untitled by Juan Pardo

Current Sociology http://csi.sagepub.com

Cosmopolitans and Locals: An Empirical Investigation of Transnationalism Anna Olofsson and Susanna Ă&#x2013;hman Current Sociology 2007; 55; 877 DOI: 10.1177/0011392107081991 The online version of this article can be found at: http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/6/877

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Current Sociology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://csi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 20 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/55/6/877

Cosmopolitans and Locals An Empirical Investigation of Transnationalism Anna Olofsson and Susanna Öhman

Mid Sweden University

abstract: The aim of this study is to empirically test Roudometof’s suggested onedimensional operationalization of transnationalism, from cosmopolitanism to localism, and compare it with an alternative two-dimensional operationalization. The study uses Swedish survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), for 1995 and 2003. The results indicate that a two-dimensional, rather than a one-dimensional, solution fits the data better. Transnationalism can therefore be seen as one dimension ranging from local to global and one ranging from protectionism to openness. The same result was obtained for both 1995 and 2003. The results also show that people with different attitudes differ socioeconomically and that there is a trend over time towards more protectionist, rather than open, attitudes among the Swedish public. keywords: cosmopolitanism ✦ globalization ✦ International Social Survey Programme ✦ localism ✦ protectionism

Introduction Broadly speaking, cosmopolitanism, transnationalism and glocalism are concepts associated with, for example, global economy, communication, migration and environmental problems (Beck, 1992, 2000, 2004; Matten, 2004). There is little doubt whether these examples are global issues; however, there is less agreement regarding the consequences of this trend for society on a global, national and individual level; and it is also rather unclear how these concepts relate to each other, as well as how they should be investigated empirically. In the first issue of Current Sociology for 2005, Victor Roudometof discusses three aspects of cosmopolitanism: first he tries to clarify some of the conceptual indistinctiveness surrounding the

Current Sociology ✦ November 2007 ✦ Vol. 55(6): 877–895 © International Sociological Association SAGE (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) DOI: 10.1177/0011392107081991

877

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6

subject; second, he exemplifies the consequences of a changed reality in people’s attitudes; and finally, he offers an operationalization of transnationalism inspired by Ulrich Beck. Roudometof (2005a) operationalizes transnationalism as attitudes related to different geographical and cultural levels, and he argues that it might be possible to empirically position people on a one-dimensional scale, ranging from local to global, according to their attitudes. We find this operationalization particularly interesting, not least because of its resemblance to other definitions of social change based on value shifts, e.g. Roland Inglehart’s (1977, 1990) materialist–postmaterialist continuum, which, after much criticism (e.g. Flanagan, 1982; Knutsen, 1989, 1990; Krebs, 1992), was redefined into a two-dimensional model (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Inglehart and Welzel, 2005). The complexity of values and value shifts has also been confirmed by a number of other earlier studies (see Hviid Nielsen et al., 2002; Olofsson and Öhman, 2006; Tos et al., 1999). This article aims to empirically test Roudometof’s one-dimensional operationalization of transnationalism. Specifically, we test whether people in Sweden can be categorized according to the cosmopolitanism–local continuum; thereafter, we investigate if differences in these kinds of attitudes are related to differences in socioeconomic characteristics such as gender, age and income; and finally, we test if there are any changes in cosmopolitan–local attitudes over time. The next section presents relevant concepts and Roudometof’s operationalization, followed by a short description of the data used and the methods that were applied. The results, which are the main section of the article, are then presented. The article ends with a concluding discussion of the results in relation to the suggested operationalization, and a proposal for a two-dimensional model of transnationalism.

Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Localism Victor Roudometof (2005a: 113) tries to clarify the relations between the concepts cosmopolitanism, transnationalism and localism, and he poses the questions whether transnationalism leads to increased cosmopolitanism and if localism is a negation of transnationalism and cosmopolitanism. To answer these questions, he tries to identify the social processes responsible for undermining the boundaries of the nation-state, describes the reality of living in a social reality with structural relationships extending beyond national borders, and finally, tries to outline the changed features of individual attitudes by suggesting an operationalization of what he calls the cosmopolitan–local continuum (Roudometof, 2005a: 113). Roudometof argues that cosmopolitanism can be divided into ‘thick’ or ‘rooted’ cosmopolitanism, which is attachment to a specific country or 878

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals

locality that has developed from transnational interaction (on the level of ‘social fields’), and ‘thin’ cosmopolitanism, which is not associated with a particular country or region, but indicates a change of values that has effects on both a local and a global level. Thin cosmopolitanism can be seen as an attitude towards life and the world that is not rooted in countryspecific experiences but in global and glocal experiences. Roudometof argues in favour of the second version, and he suggests an operationalization of cosmopolitanism according to the ‘thin’ version (Roudometof, 2005a: 121). According to Roudometof, contemporary literature often differentiates between transnationals and cosmopolitans in an elitist or normative way by associating transnationalism with international migration. Transnationalists are therefore seen as threatening ‘vagabonds’ rather than dynamic ‘tourists’ (Roudometof, 2005a: 114; cf. Bauman, 1998). However, he points out that Beck (2002, 2004) uses the concept of transnationalism in a more inclusive way (cf. banal cosmopolitanism), which Roudometof welcomes. The two authors’ view of cosmopolitans and locals also partly conflate in the view that ‘there is no cosmopolitanism without localism’ (Beck, 2002: 19), and that both phenomena belong in the late modern and globalized world (Roudometof, 2005a). Hence, as national territorial boundaries begin to fade, local communities, organizations and individuals start to interact globally, creating a global society within local communities (Roudometof, 2005a: 118ff.; see also Beck, 2000, 2002, 2003; Giddens, 2002). In this way, the individual develops a cosmopolitan sensibility and competence out of the clash of cultures within people’s lives (Beck, 2004: 153). However, Roudometof (2005a: 117–18) criticizes Beck’s lack of consistency in terminology and epistemology. According to Roudometof, Beck intertwines cosmopolitanism and transnationalism by using indicators of transnationalism under the heading of cosmopolitanization and he also treats the two concepts as interchangeable sometimes. This is connected to the epistemological problem, namely that Beck is simultaneously using cosmopolitanism as a process and as an outcome. The process of cosmopolitanization leads to a cosmopolitan society, i.e. Roudometof suggests that cosmopolitanization as a result cannot be explained by referring to cosmopolitanization as a process leading to its outcome (cf. Rosenberg, 2000). Instead of using concepts like ‘banal cosmopolitanism’ and ‘glocalism’, Roudometof prefers transnationalism. He claims that as nation-state boundaries are challenged through processes of globalization, glocalization and/or internal globalization, social life within these contexts is also transformed and leads to changed individual attitudes (Roudometof, 2005a: 118; see also Roudometof, 1999, 2003). Transnationalism, then, can be defined as the emerging new reality of social life under these conditions, where people can chose either to develop an open, or cosmopolitan, attitude, or a closed, or local, attitude. That is, transnationalism is not affected by individual feelings or attitudes, it is the changed reality in which people live and form their lives. 879

