 10, in this book). Finally, they induce differential feelings and senses of self, of belonging or of alienation that translate into discourses and behaviors, as in the case of the global elite in Madrid (Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes, Chap. 2, in this book) or urban youth in Dakar at night (Fouquet in this volume). These feelings and practices delineate the moral boundaries of everyday life alongside legal and official prescriptions. The empirical descriptions provided in each chapter thus contribute to a rich discussion on cosmopolitanism that stems from everyday practices, material configurations and emotions at the city level.
as one of the many factors of social and urban change, intersecting with other processes such as gentrification, suburbanization, and *touristification*, which is thus combined with dynamics of intersectional differentiation. Such a view builds upon previous research that showed how business directed to ethnic groups radically change the landscape and *sensescapes* of cities (Rhys-Taylor 2013).

The chapters of this book thus engage with the complexity of consumption practices and the variety of meanings consumption can acquire for migrants and non-migrants. Shopping malls built around the world display an immense variety of goods and stage cosmopolitan consumption even when societies remain extremely segregated and exclusionary (see the chapters by Pagès-El Karoui and Thiollet and Assaf). For buyers, strategies of consumption reflect the ambiguities of individual and collective identities: integrating into globalization, maintaining ethnic distinction, claiming cultural roots, adhering to local tastes, etc. In Cyprus, Mozambique, Madagascar or Québec, street-level consumption reveals contradictory cultural and social dynamics (see Akoka et al., Chap. 8, and Fournet-Guérin, Chap. 7, in this book) which are instrumentalized by local authorities for city branding and propaganda (see Poulot, Chap. 9, in this book). Cosmopolitanism has also been used in the Middle East and the Gulf since the 2000s as a form of nation branding (see Mermier, Chap. 5, and Pages El Karoui, Chap. 6, in this book). The book looks at the plurality of contexts in which the term is in use and branded in link with consumption in order to question cosmopolitanization at a time when illiberal migration regimes enforce increasingly exclusionary regulations.

Beyond consumption, none of the practices we observe at the city level are devoid of political meaning even if they seem to be depoliticized. Some of the authors in this book find that these practices contribute to what we could call a moral economy of cosmopolitanism as urbanity (see Thiollet and Assaf, Chap. 12, in this book). Following Didier Fassin, we define moral economy as “the production, distribution, circulation, and use of moral sentiments, emotions and values, and norms and obligations in social space” (2009, 37). Everyday urban habits and policies jointly and iteratively define urban moral regimes, deciding who deserves to be empowered or attracted in/by the city, and, conversely, who does not deserve to have access to the city or some of its spaces (see Lebail and Lieber, Chap. 10, Pagès el-Karoui, Chap. 6, in this book). They also rule on migrants’ visibility: who is entitled to be seen and who should remain invisible in public spaces like working class migrant men in the Gulf countries (se Pagès el-Karoui, Chap. 6, Thiollet and Assaf, Chap. 12, in this book) or chinese sex workers in Paris (Le Bail and Lieber, Chap. 10, in this book). Finally, they induce differential feelings and senses of self, of belonging or of alienation that translate into discourses and behaviors, as in the case of the global elite in Madrid (Duyvendak and Ley-Cervantes, Chap. 2, in this book) or urban youth in Dakar at night (Fouquet in this volume). These feelings and practices delineate the moral boundaries of everyday life alongside legal and official prescriptions. The empirical descriptions provided in each chapter thus contribute to a rich discussion on cosmopolitanism that stems from everyday practices, material configurations and emotions at the city level.
References

Anderson, E. (2012). *The cosmopolitan canopy race and civility in everyday life*. New York: Norton.

Appadurai, A. (1996). *Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Appiah, A. (2006). *Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers*. New York: Norton.

Beck, U. (1996). World risk society as cosmopolitan society?: Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. *Theory, Culture & Society, 13*(4), 1–32.

Beck, U. (2002). The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. *Theory, Culture & Society, 19*(1–2), 17–44.

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

Beck, U. (2016). Varieties of second modernity and the cosmopolitan vision. *Theory, Culture & Society, 33*(7–8), 257–270.

Berthomière, W. (2003). L'émergence d'une Tel-Aviv cosmopolite ou les effets d'un fin mélange entre reconfigurations sociopolitiques internes et externes. *Cahiers de la Méditerranée, 67*, 299-312.

Benhabib, S. (2004). *The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens*. Cambridge. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Binnie, J., Holloway, J., Millington, S., & Young, C. (2006). *Cosmopolitan Urbanism*. London: Routledge.

Boudreau, A-J. (2015). Urbanity as a way of life. In S. Vincent-Geslin, H. Adly, Y. Zorro, & Y. Pedrazzini (Eds.), *Translating the city: Interdisciplinarity in urban studies* (pp. 141–161). Oxford: EPFL Press.

Breckenridge, C. A., Pollock, S., Bhabha, H., & Chakrabarty, D. (Eds.). (2002). *Cosmopolitanism*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Brown, G. W. (2009). *Grounding cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the idea of a cosmopolitan constitution*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Calhoun, C. (2002). The class consciousness of frequent travellers: Towards a critique of actually existing cosmopolitanism. In S. Vertovec, & R. Cohen (Eds.), *Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice* (pp. 86–109). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, R. (1988). *The new helots: Migrants in the international division of labour*. Aldershot: Gower.

Derrida, J. (1997). *Cosmopolites de Tous Les Pays, Encore Un Effort!* Paris: Galilée.

Fassin, D. (2009). Moral economies revisited. *Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 64*(6), 1237–1266.

Fischer, M. J., & Massey, D. S. (2000). Residential segregation and ethnic enterprise in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. *Social Problems, 47*(3), 408–424.

Germann Molz, J. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and consumption. In M. Rovisco & M. Nowicka (Eds.), *The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism* (pp. 33–52). London: Routledge.

Glick Schiller, N. (2015). Diasporic cosmopolitanism: Migrants, sociabilities and city-making. In N. Glick Schiller & A. Irving (Eds.), *Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical perspectives, relations- alities and discontents* (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Glick Schiller, N., & Çağlar, A. (Eds.). (2011). *Locating migration: rescaling cities and migrants*. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. *Theory, Culture & Society, 7*(2–3), 237–251.

Harvey, D. (2009). The banality of geographical evils. In *Cosmopolitanism and the geographies of freedom* (pp. 98–122). New York: Columbia University Press.

Isin, E. (2002). *Being political: Genealogies of citizenship*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

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

Anderson, E. (2012). *The cosmopolitan canopy race and civility in everyday life*. New York: Norton.

Appadurai, A. (1996). *Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Appiah, A. (2006). *Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers*. New York: Norton.

Beck, U. (1996). World risk society as cosmopolitan society?: Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties. *Theory, Culture & Society, 13*(4), 1–32.

Beck, U. (2002). The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. *Theory, Culture & Society, 19*(1–2), 17–44.

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

Beck, U. (2016). Varieties of second modernity and the cosmopolitan vision. *Theory, Culture & Society, 33*(7–8), 257–270.

Berthomière, W. (2003). L'émergence d'une Tel-Aviv cosmopolite ou les effets d'un fin mélange entre reconfigurations sociopolitiques internes et externes. *Cahiers de la Méditerranée, 67*, 299-312.

Benhabib, S. (2004). *The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens*. Cambridge. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Binnie, J., Holloway, J., Millington, S., & Young, C. (2006). *Cosmopolitan Urbanism*. London: Routledge.

Boudreau, A-J. (2015). Urbanity as a way of life. In S. Vincent-Geslin, H. Adly, Y. Zorro, & Y. Pedrazzini (Eds.), *Translating the city: Interdisciplinarity in urban studies* (pp. 141–161). Oxford: EPFL Press.

Breckenridge, C. A., Pollock, S., Bhabha, H., & Chakrabarty, D. (Eds.). (2002). *Cosmopolitanism*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Brown, G. W. (2009). *Grounding cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the idea of a cosmopolitan constitution*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Calhoun, C. (2002). The class consciousness of frequent travellers: Towards a critique of actually existing cosmopolitanism. In S. Vertovec, & R. Cohen (Eds.), *Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice* (pp. 86–109). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, R. (1988). *The new helots: Migrants in the international division of labour*. Aldershot: Gower.

Derrida, J. (1997). *Cosmopolites de Tous Les Pays, Encore Un Effort!* Paris: Galilée.

Fassin, D. (2009). Moral economies revisited. *Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 64*(6), 1237–1266.

Fischer, M. J., & Massey, D. S. (2000). Residential segregation and ethnic enterprise in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. *Social Problems, 47*(3), 408–424.

Germann Molz, J. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and consumption. In M. Rovisco & M. Nowicka (Eds.), *The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism* (pp. 33–52). London: Routledge.

Glick Schiller, N. (2015). Diasporic cosmopolitanism: Migrants, sociabilities and city-making. In N. Glick Schiller & A. Irving (Eds.), *Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical perspectives, relations- alities and discontents* (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Glick Schiller, N., & Çağlar, A. (Eds.). (2011). *Locating migration: rescaling cities and migrants*. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. *Theory, Culture & Society, 7*(2–3), 237–251.

Harvey, D. (2009). The banality of geographical evils. In *Cosmopolitanism and the geographies of freedom* (pp. 98–122). New York: Columbia University Press.

Isin, E. (2002). *Being political: Genealogies of citizenship*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Lamont, M., & Aksartova, S. (2002). Ordinary cosmopolitanisms: Strategies for bridging racial boundaries among working-class men. *Theory, Culture & Society, 19*(4), 1–25.
Levy, J. (1997). Penser La Ville: Un Imperatif Sous Toutes Les Latitudes. *CEMOTI, 24*. https://doi.org/10.4000/cemoti.1458.

Ma Mung, E. (2006). Négociations identitaires marchandes. *Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, 22*(2), 83-93.

Mainwaring, C. (2016). Migrant agency: Negotiating Borders and migration controls. *Migration Studies, 4*(3), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnw013.

Massey, D. (1999). Imagining globalization: Power-geometries of time-space. In A. Brah, M. J. Hickman, & M. M. an Ghaill (Eds.), *Global futures* (pp. 27-44). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moraes Netto, V. (2017). *The social fabric of cities*. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ong, A. (1999). *Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Pagès-El Karoui, D. (Forthcoming). Cosmopolitan cities. In V. Cicchelli & S. Mesure (Eds.), *On cosmopolitanism in hard times*. Leiden: Brill.

Parnell, S., & Oldfield, S. (Eds.). (2014). *The Routledge handbook on cities of the global south*. London: Routledge.

Peraldi, M. (Ed.). (2001). *Cabas et Containers: Activités Marchandes Informelles et Réseaux Migrants Transfrontaliers*. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.

Pollock, S., Bhabha, H. K., Breckenridge, C. A., & Chakrabarty, D. (2002). Cosmopolitanisms. In S. Pollock, H. K. Bhabha, C. A. Breckenridge, & D. Chakrabarty (Eds.), *Cosmopolitanism* (pp. 1-14). Duke University Press.

Rhys-Taylor, A. (2013). The essences of multiculturalism: A sensory exploration of an inner-city street market. *Identities, 20*(4), 393-406.

Rinaudo, C., & Hily, M-A. (2003). Cosmopolitisme et altérité. Les nouveaux migrants dans l'économie informelle. Tsantsa. Revue de la Société Suisse d'Ethnologie / Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Ethnologischen Gesellschaft / *Journal of the Swiss Ethnological Society*. Académie suisse des sciences humaines et sociales, Société Suisse d'Ethnologie, pp. 48-57.

Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: A view from off the map. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26*(3), 531-554.

Rose, J. (2015). Wounded cosmopolitanism. In N. Glick Schiller & A. Irving (Eds.), *Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical perspectives, relationalities and discontents* (pp. 41-48). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Sassen, S. (2001). *The global city: New York, London, Tokyo* (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2005). Cityness in the urban age. *Urban Age Bulletin, 2*, 1-3.

Scheibelhofer, E. (2019). Conceptualising the social positioning of refugees reflections on socio-institutional contexts and agency with a focus on work. *Identities, 26*(3), 289-304.

Schiller, N. G., Tsypylma, D., & Gruner-Domic, S. (2011). Defining cosmopolitan sociability in a transnational age. An introduction. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34*(3), 399-418.

Schmoll, C. (2003). Cosmopolitisme au quotidien et circulations commerciales à Naples. *Cahiers de La Méditerranée, 67*, 345-360.

Schmoll, C. (2011). The making of a transnational marketplace: Naples and the impact of Mediterranean cross-border trade on regional economies. *Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 5*(2), 221-238.

Schmoll, C. (Forthcoming). International mobility and cosmopolitanism in the global age. In V. Cicchelli & S. Mesure (Eds.), *On cosmopolitanism in hard times*. Leiden: Brill.

Sennett, R. (2002). Cosmopolitanism and the social experiences of cities. In *Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice* (pp. 42-47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Simmel, G. (1921 [1908]). The sociological significance of the 'Stranger'. In R. Park, & E. Burgess (Eds.), *Introduction to the science of sociology* (pp. 322-327). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tarrius, A. (2000). *Les nouveaux cosmopolismes: Mobilités, identités, territoires*. La Tour d'Aigues: Editions de l'Aube.
Levy, J. (1997). Penser La Ville: Un Imperatif Sous Toutes Les Latitudes. *CEMOTI, 24*. https://doi.org/10.4000/cemoti.1458.

Ma Mung, E. (2006). Négociations identitaires marchandes. *Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, 22*(2), 83-93.

Mainwaring, C. (2016). Migrant agency: Negotiating Borders and migration controls. *Migration Studies, 4*(3), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnw013.

Massey, D. (1999). Imagining globalization: Power-geometries of time-space. In A. Brah, M. J. Hickman, & M. M. an Ghaill (Eds.), *Global futures* (pp. 27-44). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moraes Netto, V. (2017). *The social fabric of cities*. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ong, A. (1999). *Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Pagès-El Karoui, D. (Forthcoming). Cosmopolitan cities. In V. Cicchelli & S. Mesure (Eds.), *On cosmopolitanism in hard times*. Leiden: Brill.

Parnell, S., & Oldfield, S. (Eds.). (2014). *The Routledge handbook on cities of the global south*. London: Routledge.

Peraldi, M. (Ed.). (2001). *Cabas et Containers: Activités Marchandes Informelles et Réseaux Migrants Transfrontaliers*. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.

Pollock, S., Bhabha, H. K., Breckenridge, C. A., & Chakrabarty, D. (2002). Cosmopolitanisms. In S. Pollock, H. K. Bhabha, C. A. Breckenridge, & D. Chakrabarty (Eds.), *Cosmopolitanism* (pp. 1-14). Duke University Press.

Rhys-Taylor, A. (2013). The essences of multiculturalism: A sensory exploration of an inner-city street market. *Identities, 20*(4), 393-406.

Rinaudo, C., & Hily, M-A. (2003). Cosmopolitisme et altérité. Les nouveaux migrants dans l'économie informelle. Tsantsa. Revue de la Société Suisse d'Ethnologie / Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Ethnologischen Gesellschaft / *Journal of the Swiss Ethnological Society*. Académie suisse des sciences humaines et sociales, Société Suisse d'Ethnologie, pp. 48-57.

Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: A view from off the map. *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26*(3), 531-554.

Rose, J. (2015). Wounded cosmopolitanism. In N. Glick Schiller & A. Irving (Eds.), *Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical perspectives, relationalities and discontents* (pp. 41-48). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Sassen, S. (2001). *The global city: New York, London, Tokyo* (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2005). Cityness in the urban age. *Urban Age Bulletin, 2*, 1-3.

Scheibelhofer, E. (2019). Conceptualising the social positioning of refugees reflections on socio-institutional contexts and agency with a focus on work. *Identities, 26*(3), 289-304.

Schiller, N. G., Tsypylma, D., & Gruner-Domic, S. (2011). Defining cosmopolitan sociability in a transnational age. An introduction. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34*(3), 399-418.

Schmoll, C. (2003). Cosmopolitisme au quotidien et circulations commerciales à Naples. *Cahiers de La Méditerranée, 67*, 345-360.

Schmoll, C. (2011). The making of a transnational marketplace: Naples and the impact of Mediterranean cross-border trade on regional economies. *Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 5*(2), 221-238.

Schmoll, C. (Forthcoming). International mobility and cosmopolitanism in the global age. In V. Cicchelli & S. Mesure (Eds.), *On cosmopolitanism in hard times*. Leiden: Brill.

Sennett, R. (2002). Cosmopolitanism and the social experiences of cities. In *Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice* (pp. 42-47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Simmel, G. (1921 [1908]). The sociological significance of the 'Stranger'. In R. Park, & E. Burgess (Eds.), *Introduction to the science of sociology* (pp. 322-327). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tarrius, A. (2000). *Les nouveaux cosmopolismes: Mobilités, identités, territoires*. La Tour d'Aigues: Editions de l'Aube.
Van Hear, N. (2010). Theories of migration and social change. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36*(10), 1531–1536.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30*(6), 1024–1054.

Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (Eds.). (2002). *Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Werbner, P. (Ed.). (1999). Global pathways. Working class cosmopolitans and the creation of transnational ethnic worlds. *Social Anthropology, 7*(1), 17–35.

Werbner, P. (Ed.). (2006). Vernacular cosmopolitanism. *Theory, Culture & Society, 23*(2–3), 496–498.

Werbner, P. (Ed.). (2008). *Anthropology and the new cosmopolitanism: Rooted, feminist and vernacular perspectives*. New York: Berg.

Wessendorf, S. (2013). Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’: Perceptions of difference in a London neighbourhood. *Identities, 20*(4), 407–422.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. *American Journal of Sociology, 44*(1), 1–24.

Yeoh, B. S. A. (2004). Cosmopolitanism and its exclusions in Singapore. *Urban Studies, 41*(12), 2431–2445.

Zeng, M. (2014). Subaltern cosmopolitanism: Concept and approaches. *The Sociological Review, 62*(1), 137–148.

Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. *Urban Studies, 35*(5–6), 825–839.

**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_6.png" /></figure>
Van Hear, N. (2010). Theories of migration and social change. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36*(10), 1531–1536.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. *Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30*(6), 1024–1054.

Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (Eds.). (2002). *Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Werbner, P. (Ed.). (1999). Global pathways. Working class cosmopolitans and the creation of transnational ethnic worlds. *Social Anthropology, 7*(1), 17–35.

Werbner, P. (Ed.). (2006). Vernacular cosmopolitanism. *Theory, Culture & Society, 23*(2–3), 496–498.

Werbner, P. (Ed.). (2008). *Anthropology and the new cosmopolitanism: Rooted, feminist and vernacular perspectives*. New York: Berg.

Wessendorf, S. (2013). Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’: Perceptions of difference in a London neighbourhood. *Identities, 20*(4), 407–422.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. *American Journal of Sociology, 44*(1), 1–24.

Yeoh, B. S. A. (2004). Cosmopolitanism and its exclusions in Singapore. *Urban Studies, 41*(12), 2431–2445.

Zeng, M. (2014). Subaltern cosmopolitanism: Concept and approaches. *The Sociological Review, 62*(1), 137–148.

Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. *Urban Studies, 35*(5–6), 825–839.

**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_6.png" /></figure>
# Part I

## Making Cosmopolitan Places in a
Globalized World
# Part I
## Making Cosmopolitan Places in a
Globalized World
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

# Chapter 2
Generic Places, the Construction of Home
and the Lived Experience
of Cosmopolitanization

Jan Willem Duyvendak and Melissa Ley-Cervantes

## 2.1 Introduction

*Where is your home?*

My home is where I am. (Alejandro, Journalist)

In the soles of my feet. (Santiago, Journalist)

I carry my home on my back, like a snail. (Cristina, Physical therapist)

Home was my suitcase. (Sofía, Filmmaker)

The statements above seem to deeply resonate with the cosmopolitan ideal sparked by Diogenes who, as a *Cynic* philosopher, rejected tradition and local loyalties and found a sense of belonging to a much larger community – the *kosmopolis* – and was the first person to have stated that he was a “citizen of the world” (Appiah 2007; Warf 2015). Born in the fifth century before the Christian era, Diogenes’s cosmopolitanism has evolved through time and reached our days in the plural and complex form of cosmopolitanisms that in a broader sense refer to a sense of community and belonging across a multiplicity of identities and affiliations.

Cosmopolitanism becomes particularly pertinent in the context of the increased mobility of goods, people and ideas that characterizes modern life. In modern urban centers, people confront diversity on a daily basis and as such develop strategies to deal with difference and, ideally, embrace it (Warf 2015, 927). Nonetheless, there is chasm between the philosophical ideal of cosmopolitanism and the reality of people from a diverse array of backgrounds coexisting on a daily basis. Beck and Sznaider’s notion of cosmopolitanization is useful in examining how this everyday

J. W. Duyvendak
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: w.g.j.duyvendak@uva.nl

M. Ley-Cervantes (✉)
Independent Researcher, Mexico City, Mexico
e-mail: merluzaley@gmail.com
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

# Chapter 2
Generic Places, the Construction of Home
and the Lived Experience
of Cosmopolitanization

Jan Willem Duyvendak and Melissa Ley-Cervantes

## 2.1 Introduction

*Where is your home?*

My home is where I am. (Alejandro, Journalist)

In the soles of my feet. (Santiago, Journalist)

I carry my home on my back, like a snail. (Cristina, Physical therapist)

Home was my suitcase. (Sofía, Filmmaker)

The statements above seem to deeply resonate with the cosmopolitan ideal sparked by Diogenes who, as a *Cynic* philosopher, rejected tradition and local loyalties and found a sense of belonging to a much larger community – the *kosmopolis* – and was the first person to have stated that he was a “citizen of the world” (Appiah 2007; Warf 2015). Born in the fifth century before the Christian era, Diogenes’s cosmopolitanism has evolved through time and reached our days in the plural and complex form of cosmopolitanisms that in a broader sense refer to a sense of community and belonging across a multiplicity of identities and affiliations.

Cosmopolitanism becomes particularly pertinent in the context of the increased mobility of goods, people and ideas that characterizes modern life. In modern urban centers, people confront diversity on a daily basis and as such develop strategies to deal with difference and, ideally, embrace it (Warf 2015, 927). Nonetheless, there is chasm between the philosophical ideal of cosmopolitanism and the reality of people from a diverse array of backgrounds coexisting on a daily basis. Beck and Sznaider’s notion of cosmopolitanization is useful in examining how this everyday

J. W. Duyvendak
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: w.g.j.duyvendak@uva.nl

M. Ley-Cervantes (✉)
Independent Researcher, Mexico City, Mexico
e-mail: merluzaley@gmail.com
engagement with difference might work since it de-romanticizes the ideas resulting from normative cosmopolitanisms by drawing attention to “the fact that the becoming cosmopolitan in reality is also, and even primarily, a function of coerced choices or a side-effect of unconscious decisions” (2006, 7).

