Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please e-mail: journals. Issue Section:.
Contemporary Cosmopolitanism is the first, much-needed, introduction to contemporary political cosmopolitanism. Although it has its roots in classical. The moral philosophy of contemporary cosmopolitanism—the basis on which cosmopolitanism is discussed today—is distinctly Western. What this means is that.
You do not currently have access to this article. Download all figures. Sign in. You could not be signed in. Sign In Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution Sign in. Purchase Subscription prices and ordering Short-term Access To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. Here we describe a framework for understanding contemporary cosmopolitanism, informed by a synthesis of the marine bioinvasion literature.
Our framework defines several novel categories in an attempt to provide a unified terminology for discussing cosmopolitan distributions in the world's oceans. We reserve the term eucosmopolitan to refer to those species for which data exist to support a true, natural, and prehistorically global or extremely broad distribution.
While in the past this has been the default assumption for species observed to exhibit contemporary cosmopolitan distributions, we argue that given recent advances in marine invasion science this assignment should require positive evidence. In contrast, neocosmopolitan describes those species that have demonstrably achieved extensive geographic ranges only through historical anthropogenic dispersal, often facilitated over centuries of human maritime traffic. We discuss the history and human geography underpinning these neocosmopolitan distributions, and illustrate the extent to which these factors may have altered natural biogeographic patterns.
We define the category pseudocosmopolitan to encompass taxa for which a broad distribution is determined typically after molecular investigation to reflect multiple, sometimes regionally endemic, lineages with uncertain taxonomic status; such species may remain cosmopolitan only so long as taxonomic uncertainty persists, after which they may splinter into multiple geographically restricted species. We discuss the methods employed to identify such species and to resolve both their taxonomic status and their biogeographic histories.
And while this might be exactly the case in most instances, as a large literature has demonstrated, the dominance of cultural relativism in social sciences has offered very few tools to move beyond normative studies about cultural distinctiveness and to allow for considerations about larger patterns of cultural relationships.
I believe that cosmopolitanism, as the concept has recently been re defined in the social sciences, is most productive to address nineteenth-century music practices when it is evoked as a way of confronting modernity and reflecting on its connected, shared cultural practices. The cosmopolitan lens can serve to elucidate large and ever-changing patterns of cultural movements not bound by the nation or by locality, to explore cultural expressions resulting from shared perceptions of the world and shared spaces of cultural attachments and detachments that ultimately come to exist beyond the marketability of cultural capital.
As a flexible signifier not bound by language, music can serve us particularly well in these explorations.
Kent Archaeological Society. The word cosmopolitan implies that the world itself can be regarded as a polis or political community and that it is possible for the human being to live as a citizen polites of the world. What this means is that it is based philosophically, historically, and culturally in the Western tradition of liberal thought. Philosophy of mind. Religion is too powerful among men for reason to displace it, and classical religion was set against reason in a battle the latter could not possibly win. Pages: 21—
What does the practice say about the music, about the process, and about those near and those far? For example, Gillen Darcy Wood explores virtuosity as an outgrowth of and a response to both markets and technology. One can suggest that Italian bravura singing offered a take on the voice as part of the mechanics of the era, and composers dedicated melodies that emphasized the visual aspects of the culture of idolatry through the voice.
These welcome studies have opened paths for redeeming nineteenth-century modernity from the confines of the politics of nationalism.
Considering cosmopolitanism as a nineteenth-century experience and practice allows us to contemplate music practices originating in Europe beyond its Europeaness. But one should go further and address cosmopolitanism as an ideal that was articulated through a complex interplay of shared aesthetic modes of reflection and collective creativity.
If markets and technological advances in communication made possible the crossing of borders, engagements with cultural difference, and the extension of social belongings, they also supported shared spaces of aesthetic expressions and perceptions of the universal.
The relevance of cosmopolitanism for explorations of nineteenth-century musical practices rests on the assumption that not only musical production and consumption, but also aesthetic stances and creative solutions, were shared and negotiated by many beyond geographical boundaries and the confines of politics of national cultural belonging. Papastergiadis proposes an exploration of the aesthetic dimension of cosmopolitanism, as well as a consideration of the cosmopolitan worldview that is produced through aesthetics.
Alberto Nepomuceno — lived through the trenches of a complex nineteenth-century musical world. His personal and professional life also led to connections with Edward Grieg and Gustav Mahler. Like many of his contemporaries, Nepomuceno had aspirations to write music for a large audience, both local and far away, and to belong to a music world as he perceived it: one that was shaped in Europe and that, he believed, had the potential to be universal. But Nepomuceno was not a citizen of, nor did he have political commitments to, any of the European countries in which he lived.
