T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 3 Living Together in Lhasa Ethnic Relations, Coercive Amity, and Subaltern Cosmopolitanism

Shrill warnings of an inevitable “clash of civilizations,” and their invocation as justifi cation for xenophobic patriotism and imperial invasion, have given renewed urgency to the search for emergent cosmopolitanisms, as practices of conviviality and forms of belonging and solidarity to a world community. The “cosmopolitan” ideals and projects necessary for the task do not refer to sophisticated world travel and cross-cultural expertise, the conventional sense of cosmopolitanism as no more than a “good ethical orientation for those privileged to inhabit the frequent traveler lounges” (Calhoun 112). Nor does it signal an inevitable return to Immanuel Kant’s formulation; histories of colonialism and capitalism have long since discredited the benign potential of international commerce as a stable foundation for perpetual peace. Indeed, recent commentators have criticized the predilection to begin every discussion of cosmopolitanism with a return to European intellectual history: “[i]f it is already clear that cosmopolitanism begins with the Stoics, who invented the term, or with Kant who reinvented it, then philosophical refl ection on these moments is going to enable us always to fi nd what we are looking for. Yet [we could instead] try to be archivally cosmopolitan and to say, ‘Let’s simply look at the world across time and space and see how people have thought and acted beyond the local’” (Pollock et al. 585–86). The search for cosmopolitanisms beyond elite border crossings and imperial universalisms animates Clifford’s argument for “discrepant cosmopolitanism,” exemplifi ed by servants and migrant laborers who were and are also world travelers. These discrepant cosmopolitans are those excluded by Hannerz’s insistence on the distinction between genuine cosmopolitans (who by his defi nition must be elites) and traders, tourists, migrants, and exiles, who travel but do not immerse themselves in another culture, or only do so out of necessity. The trope of travel is also taken up by Appiah, whose “rooted cosmopolitanism” of “cosmopolitan patriots” works against the presumed opposition between cosmopolitanism and nationalism, or patriotism. Cosmopolitan patriots are attached to a home of their own but