Hence, as immediate access to different cultures increases through direct contact with people from diverse backgrounds but also more commonly and “banally” through the consumption of food, sartorial choices, music, etc., cosmopolitan orientations might increase (Beck 2008, 30). Yet this can also be accompanied by “a profound sense of a loss of territorial roots, of an erosion of the cultural distinctiveness of places” (Gupta and Ferguson 1992).

At the heart of the tension between immediate access to difference and a loss of distinctiveness of places is the proliferation of the so-called “generic places.” This is often cited as a prime example of the homogenizing tendencies that come along with globalization. Knox explains that as cities lose their particularities and distinctiveness, their inhabitants tend to seek “authenticity” through everyday consumption in “commercially constructed spaces and places whose invented traditions, sanitized and simplified symbolism and commercialized heritage all make for convergence rather than spatial identity” (2005, 4). Some generic places constitute, in the words of Ulrich Beck, “interfaces between spaces of globality and spaces of territoriality” (Beck 2008, 33), providing continuity and certain cognitive assurances through a set of standardized practices and settings in the context of mobility and work as “a semantic and spatial Esperanto, allowing foreigners to feel at home no matter where they are” (Delalex 2002, 108). In this sense generic places are a product of globalization, but are they also a by-product of this (forced) cosmopolitanization.

This chapter contrasts the ideal (normative) version of cosmopolitanism versus the actual existing cosmopolitanisms and how actors might deal with the diversity and plurality in contemporary urban settings by analyzing the home-making experiences of young Mexican professionals living in Madrid who also experienced a great deal of spatial mobility. As the statements at the beginning of the chapter show, their feelings of home seem to be rightly placed within a cosmopolitan ideal in theory, but their everyday strategies to feel at home under conditions of movement, temporality and a closer relationship with cultural and socioeconomic difference reveal some contradictory feelings and strategies. In order to feel at home in the city, they need to ensconce themselves into generic places that provide not only continuity and familiarity but also the possibility of connecting (virtually and physically) with people that seem close to them, ultimately opting out from interacting with the perceived urban “other.” Such generic places are important for cultivating feelings of home through specific processes of personalization enacted in urban environments by local and foreign middle and upper classes alike. These feelings are sustained by a communal belonging based not on a shared national identity but a class-based one.

The chapter is divided in five sections. The first section provides a brief overview of the way in which Madrid has been transformed in a very short period of time; section two untangles the relationship between place and home by analyzing the
engagement with difference might work since it de-romanticizes the ideas resulting from normative cosmopolitanisms by drawing attention to “the fact that the becoming cosmopolitan in reality is also, and even primarily, a function of coerced choices or a side-effect of unconscious decisions” (2006, 7).

Hence, as immediate access to different cultures increases through direct contact with people from diverse backgrounds but also more commonly and “banally” through the consumption of food, sartorial choices, music, etc., cosmopolitan orientations might increase (Beck 2008, 30). Yet this can also be accompanied by “a profound sense of a loss of territorial roots, of an erosion of the cultural distinctiveness of places” (Gupta and Ferguson 1992).

At the heart of the tension between immediate access to difference and a loss of distinctiveness of places is the proliferation of the so-called “generic places.” This is often cited as a prime example of the homogenizing tendencies that come along with globalization. Knox explains that as cities lose their particularities and distinctiveness, their inhabitants tend to seek “authenticity” through everyday consumption in “commercially constructed spaces and places whose invented traditions, sanitized and simplified symbolism and commercialized heritage all make for convergence rather than spatial identity” (2005, 4). Some generic places constitute, in the words of Ulrich Beck, “interfaces between spaces of globality and spaces of territoriality” (Beck 2008, 33), providing continuity and certain cognitive assurances through a set of standardized practices and settings in the context of mobility and work as “a semantic and spatial Esperanto, allowing foreigners to feel at home no matter where they are” (Delalex 2002, 108). In this sense generic places are a product of globalization, but are they also a by-product of this (forced) cosmopolitanization.

This chapter contrasts the ideal (normative) version of cosmopolitanism versus the actual existing cosmopolitanisms and how actors might deal with the diversity and plurality in contemporary urban settings by analyzing the home-making experiences of young Mexican professionals living in Madrid who also experienced a great deal of spatial mobility. As the statements at the beginning of the chapter show, their feelings of home seem to be rightly placed within a cosmopolitan ideal in theory, but their everyday strategies to feel at home under conditions of movement, temporality and a closer relationship with cultural and socioeconomic difference reveal some contradictory feelings and strategies. In order to feel at home in the city, they need to ensconce themselves into generic places that provide not only continuity and familiarity but also the possibility of connecting (virtually and physically) with people that seem close to them, ultimately opting out from interacting with the perceived urban “other.” Such generic places are important for cultivating feelings of home through specific processes of personalization enacted in urban environments by local and foreign middle and upper classes alike. These feelings are sustained by a communal belonging based not on a shared national identity but a class-based one.

The chapter is divided in five sections. The first section provides a brief overview of the way in which Madrid has been transformed in a very short period of time; section two untangles the relationship between place and home by analyzing the
former along the public-private and particular-generic axes to understand the ways
in which different places might foster feelings of home; section three deals with
data and methods while section four constitutes the empirical discussion and fol-
lows the ways in which this group of people found home in generic places. Finally,
section five provides some conclusions.

## 2.2 Madrid: Building a Cosmopolitan Capital

Once described by the *New York Times* travel section as “POOR Madrid. Stuck in the middle of Spain, the city has long been perceived as the provincial, sleepy sister to Barcelona,” the capital city of Spain has been through a process of reformation and rebranding with the goal of positioning the city as a cosmopolitan intercon- nected capital (Wildman 2007).

This process was particularly visible between the incorporation of Spain into the European Union in 1994 and the start of the global financial crisis in 2008. The city started to attract multinational companies, got involved in an intensive infrastruc- ture construction process and began to attract people from a myriad of places: Latin America, Northern Africa, Eastern Europe.

Madrid has changed utterly in a very short period of time. Since the nineteen eighties, a discourse in terms of competitive potential and globalisation has been clearly enunciated by politicians of every stripe who have succeeded one another in city and regional government. Their shared objective is to turn Madrid into an important element in the European system of cities. (Diaz-Orueta 2007, 186–7)

During the 1990s, several Spanish state-held companies – from banks to electric-
ity, from oil to telecommunications – were privatized. Along with this process of
privatization, Spain adopted the euro, a strong currency with a stable exchange rate
that facilitated financial transactions at a global level. A great portion of these
changes became territorialized in Madrid. By 2006, the city was hosting the corpo-
rate headquarters of seven out of the nine Spanish corporations included in Forbes’s
Global 500 list. In terms of infrastructure, the face of the city changed completely.
Just to give some examples: the metro system went from having 120 kilometers of
track in 1995 to 322 kilometers in 2006 (metromadrid.com), while the extension of
Barajas airport in 2006 meant that 30 % of the flights between Europe and Latin
America land in Madrid (promomadrid.com). The demographic make-up of the city
also changed radically; while in the late 1990s, only 1 % of the city’s population was
foreign, by 2007 foreigners constituted 16 % of the population.

What the *New York Times* article was describing was a city that, like many others,
was struggling between keeping the particularities and history of the local and an
increasing interconnection to global capital, information, goods and people.
Madrid’s positioning as a global city involved the development of infrastructure
oriented towards the tourist industry and middle-class consumption: chain restau-
rants, shopping malls, hotels and a sanitized display of “Spanishness.” In doing so,
former along the public-private and particular-generic axes to understand the ways
in which different places might foster feelings of home; section three deals with
data and methods while section four constitutes the empirical discussion and fol-
lows the ways in which this group of people found home in generic places. Finally,
section five provides some conclusions.

## 2.2 Madrid: Building a Cosmopolitan Capital

Once described by the *New York Times* travel section as “POOR Madrid. Stuck in the middle of Spain, the city has long been perceived as the provincial, sleepy sister to Barcelona,” the capital city of Spain has been through a process of reformation and rebranding with the goal of positioning the city as a cosmopolitan intercon- nected capital (Wildman 2007).

This process was particularly visible between the incorporation of Spain into the European Union in 1994 and the start of the global financial crisis in 2008. The city started to attract multinational companies, got involved in an intensive infrastruc- ture construction process and began to attract people from a myriad of places: Latin America, Northern Africa, Eastern Europe.

Madrid has changed utterly in a very short period of time. Since the nineteen eighties, a discourse in terms of competitive potential and globalisation has been clearly enunciated by politicians of every stripe who have succeeded one another in city and regional government. Their shared objective is to turn Madrid into an important element in the European system of cities. (Diaz-Orueta 2007, 186–7)

During the 1990s, several Spanish state-held companies – from banks to electric-
ity, from oil to telecommunications – were privatized. Along with this process of
privatization, Spain adopted the euro, a strong currency with a stable exchange rate
that facilitated financial transactions at a global level. A great portion of these
changes became territorialized in Madrid. By 2006, the city was hosting the corpo-
rate headquarters of seven out of the nine Spanish corporations included in Forbes’s
Global 500 list. In terms of infrastructure, the face of the city changed completely.
Just to give some examples: the metro system went from having 120 kilometers of
track in 1995 to 322 kilometers in 2006 (metromadrid.com), while the extension of
Barajas airport in 2006 meant that 30 % of the flights between Europe and Latin
America land in Madrid (promomadrid.com). The demographic make-up of the city
also changed radically; while in the late 1990s, only 1 % of the city’s population was
foreign, by 2007 foreigners constituted 16 % of the population.

What the *New York Times* article was describing was a city that, like many others,
was struggling between keeping the particularities and history of the local and an
increasing interconnection to global capital, information, goods and people.
Madrid’s positioning as a global city involved the development of infrastructure
oriented towards the tourist industry and middle-class consumption: chain restau-
rants, shopping malls, hotels and a sanitized display of “Spanishness.” In doing so,
many spaces in the city became generic and its original occupants were displaced (Díaz-Orueta 2007).

## 2.3 Generic Places and the Construction of Home

Following such narratives, it is no wonder that much of the inquiry on generic places has been focused on urban re-structuring processes that, more often than not, displace disadvantaged populations from the places they call home and create *in lieu* generic urban landscapes.

But in order to fully explore the potentialities of such generic places, we need to keep in mind that they constitute the backbone of globalization and cosmopolitization by representing the infrastructure that sustains the enhanced mobility of goods, people and information (Beck 2008, 33). Moreover, since such places are the product of a process of standardization that facilitates communication and movement across physical and cultural borders, they feel immediately familiar. Such generic qualities provide certain “cognitive assurances” that have the potential of fostering home-feelings, independently of their exact location (Delalex 2002; Kesserling 2014; Nadler 2016).

Nonetheless, in order to really feel like “home,” generic places have to become somewhat more personal. The potentiality of a generic place to foster feelings of home depends on the possibility of *personalizing* it, achieving some sense of control over space and imbuing it with meaning, that is to say, incorporating some elements that satisfy “personal” needs and preferences at a given point in time (see Duyvendak 2011; Ley-Cervantes and Duyvendak 2017). Since personalization of a space can function as a territorial marker that draws symbolic boundaries by displaying the identity of an individual or a group, such boundaries might have similar effects as an actual wall.

