Cosmopolitanisms / Bruce Robbins, Paulo Lemos Horta, and Kwame Anthony Appiah.

Contributor(s):

Material type: Text

TextPublisher: New York : New York University Press, 2018Description: 1 online resourceContent type:

text

Media type:

computer

Carrier type:

online resource

ISBN:

9781479839681
147983968X

Subject(s):

Genre/Form:

Additional physical formats: Print version :: No titleDDC classification:

306 23

LOC classification:

JZ1308 .C6887 2018

Online resources:

Click here to access online

Contents:

Cover; Half Title; Series Page; Title Page; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; Acknowledgments; Introduction: Feeling Cuban; 1. Un Tipo Típico: Alvarez Guedes Takes the Stage; 2. Cuban Miami on the Air; 3. Nostalgic Pleasures; 4. The Transnational Life of Diversión; 5. Digital Diversión: Feeling Cuban Online; Notes; Works Cited; Index; About the Author.

Summary: Cosmopolitanism is less an ideal than a description. It merely assumes that wherever and whenever history has set peoples in motion across national boundaries, sometimes by force, many of them and their descendants will show signs of divided loyalties and a hybrid identity. Cosmopolitanism should no longer be conceived as singular - an overrriding loyalty to humanity as a whole-but plural. Instead of an unhealthily skinny ethical abstraction, we now have many blooming, fleshed-out particulars. How much do these variants have in common with each other? How much of the concept's old normative sense is preserved or transformed by these empirical particulars? What is it exactly that makes them interesting, makes them valuable?

Item type:

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Home library	Collection	Call number	Materials specified	Status	Date due	Barcode
Electronic-Books	OPJGU Sonepat- Campus	E-Books EBSCO			Available

Previously issued in print: 2017.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Cosmopolitanism is less an ideal than a description. It merely assumes that wherever and whenever history has set peoples in motion across national boundaries, sometimes by force, many of them and their descendants will show signs of divided loyalties and a hybrid identity. Cosmopolitanism should no longer be conceived as singular - an overrriding loyalty to humanity as a whole-but plural. Instead of an unhealthily skinny ethical abstraction, we now have many blooming, fleshed-out particulars. How much do these variants have in common with each other? How much of the concept's old normative sense is preserved or transformed by these empirical particulars? What is it exactly that makes them interesting, makes them valuable?