Because of its rhetorical nature, the notion of cosmopolitanism is sometimes understood as having a fixed definition. As this is not the case, parts of this overstrained concept have been replaced by the concept of conviviality. In some discussions, Immanuel Kant’s understanding of hospitality as a cosmopolitan right has been criticised and, in some cases, this has resulted in a rejection of the idea of cosmopolitanism. This has not least been the case in recent debates about refugee arrivals in Europe. This chapter, however, argues that it is worth paying attention to the historicity of conceptual frameworks, and that cosmopolitanism should not be abandoned, but instead be read as a utopian idea—as a reflexive method for imagining better or alternative futures in time and space.

This chapter offers a discussion of the relation between patriotism and cosmopolitanism in a Swedish context. It takes its starting point in the refugee situation  of 2015, where Sweden together with Germany hosted Europe’s largest number of refugees in relation to its population. The cosmopolitan right of hospitality as defined by Kant used to have a relation to patriotism, while today the two concepts no longer seem to have that relation. Swedish intellectual Ellen Key shows a way to discuss this relation that opens for an alternative way to consider patriotism.

Cosmopolitanism is a value-loaded concept that seems to become popular in intervals. The latest cosmopolitan period started after the end of the Cold War and the breakdown of the Soviet Union and concentrated mostly on aspects such as “a new world order”, and often with reference to Kant. It might be questioned if the cosmopolitan period still exists. Here it is suggested that a historical understanding of cosmopolitanism together with experience from later social and political experiences might give a new perspective on the difficulties of creating a better world in a Kantian sense, including cosmopolitan education. Considering its history and taking concern of experience Kant’s cosmopolitanism still is relevant, not least in its broader sense.

Since the Enlightenment, the definition of terms such as humanity, citizenship and rights has fluctuated and these ideas continue to haverelevance for contemporary discussions of globalization from a «cosmopolitan» perspective. This volume goes back to the conception ofcosmopolitanism in Greek antiquity in order to trace it through history, resulting in an unmasking of its many myths. The concept is reconstructedwith reference not only to well-known (and some lesser known) historical thinkers of cosmopolitanism, but also to noted «anti-cosmopolitans».The first aim of the book is to display historical perspectives on a discourse which has been dominated by ahistorical presumptions. Thesecond is to critically explore alternative paths beyond the Western imagination, redefining the Enlightenment legacy and the centre-peripherydichotomy. Most notably, Eastern Europe and the Arab world are integrated within the analysis of cosmopolitanism. Within a framework ofconceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte), cosmopolitan reason is criticized from the viewpoints of comparative literature, psychoanalysis,phenomenology, postcolonialism and moral philosophy.The book’s critical approach is an attempt to come to terms with the anachronism, essentialism, ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism thatsometimes underlie contemporary theoretical and methodological uses of the term «cosmopolitanism». By adding historical and contextualdepth to the problem of cosmopolitanism, a reflexive corrective is presented to enhance ongoing discussions of this topic within as well asoutside academia.

Whether in science or in international politics, neutrality has sometimes been promoted, not only as a viable political alternative but as a lofty ideal – in politics by nations proclaiming their peacefulness, in science as an underpinning of epistemology, in journalism and other intellectual pursuits as a foundation of a professional ethos. Time and again scientists and other intellectuals have claimed their endeavors to be neutral, elevated above the world of partisan conflict and power politics. This volume studies the resonances between neutrality in science and culture and neutrality in politics. By analyzing the activities of scientists, intellectuals, and politicians (sometimes overlapping categories) of mostly neutral nations in the First World War and after, it traces how an ideology of neutralism was developed that soon was embraced by international organizations.

This book explores how the notion of neutrality has been used and how a neutralist discourse developed in history. None of the contributions take claims of neutrality at face value – some even show how they were made to advance partisan interests. The concept was typically clustered with notions, such as peace, internationalism, objectivity, rationality, and civilization. But its meaning was changeable – varying with professional, ideological, or national context. As such, Neutrality in Twentieth-Century Europe presents a different perspective on the century than the story of the great belligerent powers, and one in which science, culture, and politics are inextricably mixed.

Contemporary discussions on cosmopolitanism are often based on older assumptions that have become invisible or hard to unearth. This volume explores the idea of kosmopolis by placing it into different historical, philosophical, social, and political contexts. By bringing together different views on and aspects of cosmopolitanism, the volume aims at contributing to new understandings of kosmopolis and the resulting cosmopolitan ideal, and of the fears this concept may generate.

The nine contributors discuss kosmopolis within the contexts of philosophers such as Heraclitus and Kant, the thoughts and texts of the nobility, intellectual thoughts from the Enlightenment, contemporary political institutions, and grass root cosmopolitanism. The intent is to illustrate how the meaning of »cosmopolitanism« is influenced not only by its history but also by its specific contexts.

Lettevall tager i artiklen fat på næste større fase i kosmopolitismens idéhistorie – den helt uomgængelige formulering den får i oplysningstiden og specielt hos Kant; ikke mindst i hans lille, men meget vigtige værk fra 1795, Til den evige fred. Lettevall diskuterer Kants begrænsning af kosmopolitisk ret til gæstfrihed, som han formulerede i en kritik af sin samtids kolonialisme. Hun viser også i en diskussion af Kants antropologiske forelæsninger, at kosmopolitter sagtens kan være snæversynede.