This does not mean that these places therefore become “particular”: while they are still predominantly generic and recognizable as such for others, people give them a “personal touch” in order to make them feel like home. *Particular* places are almost by definition “personal,” at least *private* ones. This is less true, though, for particular *public* spaces that can be rather un-homey for those who don’t align with the public collective identity. *Generic* public places are also more difficult to “personalize” – a condition of feeling at home – than private generic places.

The following table develops a general classification of *particular* and *generic* places and the way in which personalization works.
many spaces in the city became generic and its original occupants were displaced (Díaz-Orueta 2007).

## 2.3 Generic Places and the Construction of Home

Following such narratives, it is no wonder that much of the inquiry on generic places has been focused on urban re-structuring processes that, more often than not, displace disadvantaged populations from the places they call home and create *in lieu* generic urban landscapes.

But in order to fully explore the potentialities of such generic places, we need to keep in mind that they constitute the backbone of globalization and cosmopolitani- zation by representing the infrastructure that sustains the enhanced mobility of goods, people and information (Beck 2008, 33). Moreover, since such places are the product of a process of standardization that facilitates communication and move- ment across physical and cultural borders, they feel immediately familiar. Such generic qualities provide certain “cognitive assurances” that have the potential of fostering home-feelings, independently of their exact location (Delalex 2002; Kesserling 2014; Nadler 2016).

Nonetheless, in order to really feel like “home,” generic places have to become somewhat more personal. The potentiality of a generic place to foster feelings of home depends on the possibility of *personalizing* it, achieving some sense of con- trol over space and imbuing it with meaning, that is to say, incorporating some ele- ments that satisfy “personal” needs and preferences at a given point in time (see Duyvendak 2011; Ley-Cervantes and Duyvendak 2017). Since personalization of a space can function as a territorial marker that draws symbolic boundaries by dis- playing the identity of an individual or a group, such boundaries might have similar effects as an actual wall.

This does not mean that these places therefore become “particular”: while they are still predominantly generic and recognizable as such for others, people give them a “personal touch” in order to make them feel like home. *Particular* places are almost by definition “personal,” at least *private* ones. This is less true, though, for particular *public* spaces that can be rather un-homey for those who don’t align with the public collective identity. *Generic* public places are also more difficult to “per- sonalize” – a condition of feeling at home – than private generic places.

The following table develops a general classification of *particular* and *generic* *places* and the way in which personalization works.
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Particular</th><th>Generic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Private</td><td><strong>Haven. Particular and private</strong><br>Generally we understand home as particular and private place. It is expected to reflect someone's identity and in this sense the personalization of such places is <em>encouraged</em>.</td><td><strong>Harbor. Generic and private</strong><br>Such places (hotels, coffee shops, etc.) are made for people that either don't have their own place to particularize and make home or don't need a high level of particularization to feel at home and in contrast feel at home with little things. Personalization of such places is <em>allowed</em> to some degree.</td></tr><tr><td>Public</td><td><strong>Heaven. Particular and public</strong><br>Such places tend to reflect the identity of a collectivity (nation, city, neighborhood). In this sense, monuments, parks, museums and buildings, etc., are designed to reflect a certain history and collective identity, and in so doing constitute part of a "collective home." Individual personalization is <em>prohibited</em> and, in some cases, penalized by law; collective "personalization" may be acceptable.</td><td><strong>Hub. Generic and public</strong><br>Mostly comprised of transitional spaces that are supposed to be crossed or passed. Motor highways, metro stations and some public squares or streets come to mind. Personalization of such places is often <em>discouraged</em>, but temporary forms of personalization can occur and are exemplified by graffiti, flash mobs and alternative modalities of use (waiting, gathering, sleeping).</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.4 Data and Methods

Our data come from interviews with young Mexican professionals about their home-making strategies in Madrid. These interviews took place between 2008 and 2011. Thirty-four young Mexican professionals were interviewed (17 females, 17 males). At the time of the study, the youngest was twenty-four years old and the oldest forty-five years old; the interview subjects had arrived in Spain between 1995 and 2007. The time of stay in Spain varied between five months and sixteen years. All of them had at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, with thirty-one having undertaken or completed a postgraduate degree. The interviewees were a mix of postgraduate students, IT professionals, journalists, academics and CEOs.

While some of them were re-settlers, many of them were temporary movers. Some others could be called “chronic movers,” people whose lives are marked by constant movement because of their lifestyles and career paths. What these young, middle-class migrants had in common was international mobility as a strategy of class reproduction in a world where traditional means of distinction, such as secondary and tertiary education, are blurring (Scott 2006; Bourdieu 1989).

As part of the methodological design, the informants were asked to choose a place in the city where they felt comfortable and at home. To our surprise, and this only highlights the proclivity to link home to generic places, many of the informants chose places like Starbucks and other chain restaurants. As the research progressed, more of the so-called generic places (airports, parks, coffee shops) emerged as
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Particular</th><th>Generic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Private</td><td><strong>Haven. Particular and private</strong><br>Generally we understand home as particular and private place. It is expected to reflect someone's identity and in this sense the personalization of such places is <em>encouraged</em>.</td><td><strong>Harbor. Generic and private</strong><br>Such places (hotels, coffee shops, etc.) are made for people that either don't have their own place to particularize and make home or don't need a high level of particularization to feel at home and in contrast feel at home with little things. Personalization of such places is <em>allowed</em> to some degree.</td></tr><tr><td>Public</td><td><strong>Heaven. Particular and public</strong><br>Such places tend to reflect the identity of a collectivity (nation, city, neighborhood). In this sense, monuments, parks, museums and buildings, etc., are designed to reflect a certain history and collective identity, and in so doing constitute part of a “collective home.” Individual personalization is <em>prohibited</em> and, in some cases, penalized by law; collective “personalization” may be acceptable.</td><td><strong>Hub. Generic and public</strong><br>Mostly comprised of transitional spaces that are supposed to be crossed or passed. Motor highways, metro stations and some public squares or streets come to mind. Personalization of such places is often <em>discouraged</em>, but temporary forms of personalization can occur and are exemplified by graffiti, flash mobs and alternative modalities of use (waiting, gathering, sleeping).</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.4 Data and Methods

Our data come from interviews with young Mexican professionals about their home-making strategies in Madrid. These interviews took place between 2008 and 2011. Thirty-four young Mexican professionals were interviewed (17 females, 17 males). At the time of the study, the youngest was twenty-four years old and the oldest forty-five years old; the interview subjects had arrived in Spain between 1995 and 2007. The time of stay in Spain varied between five months and sixteen years. All of them had at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, with thirty-one having undertaken or completed a postgraduate degree. The interviewees were a mix of postgraduate students, IT professionals, journalists, academics and CEOs.

While some of them were re-settlers, many of them were temporary movers. Some others could be called “chronic movers,” people whose lives are marked by constant movement because of their lifestyles and career paths. What these young, middle-class migrants had in common was international mobility as a strategy of class reproduction in a world where traditional means of distinction, such as secondary and tertiary education, are blurring (Scott 2006; Bourdieu 1989).

As part of the methodological design, the informants were asked to choose a place in the city where they felt comfortable and at home. To our surprise, and this only highlights the proclivity to link home to generic places, many of the informants chose places like Starbucks and other chain restaurants. As the research progressed, more of the so-called generic places (airports, parks, coffee shops) emerged as
significant places in home-making strategies while some other places, such as the neighborhoods where they lived or grew up, were identified as a source of alienation. This was particularly relevant for three scenarios: those who had recently arrived, those who were chronically mobile, and those who were recalling the earlier stages of re-settlement. All this begged the question: What is the role of generic places in the home-making strategies of this class of people?

## 2.5 From the Ideal Cosmopolitan Subject to the Lived Experience of Cosmopolitanization

These footloose Mexicans had incorporated constant mobility in their biographies mainly because of their profession. Such mobility soon became a lifestyle. Perhaps the person who best articulated this idea of the contemporary chronic mover was Amalia, a researcher whose professional life was constructed around a circuit of universities located in various cities in Spain, the UK and Mexico.

*Do you feel at home here?*

There is a beautiful book, the *I Ching*. Every time I look at it I get “The Walker” who is a person whose destiny is to be an outsider, he is always going from one place to another without a place to call home. I like it here because I find many walkers, people who share the feeling of not quite belonging to a place. (Amalia, Academic)

"The walker," as Amalia explained, can go from one place to another without a (particular) place to call home and through this mobility is able to find a home. This fits the ideal of the cosmopolitan subject whose sense of belonging to the world trumps other affiliations (national, religious, cultural, etc.) (Beck and Sznaider 2006, 6). But what happens at the ground level, in the everyday experiences of those inhabiting cosmopolitan places? As mentioned before, for this group of people generic private places such as coffee shops, hotel rooms and shopping malls have become important tools in their ability to feel at home under conditions of difference, temporality and movement. For this group of chronic movers and for some of the recently arrived, home was found in generic places because they provided *connectivity, exclusivity and the possibility to move on*.

### 2.5.1 Place to Connect

Research on corporate employees' personalizing habits in the work-place has shown that as a by-product of technological advances (cell phones, laptops) certain types of employees are now expected to work away from an established place of business (Duyvendak 2011, Tian and Belk 2005; Wells 2000). In this sense, the notion of home as a place for privacy, relaxation and intimacy begins to dissolve as remote technology allows the work sphere to intrude into the domestic sphere. In this
significant places in home-making strategies while some other places, such as the neighborhoods where they lived or grew up, were identified as a source of alienation. This was particularly relevant for three scenarios: those who had recently arrived, those who were chronically mobile, and those who were recalling the earlier stages of re-settlement. All this begged the question: What is the role of generic places in the home-making strategies of this class of people?

## 2.5 From the Ideal Cosmopolitan Subject to the Lived Experience of Cosmopolitanization

These footloose Mexicans had incorporated constant mobility in their biographies mainly because of their profession. Such mobility soon became a lifestyle. Perhaps the person who best articulated this idea of the contemporary chronic mover was Amalia, a researcher whose professional life was constructed around a circuit of universities located in various cities in Spain, the UK and Mexico.

*Do you feel at home here?*

There is a beautiful book, the *I Ching*. Every time I look at it I get “The Walker” who is a person whose destiny is to be an outsider, he is always going from one place to another without a place to call home. I like it here because I find many walkers, people who share the feeling of not quite belonging to a place. (Amalia, Academic)

"The walker," as Amalia explained, can go from one place to another without a (particular) place to call home and through this mobility is able to find a home. This fits the ideal of the cosmopolitan subject whose sense of belonging to the world trumps other affiliations (national, religious, cultural, etc.) (Beck and Sznaider 2006, 6). But what happens at the ground level, in the everyday experiences of those inhabiting cosmopolitan places? As mentioned before, for this group of people generic private places such as coffee shops, hotel rooms and shopping malls have become important tools in their ability to feel at home under conditions of difference, temporality and movement. For this group of chronic movers and for some of the recently arrived, home was found in generic places because they provided *connectivity, exclusivity and the possibility to move on*.

### 2.5.1 Place to Connect

Research on corporate employees' personalizing habits in the work-place has shown that as a by-product of technological advances (cell phones, laptops) certain types of employees are now expected to work away from an established place of business (Duyvendak 2011, Tian and Belk 2005; Wells 2000). In this sense, the notion of home as a place for privacy, relaxation and intimacy begins to dissolve as remote technology allows the work sphere to intrude into the domestic sphere. In this
setting, *generic private places* such as Starbucks capitalize on the constant blurring between domestic, leisure and work-related spheres and provide a place specifically designed to host some of the intersecting activities that once were performed in separated spheres.

