Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I argue that cosmopolitanisms, as visions of living with difference, and race and racisms, as political regimes of subjection and subjectification, are mutually constitutive. Although scholars have made similar claims regarding earlier versions of cosmopolitanisms, developed largely from the work of Immanuel Kant, recent proponents have conceptualized their renewed formulations, detached from Eurocentric histories and newly expanded to include the migrant, refugee, and subaltern, as promissory visions of conviviality and often as an antidote to racisms. Despite efforts to expand cosmopolitanisms to include racial subjects previously excluded, these visions may be productive of new, renewed, and changing forms of racial subjection. Specifically, I argue that racisms are an immanent and organizing logic manifest in the production of racial heterogeneities and differentiations upon which cosmopolitical visions depend and also generative of the cosmopolitan outlook these encounters are thought to require. To situate and develop these claims, I open with a 1907 sketch published in the Illustrated London News which depicts Vancouver, Canada both as “the most cosmopolitan city in the world” (Begg, 1907, page 476) and as a site of anti-Asian violence. Approaching this image both as a historical example and as an opening for critical inquiry, I untangle the constitutive relations between racisms and cosmopolitanisms through the labor demands of global capitalism and in the cultivated indifference that is frequently identified as the hallmark of a cosmopolitan disposition. While the conjoined forces of colonialism and capitalism effectuated the historico-material basis of ethnoracial difference, what some have termed an ‘ordinary cosmopolitanism’, these conditions did not lead to conviviality alone. Rather, in racially charged colonial Vancouver, the indifference that Europeans putatively expressed in their encounters with migrants from China, Japan, and later India, commonly erupted into racial enmity and violence. What might this historical example afford to contemporary discussions regarding the present and future of the new cosmopolitanisms?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".