At thirty years of age he moved across the Atlantic and spent his life far from European audiences in large concert and opera halls, away from the scrutiny of powerful publishers and critics. The few publications of his music during his lifetime seldom made it to the coveted venues in Europe; only a few of his works were heard in Europe, although some were performed in his home country, mostly as part of an imagined legacy that fulfilled local nationalistic agendas. At the same time, Nepomuceno lived in a coastal capital city with a large port opened historically, politically, and commercially to Europe.
The city was in many ways like many others during the nineteenth-century: an urban conglomerate and part of a larger system of political and economic expansion and technological modernization of Europe. His life was thus set in a hub of nineteenth-century urban cultural connections, and within this context he became an accomplished composer who acquired a solid position as the leader of a local musical establishment.
Nepomuceno could partake of the promises and disillusionments of modernity that were inescapable to his generation, from the technological advances that connected audiences and that fueled the rise of public entertainment, to the angst caused by the globalizing effects of a bloating capitalism, to the fast growth of political nationalism.
Like many artists of his generation, Nepomuceno was attentive to avant-garde movements and to new modes of interaction and experiences in a period of global conflicts, commercial expansion, and unprecedented cultural connections. His ability in melodic development and his fondness for classic formal structures in his symphony and some chamber works have earned him the stature of a neo-Brahmsian. As a composer dwelling with his own modernity, Nepomuceno explored the limits of tonality, experimented with the contingencies of musical form, toyed with various exoticisms, and made incursions into popular music styles.
He penned large and small orchestral pieces and smaller instrumental works in various timbristic combinations and pondered the creative possibilities enabled by the technological advances of instruments, as he explored the associations between music and images and the expansion of the sonic through the visual. Nepomuceno also wrote a long list of exquisite songs in a variety of languages, exploring the musical potential of poetry in various languages. Nepomuceno was a music chameleon, Dante Pignatari asserts, able to move among and make use of all styles, genres, and formal and technical possibilities available to him.
It seems that his output is entrapped by its similarity to modes of establishment and subdued by its lack of originality.
Goldberg and Vidal have pointed out that the composer was particularly successful in conjuring up techniques usually understood as disparate, a juxtaposition that does not reveal a synthesis, but rather a collage of apparently discordant modes of expressions. A gamut of musical techniques and modes of musical expression available at the end of the nineteenth century is present in this work. Nepomuceno moves effortlessly among diatonicism, chromaticism, bitonality, modal harmonies, suspended cadences, politonality, harmonic clusters, pentatonicism, and whole-tone scale without the need for bridges or hybridization.
As such, Nepomuceno was not alone in his creative endeavours, for several artistss confronting the transformations of the long 19 th century were also investing in the creative possibilities of cosmopolitan connections. Composers like Nepomuceno allow us to see how nineteenth-century cosmopolitan musicians resisted geographical, cultural, and political constrains, and how they reflected on and challenged the limits of the European imagination and authority and the French, the German, the English, etc.
Paradoxically, one can also say that the condition of marginality becomes an asset for Nepomuceno, for it offers him the flexibility of locating himself within several realms of the cosmopolitan scape, to invest in the possibilities of large patterns of cultural and musical connections, and to act on the implications of this cosmopolitanism by negotiating a view of the world through selection and participation. Rodolfo Coelho points to a challenging question in this regard.
Most important, they show that a cosmopolitan connection allowed composers in various places to arrive at similar solutions to similar problems within their individual global imaginaries. The exploration of a cosmopolitan experience through music casts new light on ideals of universality commonly granted to the music production of Europe, and particularly accorded to narratives of a specific nineteenth-century music canon. Cosmopolitanism brings to the fore the possibility of universality through multiple actors and recasts the myth of the individual creator under a condition of nationality.
At the same time, the cosmopolitan lens reveals the limits of the cosmopolitan experience and its assumption of openness and participation. In the end, a cosmopolitan lens cannot suggest an expansion of the nineteenth-century canon, aiming to find a place for an ever-growing number of artists left in the limbo of a music historiography devoted to national musical traits—an endeavor that would clearly be unattainable and academically unsatisfying.
The pursuit of a cosmopolitan lens of inquiry serves a less ambitious purpose.
It suggests a framework for explorations of the cultural complexity and often unexpected trajectories that lie behind historical narratives of national musics and cultural ownership. In the end, I believe, the exploration of the cosmopolitan realm leads to the rethinking of how music mattered in the past and to the realization that the full story of European nineteenth-century musics is yet to be told.
For a critique of the revival of cosmopolitanism in the social sciences, see Craig J.