As the boundaries of home and work are becoming constantly blurred for a great part of the professionalized labor force all over the world, the boundaries between home and away have also become blurred for the small universe of the chronically mobile. In this sense, the standardized practices of *generic private places* such as hotels and rental apartments, where functionality prevails over any other quality, provide a familiar setting where the landing for the chronically mobile is as seamless as possible. What is looked for in these places is a strong Wi-Fi connection and access to certain goods depending on personal preferences: books, newspapers, international cinema, a variety of restaurants.

*Where is your home?*

For the time being my home is here, but for me home is not a physical space, it is more within yourself. That's why I try to remain unattached, because if you become attached it is more difficult to move.

*What do you need to feel at home?*

Well, I need social relationships, freedom, a space with certain conditions: a nice WiFi connection, books, newspapers ... good food and people who love me. (Carlos, NGO worker)

Home then, becomes the place which may not be particular but where, often with the aid of technology, multiple spheres connect and become territorialized and personalized by the interests, needs and affections of the dweller. What becomes really important in the home-making strategies of highly mobile people (and the not so highly-mobile) is the ability to remain connected.

## 2.5.2 A Place to Opt Out

When I move around, to be honest, I am only interested on being surrounded by the pretty things ... I just don't want to deal with the ugly, I know I could adapt to that ("the ugly"). Do I want to? NO. (Amalia, Researcher)

When asked about the things they disliked about Madrid, the people who had recently arrived in Madrid would refer to very specific things about the city. That the streets were "dirty and smelled like pee," that there were "junkies sitting on my doorsteps," that "pedestrians are rude." When asked if that did not happen in their hometowns in Mexico, the answer they generally gave was either an emphatic "no," a more nuanced "maybe, but I never noticed" and, finally, for the ones who concurred that such things happened from where they came, that it was not something they confronted on a daily basis.

They did not notice because the urban middle classes in Mexico construct their everyday lives in safe havens, this is to say *particular private places* (gated communities, sheltered leisure spaces). Their interactions in *generic public places* are
setting, *generic private places* such as Starbucks capitalize on the constant blurring between domestic, leisure and work-related spheres and provide a place specifically designed to host some of the intersecting activities that once were performed in separated spheres.

As the boundaries of home and work are becoming constantly blurred for a great part of the professionalized labor force all over the world, the boundaries between home and away have also become blurred for the small universe of the chronically mobile. In this sense, the standardized practices of *generic private places* such as hotels and rental apartments, where functionality prevails over any other quality, provide a familiar setting where the landing for the chronically mobile is as seamless as possible. What is looked for in these places is a strong Wi-Fi connection and access to certain goods depending on personal preferences: books, newspapers, international cinema, a variety of restaurants.

*Where is your home?*

For the time being my home is here, but for me home is not a physical space, it is more within yourself. That's why I try to remain unattached, because if you become attached it is more difficult to move.

*What do you need to feel at home?*

Well, I need social relationships, freedom, a space with certain conditions: a nice WiFi connection, books, newspapers ... good food and people who love me. (Carlos, NGO worker)

Home then, becomes the place which may not be particular but where, often with the aid of technology, multiple spheres connect and become territorialized and personalized by the interests, needs and affections of the dweller. What becomes really important in the home-making strategies of highly mobile people (and the not so highly-mobile) is the ability to remain connected.

## 2.5.2 A Place to Opt Out

When I move around, to be honest, I am only interested on being surrounded by the pretty things ... I just don't want to deal with the ugly, I know I could adapt to that ("the ugly"). Do I want to? NO. (Amalia, Researcher)

When asked about the things they disliked about Madrid, the people who had recently arrived in Madrid would refer to very specific things about the city. That the streets were "dirty and smelled like pee," that there were "junkies sitting on my doorsteps," that "pedestrians are rude." When asked if that did not happen in their hometowns in Mexico, the answer they generally gave was either an emphatic "no," a more nuanced "maybe, but I never noticed" and, finally, for the ones who concurred that such things happened from where they came, that it was not something they confronted on a daily basis.

They did not notice because the urban middle classes in Mexico construct their everyday lives in safe havens, this is to say *particular private places* (gated communities, sheltered leisure spaces). Their interactions in *generic public places* are
very limited and mediated through their access to private means of transportation.
In a sense, difference in the public space is experienced through a car window.

Moving to Madrid changed things. The vast majority of the subjects of the study lived in central Madrid neighborhoods relatively close to their offices, businesses or universities. By walking or taking public transportation, they were confronted with difference not only in terms of national and ethnic background, but more importantly social class.

Their comfort zones were located in generic places such as chain restaurants or coffee shops in touristic areas of the city, which not only allowed them to opt out from interacting with “excluded others” but also from interacting under the terms set by the values, beliefs and practices of the city’s long-term residents. Generic businesses share similar characteristics and standardized procedures that somewhat dilute the particularities of the places where they are located. In the words of Marc Augé (1995), “solitary contractuality” was perceived as familiar and comforting to the recently relocated since it offered standardized practices and facilitated the interaction inside the locale.

### 2.5.3 A Place to Move

It would be inaccurate to say that the places we have described are completely de-territorialized. It is rather that the ways in which these places are territorialized respond to a need to constantly move, hence a permanent personalization of a place hinders one's ability to feel at home while moving. The following example comes from a Mexican journalist who in 2007 became a target of Mexican organized crime and had to flee the country to work as a correspondent in Madrid:

*Where is your home?*

Among journalists there is a common phrase when you move: Are you going to unpack your bags? I already unpacked them. (But) If you look at my house you will surely think it is lacking, I don't hang up pictures or anything and I think in that sense I have become very functional. Sometimes I have to travel 16 times a month, and just think my home is where I am. (Alejandro, Journalist)

Whereas the immobile withdraw to feel at home, the mobile rich have more options. Crucially, the rich and mobile can financially secure their feeling at home; they also have the option to move on. This exit option is in itself a form of security that only a few privileged movers have. In this sense, Madrid was seen as a “neural-gic point” that connected Mexican professionals and worked as an ebb and flow for those people and places important to their personal biographies:

*What do you like about the place where you live?*

I think Madrid is like a neuralgic point for those who come to Europe or live within Europe. It is easy to get here, or out of here depending on the mood. This is one of the things I like the most. (Santiago, Journalist)
very limited and mediated through their access to private means of transportation.
In a sense, difference in the public space is experienced through a car window.

Moving to Madrid changed things. The vast majority of the subjects of the study lived in central Madrid neighborhoods relatively close to their offices, businesses or universities. By walking or taking public transportation, they were confronted with difference not only in terms of national and ethnic background, but more importantly social class.

Their comfort zones were located in generic places such as chain restaurants or coffee shops in touristic areas of the city, which not only allowed them to opt out from interacting with “excluded others” but also from interacting under the terms set by the values, beliefs and practices of the city’s long-term residents. Generic businesses share similar characteristics and standardized procedures that somewhat dilute the particularities of the places where they are located. In the words of Marc Augé (1995), “solitary contractuality” was perceived as familiar and comforting to the recently relocated since it offered standardized practices and facilitated the interaction inside the locale.

### 2.5.3 A Place to Move

It would be inaccurate to say that the places we have described are completely de-territorialized. It is rather that the ways in which these places are territorialized respond to a need to constantly move, hence a permanent personalization of a place hinders one's ability to feel at home while moving. The following example comes from a Mexican journalist who in 2007 became a target of Mexican organized crime and had to flee the country to work as a correspondent in Madrid:

*Where is your home?*

Among journalists there is a common phrase when you move: Are you going to unpack your bags? I already unpacked them. (But) If you look at my house you will surely think it is lacking, I don't hang up pictures or anything and I think in that sense I have become very functional. Sometimes I have to travel 16 times a month, and just think my home is where I am. (Alejandro, Journalist)

Whereas the immobile withdraw to feel at home, the mobile rich have more options. Crucially, the rich and mobile can financially secure their feeling at home; they also have the option to move on. This exit option is in itself a form of security that only a few privileged movers have. In this sense, Madrid was seen as a “neural-gic point” that connected Mexican professionals and worked as an ebb and flow for those people and places important to their personal biographies:

*What do you like about the place where you live?*

I think Madrid is like a neuralgic point for those who come to Europe or live within Europe. It is easy to get here, or out of here depending on the mood. This is one of the things I like the most. (Santiago, Journalist)
While access to modern means of communication and travel have changed the way in which privileged movers relate to places and people, this does not mean that their homes are completely detached from particular places. Rather, their attachments are no longer “given” but purposefully constructed and maintained. In the words of Savage et al. (2005): “Belonging is not that of an individual to a fixed community rooted in place, but rather, one in which the place becomes valuable to the individual” (80) while “elective belonging involves choosing a place to live amongst your own kind, with the result that having local friends becomes an endorsement of one’s place of residence” (85). Because of their access to certain goods and means of communication, privileged movers can opt out from places that might not provide comfort or a homey feeling; they can also simply move elsewhere.

## 2.6 Conclusion

This chapter has shown the chasm between the idea(l) of cosmopolitanism and the actual practicalities of everyday life in the face of the cosmopolitanization of places and individual biographies, particularly when it comes to the resources to feel at home under such conditions. Although some migrants might be able to build homes in *particular and private places*, such homes involve a financial and, more importantly, time investment that many immigrants cannot or will not afford. Although more privileged migrants have resources to create and sustain private and particular places (individual homes or gated communities), sometimes the ways in which they particularize their homes and display their identity are not in tune with the dominant majority.

However, as we have shown, (some) privileged movers are able to “control” and therefore feel at home in generic places, particularly private ones (such as shopping malls, hotels) while avoiding un-homey *generic public places* that are difficult to “personalize” (except when they successfully “privatize” these public spaces, e.g., by going to private lounges at airports).

Thus, generic places are not all inherently un-homey. While their homogeneity and standardization might be the central reason to define them as void of meaning and as a threat to particular home-places, such standardization can provide familiarity and cognitive assurances for international movers and for many who move inside the city as well. The problem seems to be that while *generic private places* allow certain degrees of personalization and thus have the potential to engender feelings of home, *generic public places*, especially those for the resource poor, are becoming increasingly hostile towards any attempts at personalization. Without *particular and private places* or access to *generic private places*, many people are left without options to find ways to feel at home.

While the most mobile and the most immobile differ on the importance they attach to particular places, what makes them feel at home is the same. For both, *familiarity* is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition to feel at home. In the case of the privileged and highly mobile, familiarity is guaranteed in the *generic*
While access to modern means of communication and travel have changed the way in which privileged movers relate to places and people, this does not mean that their homes are completely detached from particular places. Rather, their attachments are no longer “given” but purposefully constructed and maintained. In the words of Savage et al. (2005): “Belonging is not that of an individual to a fixed community rooted in place, but rather, one in which the place becomes valuable to the individual” (80) while “elective belonging involves choosing a place to live amongst your own kind, with the result that having local friends becomes an endorsement of one’s place of residence” (85). Because of their access to certain goods and means of communication, privileged movers can opt out from places that might not provide comfort or a homey feeling; they can also simply move elsewhere.

## 2.6 Conclusion

This chapter has shown the chasm between the idea(l) of cosmopolitanism and the actual practicalities of everyday life in the face of the cosmopolitanization of places and individual biographies, particularly when it comes to the resources to feel at home under such conditions. Although some migrants might be able to build homes in *particular and private places*, such homes involve a financial and, more importantly, time investment that many immigrants cannot or will not afford. Although more privileged migrants have resources to create and sustain private and particular places (individual homes or gated communities), sometimes the ways in which they particularize their homes and display their identity are not in tune with the dominant majority.

However, as we have shown, (some) privileged movers are able to “control” and therefore feel at home in generic places, particularly private ones (such as shopping malls, hotels) while avoiding un-homey *generic public places* that are difficult to “personalize” (except when they successfully “privatize” these public spaces, e.g., by going to private lounges at airports).

Thus, generic places are not all inherently un-homey. While their homogeneity and standardization might be the central reason to define them as void of meaning and as a threat to particular home-places, such standardization can provide familiarity and cognitive assurances for international movers and for many who move inside the city as well. The problem seems to be that while *generic private places* allow certain degrees of personalization and thus have the potential to engender feelings of home, *generic public places*, especially those for the resource poor, are becoming increasingly hostile towards any attempts at personalization. Without *particular and private places* or access to *generic private places*, many people are left without options to find ways to feel at home.

While the most mobile and the most immobile differ on the importance they attach to particular places, what makes them feel at home is the same. For both, *familiarity* is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition to feel at home. In the case of the privileged and highly mobile, familiarity is guaranteed in the *generic*
*places* described here. However, there is more to these places than just familiarity. These “footloose” spots are also standardized, secure, and often segregated. In this sense, the differences between the more and less mobile often run parallel with class; their divergent ways of feeling at home often have class-specific consequences. First, the spread of the generic places of the rich and mobile may threaten the poor, who may be displaced to create space for “generic development.” Second, it is not only generic goods for the rich and mobile (like hotel chains) that are spreading around the world. Starbucks and McDonald’s do so as well, catering to many less mobile inhabitants and, in the Spanish case, replacing the traditional (and often subsidized) businesses *de toda la vida*. Third, clashes between the more and less mobile are not always clashes between rich and poor. Next to inter-class relations, intra-class relations become tense as well. In cities and neighborhoods in their countries of arrival, migrants can unintentionally upset the jealously guarded places of the native population. Lastly, mobility in the form of migration of the poor tends to disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups in countries of arrival for, as we have shown, more privileged movers always have an exit strategy from unfavorable conditions.

## References

Appiah, K. A. (2007). Global citizenship. 75 *Fordham Law Review*. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss5/3.

Augé, M. (1995). *Non-places, introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity*. London: Verso.

Beck, U. (2008). Mobility and the cosmopolitan perspective. In W. Canzler, V. Kaufmann & S. Kesselring (Eds.), *Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective* (pp. 25–36). Burlington: Ashgate.

Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. *British Journal of Sociology*, *57*(1), 1–23.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. *Sociological Theory*, *7*(1), 14–25.

Delalex, G. (2002). Non-places: The everyday experience of flows. *disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory*, *11*(9), 101–115.

Diaz-Orueta, F. (2007). Madrid: Urban regeneration projects and social mobilization. *Cities*, *24*(3), 183–193.

Duyvendak, J. W. (2011). *The politics of home: Belonging and Nostalgia in Western Europe and the United States*. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond ‘culture’: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. *Cultural Anthropology*, *7*(1), 6–23.

Kesserling, S. 2014. Mobility, power and the emerging new mobilities regimes. *Sociologica, I*(January–April).

Knox, P. (2005). Creating ordinary places: Slow cities in a fast world. *Journal of Urban Design, 10*(1), 1–11.

Ley-Cervantes, M. (2012). Stuck in the Middle: Home-making strategies of Mexican Middling Migrants. Ph.D. Thesis, Autonomous University of Madrid.

Ley-Cervantes, M., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2017). At home in generic places: Personalizing strategies of the mobile rich. *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32*(1), 63–76.
*places* described here. However, there is more to these places than just familiarity. These “footloose” spots are also standardized, secure, and often segregated. In this sense, the differences between the more and less mobile often run parallel with class; their divergent ways of feeling at home often have class-specific consequences. First, the spread of the generic places of the rich and mobile may threaten the poor, who may be displaced to create space for “generic development.” Second, it is not only generic goods for the rich and mobile (like hotel chains) that are spreading around the world. Starbucks and McDonald’s do so as well, catering to many less mobile inhabitants and, in the Spanish case, replacing the traditional (and often subsidized) businesses *de toda la vida*. Third, clashes between the more and less mobile are not always clashes between rich and poor. Next to inter-class relations, intra-class relations become tense as well. In cities and neighborhoods in their countries of arrival, migrants can unintentionally upset the jealously guarded places of the native population. Lastly, mobility in the form of migration of the poor tends to disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups in countries of arrival for, as we have shown, more privileged movers always have an exit strategy from unfavorable conditions.

## References

Appiah, K. A. (2007). Global citizenship. 75 *Fordham Law Review*. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss5/3.

Augé, M. (1995). *Non-places, introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity*. London: Verso.

Beck, U. (2008). Mobility and the cosmopolitan perspective. In W. Canzler, V. Kaufmann & S. Kesselring (Eds.), *Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective* (pp. 25–36). Burlington: Ashgate.

Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. *British Journal of Sociology*, *57*(1), 1–23.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. *Sociological Theory*, *7*(1), 14–25.

Delalex, G. (2002). Non-places: The everyday experience of flows. *disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory*, *11*(9), 101–115.

Diaz-Orueta, F. (2007). Madrid: Urban regeneration projects and social mobilization. *Cities*, *24*(3), 183–193.

Duyvendak, J. W. (2011). *The politics of home: Belonging and Nostalgia in Western Europe and the United States*. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond ‘culture’: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. *Cultural Anthropology*, *7*(1), 6–23.

Kesserling, S. 2014. Mobility, power and the emerging new mobilities regimes. *Sociologica, I*(January–April).

Knox, P. (2005). Creating ordinary places: Slow cities in a fast world. *Journal of Urban Design, 10*(1), 1–11.

Ley-Cervantes, M. (2012). Stuck in the Middle: Home-making strategies of Mexican Middling Migrants. Ph.D. Thesis, Autonomous University of Madrid.

Ley-Cervantes, M., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2017). At home in generic places: Personalizing strategies of the mobile rich. *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32*(1), 63–76.
Nadler, R. (2016). Plug&Play places: Subjective standardization of places in multilocal lifeworlds. In P. Pucci & M. Colleoni (Eds.), *Understanding mobilities for designing contemporary cities* (pp. 109–128). Heidelberg: Springer.

Noya, J. (2004). La imagen de América Latina en España. *Real Instituto El Cano, documento de 370 trabajo, 40*. Retrieved 11 February at http://biblioteca.ribei.org/684/

Savage, M., Bagnall, G., & Longhurst, B. (2005). *Globalization and belonging*. London: Sage.

Scott, S. (2006). The social morphology of skilled migration: The case of the British middle class in Paris. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32*(7), 1105–1129.

Tian, K., & Belk, R. (2005). Extended self and possessions in the workplace. *Journal of Consumer Research, 32*(2), 297–310.

Warf, B. (2015). Global cities, cosmopolitanism, and geographies of tolerance. *Urban Geography, 36*(6), 927–946.

Wells, M. (2000). Office clutter of meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well being. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20*(3), 239–255.

Wildman, S. (2007, 28 January). 36 hours in Madrid. *New York Times*.

**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_8.png" /></figure>
Nadler, R. (2016). Plug&Play places: Subjective standardization of places in multilocal lifeworlds. In P. Pucci & M. Colleoni (Eds.), *Understanding mobilities for designing contemporary cities* (pp. 109–128). Heidelberg: Springer.

Noya, J. (2004). La imagen de América Latina en España. *Real Instituto El Cano, documento de 370 trabajo, 40*. Retrieved 11 February at http://biblioteca.ribei.org/684/

Savage, M., Bagnall, G., & Longhurst, B. (2005). *Globalization and belonging*. London: Sage.

Scott, S. (2006). The social morphology of skilled migration: The case of the British middle class in Paris. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32*(7), 1105–1129.

Tian, K., & Belk, R. (2005). Extended self and possessions in the workplace. *Journal of Consumer Research, 32*(2), 297–310.

Warf, B. (2015). Global cities, cosmopolitanism, and geographies of tolerance. *Urban Geography, 36*(6), 927–946.

Wells, M. (2000). Office clutter of meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well being. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20*(3), 239–255.

Wildman, S. (2007, 28 January). 36 hours in Madrid. *New York Times*.

**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_8.png" /></figure>
Chapter 3

Making Cosmopolitan Spaces: Urban
Design, Ideology and Power

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Giovanni Semi

**3.1 Introduction**

The diffusion of signature architecture, flagship projects and the making of a global architect stardom system indicates the relevance of place-making activities within contemporary urbanism (King 2004; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Alaily-Mattar et al. 2020). This reflects the transformations of capitalism, in its productive and spatial shape: on one hand, urbanization is the productive side of capitalism, a real estating of the world, and, on the other, the most attractive investment locations are nowadays found in China, the Arabian Peninsula and in the highest echelon of the urban hierarchy, global cities (Rossi 2017).

Mobile urbanisms and fast policy regimes are spreading and different profes-
sionals work beyond the (urban) scenes (McCann and Ward 2011; Peck and
Theodore 2010, 2015). Beside the most obvious “place entrepreneurs” (developers,
real estate agents, financial institutions, companies and public actors), there is a
whole world of expertise that deserves closer scrutiny. This chapter is devoted to
urban designers, one of the most relevant yet ambiguous professional groups within
the urban realm (Schurch 1999), and the ways through which they apply cosmopoli-
tan visions through their practices.

In this chapter I will argue that we are witnessing a growing interest for both the notion and production of public space, which is largely addressed by urban designers, who function as the key professionals in making cosmopolitan spaces (Madanipour 2006). The core of the chapter is devoted to an analysis of the field of urban design from qualitative data on the making of a global elite of urban professionals. These data are drawn from research on practitioners and academics carried out in different cities and contexts in the US (New York, Chicago, San Francisco)

<footnote>G. Semi (✉)
Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, TO, Italy
e-mail: giovanni.semi@unito.it</footnote>
Chapter 3

Making Cosmopolitan Spaces: Urban
Design, Ideology and Power

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Giovanni Semi

**3.1 Introduction**

The diffusion of signature architecture, flagship projects and the making of a global architect stardom system indicates the relevance of place-making activities within contemporary urbanism (King 2004; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Alaily-Mattar et al. 2020). This reflects the transformations of capitalism, in its productive and spatial shape: on one hand, urbanization is the productive side of capitalism, a real estating of the world, and, on the other, the most attractive investment locations are nowadays found in China, the Arabian Peninsula and in the highest echelon of the urban hierarchy, global cities (Rossi 2017).

Mobile urbanisms and fast policy regimes are spreading and different profes-
sionals work beyond the (urban) scenes (McCann and Ward 2011; Peck and
Theodore 2010, 2015). Beside the most obvious “place entrepreneurs” (developers,
real estate agents, financial institutions, companies and public actors), there is a
whole world of expertise that deserves closer scrutiny. This chapter is devoted to
urban designers, one of the most relevant yet ambiguous professional groups within
the urban realm (Schurch 1999), and the ways through which they apply cosmopoli-
tan visions through their practices.

In this chapter I will argue that we are witnessing a growing interest for both the notion and production of public space, which is largely addressed by urban designers, who function as the key professionals in making cosmopolitan spaces (Madanipour 2006). The core of the chapter is devoted to an analysis of the field of urban design from qualitative data on the making of a global elite of urban professionals. These data are drawn from research on practitioners and academics carried out in different cities and contexts in the US (New York, Chicago, San Francisco)

<footnote>G. Semi (✉)
Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, TO, Italy
e-mail: giovanni.semi@unito.it</footnote>
and Europe (London, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Berlin, Amsterdam, Delft, Haarlem, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Copenhagen and Stockholm).

## 3.2 Urban Design Meets the Public Space

The rise of signature buildings, flagship projects and “starchitecture” has boosted the visibility and commitment of urban design as a support for built environment interventions (Ponzini 2014; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Sklair 2005) within a frame of “cosmopolitan urbanism” (Binnie et al. 2006). This specific and growing demand for place-making activities has coalesced around a typical urban setting: the public space (Gospodini 2002; Madanipour 2006; Sorkin 2009). The development of urban design as a “way of thinking” (Marshall 2009, 55) between practice and theory, firms and academia, is thus related to the specific historical imprint to urban design offered by architects and their curriculum (Mumford 2009). At the same time, urban design has profited from the changed landscape of space production.

The primacy of urban design in the contemporary production of space is thus particularly evident in streets, squares, parks, waterfronts, as well as in masterplans, large-scale interventions and urban regeneration activities. We have chosen to focus on the relationship between urban design and the production of contemporary public spaces for two essential reasons: the quintessential urban nature of the latter as cosmopolitan places and their problematic and puzzling nature as open spaces.

### 3.2.1 The Public and the Private

Often viewed in opposition with private spaces, public spaces are highly regulated, precisely because of their challenging non-private essence. Rights of entry, entitlements, rules of proper behavior and the constant definition of order are at the basis of such spaces. Regulations are the rule, not the exception, and it follows that politics and conflicts are an essential part of the deal, framing the artificiality of the public space (Amin 2008).

As shown in the following graph, even though the Western world has a millennium-long experience and knowledge of public spaces, they are very recent urban objects of desire and inquiry (Bodnar 2015).
and Europe (London, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Berlin, Amsterdam, Delft, Haarlem, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Copenhagen and Stockholm).

## 3.2 Urban Design Meets the Public Space

The rise of signature buildings, flagship projects and “starchitecture” has boosted the visibility and commitment of urban design as a support for built environment interventions (Ponzini 2014; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Sklair 2005) within a frame of “cosmopolitan urbanism” (Binnie et al. 2006). This specific and growing demand for place-making activities has coalesced around a typical urban setting: the public space (Gospodini 2002; Madanipour 2006; Sorkin 2009). The development of urban design as a “way of thinking” (Marshall 2009, 55) between practice and theory, firms and academia, is thus related to the specific historical imprint to urban design offered by architects and their curriculum (Mumford 2009). At the same time, urban design has profited from the changed landscape of space production.

The primacy of urban design in the contemporary production of space is thus particularly evident in streets, squares, parks, waterfronts, as well as in masterplans, large-scale interventions and urban regeneration activities. We have chosen to focus on the relationship between urban design and the production of contemporary public spaces for two essential reasons: the quintessential urban nature of the latter as cosmopolitan places and their problematic and puzzling nature as open spaces.

### 3.2.1 The Public and the Private

Often viewed in opposition with private spaces, public spaces are highly regulated, precisely because of their challenging non-private essence. Rights of entry, entitlements, rules of proper behavior and the constant definition of order are at the basis of such spaces. Regulations are the rule, not the exception, and it follows that politics and conflicts are an essential part of the deal, framing the artificiality of the public space (Amin 2008).

As shown in the following graph, even though the Western world has a millennium-long experience and knowledge of public spaces, they are very recent urban objects of desire and inquiry (Bodnar 2015).
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

The growth in Anglo-American books on such spaces is telling. The golden age of public space discourse is thus very recent, starting mostly in the 1980s, when neoliberal policies were rapidly substituting postwar social contracts with the dismantling of the Keynesian welfare system (Jessop 1993). Moreover, the fact that this rise of consideration for public spaces has accompanied the growth of place-making interventions does not contradict the contemporaneous view eulogizing the end of the public space (Sorkin 1992). That view simply acknowledged the death of the romantic vision of urban life, *à la* Jacobs or Lefebvre, and longed for authentic encounters in the urban realm. Such places may be called *oppositional public places*, in contrast to what emerged from the 1980s onwards – *festive public spaces*, to follow Mitchell (2003, 138). Festive public places were highly promoted by neoliberal policies during the third and fourth waves of gentrification (Hackworth and Smith 2001; Lees et al. 2013; Semi 2015) and, in general, through most regeneration interventions in the deindustrialized Western urban landscape (Hubbard 1996; Harvey 2011; Moulaert et al. 2003). The elements of these new spaces are well-known: “Corporate and state planners have created environments that are based on a desire for security more than interaction, for entertainment more than (perhaps divisive) politics” (Mitchell 2003, 138; see also Hannigan 2005; Julier 2005; Zukin 1995). Beside the securitarian aspect, in which the technologies of CCTV and GPS have also contributed to reshaping the physical and spatial experience of gatherings (Graham and Marvin 2001), the most evident element of festive public places is in the transformed façade of the visible urban landscape: lighting, sidewalks, shop windows as well as the built environment as such.

The festive city, with its transformed rhythms, is a matter of capitals and political choices; urban design may be considered one of the multiple sites through which we may observe its making. The public space thus becomes the friendly and cosmopolitan milieu reassuring these generations of young, educated urban middle classes on their locational choices (Young et al. 2006). This public space is built on a striking paradox: it is designed and manufactured by sanitizing any kind of conflict in order to generate a disciplined sociability, apolitical and friendly, secure and vibrant.
Google books Ngram Viewer

Graph these comma-separated phrases: public space

case-insensitive

between 1960 and 2008 from the corpus: English One Million (2009), 1 with smoothing of 3

Search lots of books

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

The growth in Anglo-American books on such spaces is telling. The golden age of public space discourse is thus very recent, starting mostly in the 1980s, when neoliberal policies were rapidly substituting postwar social contracts with the dismantling of the Keynesian welfare system (Jessop 1993). Moreover, the fact that this rise of consideration for public spaces has accompanied the growth of place-making interventions does not contradict the contemporaneous view eulogizing the end of the public space (Sorkin 1992). That view simply acknowledged the death of the romantic vision of urban life, *à la* Jacobs or Lefebvre, and longed for authentic encounters in the urban realm. Such places may be called *oppositional public places*, in contrast to what emerged from the 1980s onwards – *festive public spaces*, to follow Mitchell (2003, 138). Festive public places were highly promoted by neoliberal policies during the third and fourth waves of gentrification (Hackworth and Smith 2001; Lees et al. 2013; Semi 2015) and, in general, through most regeneration interventions in the deindustrialized Western urban landscape (Hubbard 1996; Harvey 2011; Moulaert et al. 2003). The elements of these new spaces are well-known: “Corporate and state planners have created environments that are based on a desire for security more than interaction, for entertainment more than (perhaps divisive) politics” (Mitchell 2003, 138; see also Hannigan 2005; Julier 2005; Zukin 1995). Beside the securitarian aspect, in which the technologies of CCTV and GPS have also contributed to reshaping the physical and spatial experience of gatherings (Graham and Marvin 2001), the most evident element of festive public places is in the transformed façade of the visible urban landscape: lighting, sidewalks, shop windows as well as the built environment as such.

The festive city, with its transformed rhythms, is a matter of capitals and political choices; urban design may be considered one of the multiple sites through which we may observe its making. The public space thus becomes the friendly and cosmopolitan milieu reassuring these generations of young, educated urban middle classes on their locational choices (Young et al. 2006). This public space is built on a striking paradox: it is designed and manufactured by sanitizing any kind of conflict in order to generate a disciplined sociability, apolitical and friendly, secure and vibrant.
Architecture, landscape architecture and urban design play a pivotal role here: they transform such political projects into urbanism or, to quote Michael Sorkin, “urban design became urban renewal with a human face” (2009, 166).

## 3.3 Desire and Design

In the last few decades, as we have seen, public space has gained a higher profile, and so too have those producing it. Who are the people involved in producing public space, and, more specifically, in producing the built urban environment that is “between the buildings” (Gehl 2011)? We may include within this group a large number of actors: architects, urban designers, planners, academics, local authorities and, of course, residents and city-users.

A mainly qualitative approach has been chosen to investigate these issues. A number of semi-structured interviews were conducted with two different sets of actors: (1) people working in firms that produce projects or visions of urban design for public or private clients, and (2) people involved in university programs that teach or carry out research within urban design, and therefore produce knowledge across the field and train the next generation of urban designers (see also Semi and Bolzoni 2020). The sample was built on an international basis, including cases from Europe and the USA.<fnref n="1" /> Among the many results stemming from the interviews, an important one concerns the contradiction between the design of a public space often thought of as a cosmopolitan, democratic urban device and the hard fact of working in non-democratic environments or, to say the least, under critical conditions.

The first element of the survey dealt with the geography of urban design practice, from the sites of elaboration and innovation to those of implementation and application. In accord with the historical making of the field of urban design, the geography as well as the approaches surveyed are significantly dependent on both national and local contexts.<fnref n="1" /> Schools reproduce themselves, so programs that developed early, such as GSD at Harvard or the equivalent at Bartlett-UCL, TU-Delft or ETH-Zurich, have provided cohorts of skilled professionals that have had a serious impact on both the public and private sector. Not only does there appear to be a scholarly path-dependence with a somewhat clear geography, but there is also an urban

<footnote n="1">¹To build the sample of the University programs, we started from the work by Palazzo on the pedagogical traditions of urban design (2011), which we updated through a web inquiry and an experts inquiry carried out by the jiscmail devoted to urban design. We specifically focused on University programs on urban design. To build the sample of firms we started by analyzing the winners of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) awards, section of urban design, of the last 5 years and few directories partly or entirely devoted to urban design, such as archdaily, laud8, urban design group, dexigner. We also adopted a snowball sample strategy, asking all the firms and academics contacted to signal up to five firms that have been carrying out interesting and/or influential works in the last couple of years. On this basis we contacted more than 29 academics and 62 firms. The result of this first stage of research is a body of 39 recorded interviews carried out in May 2014 and between April and May 2015.</footnote>
Architecture, landscape architecture and urban design play a pivotal role here: they transform such political projects into urbanism or, to quote Michael Sorkin, “urban design became urban renewal with a human face” (2009, 166).

## 3.3 Desire and Design

In the last few decades, as we have seen, public space has gained a higher profile, and so too have those producing it. Who are the people involved in producing public space, and, more specifically, in producing the built urban environment that is “between the buildings” (Gehl 2011)? We may include within this group a large number of actors: architects, urban designers, planners, academics, local authorities and, of course, residents and city-users.

A mainly qualitative approach has been chosen to investigate these issues. A number of semi-structured interviews were conducted with two different sets of actors: (1) people working in firms that produce projects or visions of urban design for public or private clients, and (2) people involved in university programs that teach or carry out research within urban design, and therefore produce knowledge across the field and train the next generation of urban designers (see also Semi and Bolzoni 2020). The sample was built on an international basis, including cases from Europe and the USA.<fnref n="1" /> Among the many results stemming from the interviews, an important one concerns the contradiction between the design of a public space often thought of as a cosmopolitan, democratic urban device and the hard fact of working in non-democratic environments or, to say the least, under critical conditions.

The first element of the survey dealt with the geography of urban design practice, from the sites of elaboration and innovation to those of implementation and application. In accord with the historical making of the field of urban design, the geography as well as the approaches surveyed are significantly dependent on both national and local contexts.<fnref n="1" /> Schools reproduce themselves, so programs that developed early, such as GSD at Harvard or the equivalent at Bartlett-UCL, TU-Delft or ETH-Zurich, have provided cohorts of skilled professionals that have had a serious impact on both the public and private sector. Not only does there appear to be a scholarly path-dependence with a somewhat clear geography, but there is also an urban

<footnote n="1">¹To build the sample of the University programs, we started from the work by Palazzo on the pedagogical traditions of urban design (2011), which we updated through a web inquiry and an experts inquiry carried out by the jiscmail devoted to urban design. We specifically focused on University programs on urban design. To build the sample of firms we started by analyzing the winners of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) awards, section of urban design, of the last 5 years and few directories partly or entirely devoted to urban design, such as archdaily, laud8, urban design group, dexigner. We also adopted a snowball sample strategy, asking all the firms and academics contacted to signal up to five firms that have been carrying out interesting and/or influential works in the last couple of years. On this basis we contacted more than 29 academics and 62 firms. The result of this first stage of research is a body of 39 recorded interviews carried out in May 2014 and between April and May 2015.</footnote>
path-dependence. Beside the few gigantic global firms such as SOM, ARUP or HOK (some of which were interviewed) that run offices worldwide and hire thousands of skilled architects and urban designers, most middle to low-size firms are locally embedded in a city in which they get the majority of their commissions and in which they foster their social capital through meetings, conferences and events (Tiesdell and Adams 2011). In a similar way to what was shown by Fainstein on local developers, urban design firms, even when they “go global,” have to keep their local roots (2001).

The nexus between globalism and localism is precisely represented by cosmopolitanism, a professional and cultural marker that most of the interviewees pointed to as the crucial element in defining themselves. The architects and designers interviewed all had one point in common, whether they were working in a multinational firm based in New York or a small practice in Stockholm: they were trained in different universities and cities, had multiple professional experiences in several countries, and worked in a culturally diverse and cosmopolitan working environment.

Even though the geography of universities has its own hierarchy, as pointed above, circulation nonetheless defined the working life of each professional we got in touch with:

> The language in the office is English because we have a lot of different nationalities, there are Danish people, there are American people, there are Italian people, there are Spanish people...yeah, I think that's it right now. But we have had a lot of different nationalities here...Swedes, Germans...from all over Europe, which I also think is a great strength to getting different kinds of perspective on what they think, or what they know is working where they're from, and how it could work here and also why they think something's not going to work here in that sense. And that's also why I'm so interested in this, because what we do here and the way we work here and the way we try to influence the way that the public space is being developed and how it's being designed, I would really try to share that with different cities and municipalities, try to guide them to how they could sort of do the same kinds of spaces that we do here in Denmark. (Founder, mid-size firm, Copenhagen)

Almost every interview brought out information about internships and the educational, ethnic and national backgrounds of the interviewees, but also attitudes towards travels, open-mindedness and cultural sensitivity that highlighted the quality of a professional cosmopolitan. While we might assume that this cosmopolitan ethos is a common trait for most professionals dealing in a globalized environment (lawyers, managers, doctors, etc.) or for high-skilled people working in global cities, one specificity for architects and urban designers is the role played by field trips.

### 3.3.1 Fieldtrips: The Nexus Between Models and Inspiration

All the interviewees from architecture and urban design firms shared the habit of traveling to other cities and territories to learn from other practices and to visit projects under construction or see finished ones. These activities were part of the professional group activity called the field trip.
path-dependence. Beside the few gigantic global firms such as SOM, ARUP or HOK (some of which were interviewed) that run offices worldwide and hire thousands of skilled architects and urban designers, most middle to low-size firms are locally embedded in a city in which they get the majority of their commissions and in which they foster their social capital through meetings, conferences and events (Tiesdell and Adams 2011). In a similar way to what was shown by Fainstein on local developers, urban design firms, even when they “go global,” have to keep their local roots (2001).

The nexus between globalism and localism is precisely represented by cosmopolitanism, a professional and cultural marker that most of the interviewees pointed to as the crucial element in defining themselves. The architects and designers interviewed all had one point in common, whether they were working in a multinational firm based in New York or a small practice in Stockholm: they were trained in different universities and cities, had multiple professional experiences in several countries, and worked in a culturally diverse and cosmopolitan working environment.

Even though the geography of universities has its own hierarchy, as pointed above, circulation nonetheless defined the working life of each professional we got in touch with:

> The language in the office is English because we have a lot of different nationalities, there are Danish people, there are American people, there are Italian people, there are Spanish people...yeah, I think that's it right now. But we have had a lot of different nationalities here...Swedes, Germans...from all over Europe, which I also think is a great strength to getting different kinds of perspective on what they think, or what they know is working where they're from, and how it could work here and also why they think something's not going to work here in that sense. And that's also why I'm so interested in this, because what we do here and the way we work here and the way we try to influence the way that the public space is being developed and how it's being designed, I would really try to share that with different cities and municipalities, try to guide them to how they could sort of do the same kinds of spaces that we do here in Denmark. (Founder, mid-size firm, Copenhagen)

Almost every interview brought out information about internships and the educational, ethnic and national backgrounds of the interviewees, but also attitudes towards travels, open-mindedness and cultural sensitivity that highlighted the quality of a professional cosmopolitan. While we might assume that this cosmopolitan ethos is a common trait for most professionals dealing in a globalized environment (lawyers, managers, doctors, etc.) or for high-skilled people working in global cities, one specificity for architects and urban designers is the role played by field trips.

### 3.3.1 Fieldtrips: The Nexus Between Models and Inspiration

All the interviewees from architecture and urban design firms shared the habit of traveling to other cities and territories to learn from other practices and to visit projects under construction or see finished ones. These activities were part of the professional group activity called the field trip.
Fieldtrips and relationships among firms contribute to crystallizing views and models, especially in relation to public space design, but also to fostering the sense of being a community of professionals, forging the identity of the global architect and designer.

The issue of models is crucial to understanding contemporary place-making by architects and urban designers. First of all, there is longstanding tradition of “contextualism” in urbanism and architecture, defined by such figures as Camillo Sitte, Colin Rowe, and Aldo Rossi. Under this perspective, which owes a significant debt to studies carried out by Sitte in nineteenth-century Italy to identify the perfect piazza (Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen was published in 1889), squares were considered the prototypes of qualitative superior urban life. The contextual tradition is renewed constantly through professional fieldtrips, and places like Italy, for instance, play a role as a site of continuous inquiry and learning.

Field trips might also be considered as a professional tourism activity. In the case of Italy, this tourism is informed by a historical context in which aristocrats and nobles scrutinized Southern Europe during the Grand Tour and afterwards (Hom 2015):

> We spent the most time in *Rome*, I really like Rome, and then *Lucca*, when we were on that trip we were in Lucca for six weeks, and then stopped outside of *Pienza*, we actually stayed on a farm for a week, just a week, but it was...[...] and so that was really influential, and then to be ... in terms of inspiration, it's kind of, yeah, in the background, *that's the kind of place I'd go to be intellectually inspired*. (Founder, middle-size firm, San Francisco; emphasis supplied)

While there is no socio-political understanding of the contemporary urban condition of Italian cities and squares, a subterranean Orientalism keeps orienting these fieldtrips. In several interviews Southern Europe emerged as a place for cosmopolitan inspiration, while the Global North acted more as a place for cosmopolitan creation and development.

The geography of inspiration may produce moral labels among urban designers that are consistent with an ordering and deciphering activity necessary to foster a cosmopolitan perspective on public spaces. If medieval and Renaissance Italy can act as a place to get “intellectually inspired,” one might also consider the other side of the spectrum, namely “shitty places”:

> And I think you should also go and visit some鎮shitty places, there's so much to visit in Dublin, and see how it looks there, like, places where it's not nice, and I think it would be good to, it would be interesting, [...] but I think places that are, like, like Turkey or India or whatever, that are at the edge of ...China also ...that are not like super-poor countries but how they think public space. (Partner, mid-size firm, Copenhagen)

This differentiation among field trip destinations between “intellectually inspiring” and “shitty” places led Moscow and Berlin to be identified, like Rome, Siena, Ravenna, and Lucca, as interesting starting places, while generally speaking the Global South is more on the “shitty” side.

While the landscape of inspiration follows a Global North/Global South divide, it is also clear that the geography of production goes eastward. The Arabian
Fieldtrips and relationships among firms contribute to crystallizing views and models, especially in relation to public space design, but also to fostering the sense of being a community of professionals, forging the identity of the global architect and designer.

The issue of models is crucial to understanding contemporary place-making by architects and urban designers. First of all, there is longstanding tradition of “contextualism” in urbanism and architecture, defined by such figures as Camillo Sitte, Colin Rowe, and Aldo Rossi. Under this perspective, which owes a significant debt to studies carried out by Sitte in nineteenth-century Italy to identify the perfect piazza (Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen was published in 1889), squares were considered the prototypes of qualitative superior urban life. The contextual tradition is renewed constantly through professional fieldtrips, and places like Italy, for instance, play a role as a site of continuous inquiry and learning.

Field trips might also be considered as a professional tourism activity. In the case of Italy, this tourism is informed by a historical context in which aristocrats and nobles scrutinized Southern Europe during the Grand Tour and afterwards (Hom 2015):

> We spent the most time in *Rome*, I really like Rome, and then *Lucca*, when we were on that trip we were in Lucca for six weeks, and then stopped outside of *Pienza*, we actually stayed on a farm for a week, just a week, but it was...[...] and so that was really influential, and then to be ... in terms of inspiration, it's kind of, yeah, in the background, *that's the kind of place I'd go to be intellectually inspired*. (Founder, middle-size firm, San Francisco; emphasis supplied)

While there is no socio-political understanding of the contemporary urban condition of Italian cities and squares, a subterranean Orientalism keeps orienting these fieldtrips. In several interviews Southern Europe emerged as a place for cosmopolitan inspiration, while the Global North acted more as a place for cosmopolitan creation and development.

The geography of inspiration may produce moral labels among urban designers that are consistent with an ordering and deciphering activity necessary to foster a cosmopolitan perspective on public spaces. If medieval and Renaissance Italy can act as a place to get “intellectually inspired,” one might also consider the other side of the spectrum, namely “shitty places”:

> And I think you should also go and visit some鎮shitty places, there's so much to visit in Dublin, and see how it looks there, like, places where it's not nice, and I think it would be good to, it would be interesting, [...] but I think places that are, like, like Turkey or India or whatever, that are at the edge of ...China also ...that are not like super-poor countries but how they think public space. (Partner, mid-size firm, Copenhagen)

This differentiation among field trip destinations between “intellectually inspiring” and “shitty” places led Moscow and Berlin to be identified, like Rome, Siena, Ravenna, and Lucca, as interesting starting places, while generally speaking the Global South is more on the “shitty” side.

While the landscape of inspiration follows a Global North/Global South divide, it is also clear that the geography of production goes eastward. The Arabian