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6

Furthermore, Roudometof (2005a: 119ff.) distinguishes between three levels of transnationalism: transnational interaction within social spaces, social fields and networks. Transnational social spaces are made up through transnational interaction, i.e. interaction between people and institutions in two or more nation-states. In this way, social relations become institutionalized and transnational practices and institutions develop, framed by Roudometof as transnational social fields (e.g. regulating translational interactions). People in these fields are not necessarily transnational (cf. Mazlish, 2005; Waldinger and Fitzgerald, 2004; cf. transmigration), but there are transnational communities or networks, created by immigrants and other people travelling and living ‘globally’, i.e. across state boarders (cf. Turner, 1994). So this is the transnational reality people in the western world find themselves living in, and Roudometof (2005a: 121, 127) claims that they can either adopt an open or a closed attitude, according to which he categorizes people as either being cosmopolitans or locals. This appears as a bifurcation of public attitudes that can be operationalized according to a single dimension, the cosmopolitan–local continuum. However, cosmopolitan and local attitudes should not be seen as a dichotomy but as a continuum, i.e. cosmopolitans and locals occupy opposite ends of the same dimension but there is room for individual variation between the two ends. Locals should not be seen in isolation or in opposition to cosmopolitans, because they are both the result of a new glocalized reality (cf. Beck, 2004). Social changes cannot be limited to parts of the population; locals are just as modern as cosmopolitans, since cultural protectionism might, for example, be a consequence of a kind of cultural imperialism that only exists in the globalized world. Adopting the thin understanding of cosmopolitanism, Roudometof (2005b: 146) argues that cosmopolitanism is not based in a specific country or place. Empirically, Roudometof (2005a: 124) defines cosmopolitans and locals as clusters of people with particular attitudes corresponding to the cosmopolitan–local continuum; i.e. individual attitudes are clustered around the two ends of the continuum like ideal types. The continuum is then operationalized into four continuous variables, according to which locals should differ from cosmopolitans (Roudometof, 2005a: 127): • Degree of attachment to a locality, e.g. neighbourhood or city; • Degree of attachment to a state or country; • Degree of attachment to and support of local culture (ethnocentrism); and finally • Degree of economic, cultural and institutional protectionism. Needless to say, cosmopolitans are expected to show a low degree of attachment and protectionism, and it is anticipated that locals will show 880

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals

a high degree. According to the hypothesis, the expected outcome of an empirical investigation should be clusters of attitudes at the two ‘ends’ of the continuum. Whether this is true or not is, according to Roudometof, an empirical question (Roudometof, 2005a: 125). Roudometof has been criticized for being too academic and not contributing with a new and original theory (Mazlish, 2005: 138), but the strength of his contribution is that he makes an abstract concept measurable. As such, he equips a theoretically oriented field of research with a measurement model. The operationalization of the cosmopolitanism–local continuum into four aspects of attachment is also the focus of the present study. The aspect of Roudometof’s theory that we find most troublesome is that he sticks to a one-dimensional operationalization. Even with a thin conceptualization of cosmopolitanism, it is questionable whether cosmopolitanism–localism can be reduced to one single dimension. There are studies in the related research field of territorial belonging that use a similar definition, where a localist orientation is one end of a continuum and a cosmopolitan orientation is the other (Pollini, 2005a). However, nowadays this one-dimensional conceptualization has been reappraised (e.g. Gubert, 1999, 2000), and the multiplicity of territorial attachment is stressed as is the social, or cultural, dimension of belonging (Pollini, 2005a). It is argued that it is necessary to go beyond the cosmopolitanism–localism continuum and find possible combinations of attachments that people develop in a globalized world (Pollini, 2005a, 2005b). The social dimension of territorial belonging, or socioterritorial attachment, can itself be divided between a place-attached social orientation, such as feelings for the home town, and a non-place social orientation, such as religious beliefs or worldviews (Pollini, 2005b). The latter might also be expressed as protectionism vs openness concerning traditions, way of living, values, etc. This more complex model of belonging or attachment does not exclude localism or a strong attachment to a particular place or nation. On the contrary, localism, as place attachment, and spatial and residential mobility can be combined in a variety of ways rather than constituting a single cosmopolitan attachment (or ‘disattachment’) (Pollini, 2005b): everyday life is fixed in a particular geographical place, even when news and information are communicated over great distances via phone, television, the Internet, etc. (Beggs et al., 1996). This can make people attached to a locality without being rooted, in the strong sense of cosmopolitanism – something that transnationalists also experience (cf. Gubert, 2000). We therefore argue that cosmopolitanism is too complex and multidimensional to be reduced to a single cosmopolitanism–localism continuum; a person might, for example, be both locally attached in a geographical sense and at the same time open to foreign traditions, and vice versa (cf. Gubert, 2000). Going back to Roudometof’s proposed four factors, we find it likely 881

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6

that the inclusion of both geographical and non-geographical factors in the same dimension will make the model too simplistic. Roudometof (2005a: 125) himself recognizes the problem that globalization is a multidimensional process, but nevertheless suggests a one-dimensional model. The visions and priorities where it would be reasonable to expect locals and cosmopolitans to hold different views refer to several important dimensions of social life. These include attachment to regions, states or countries, local cultures and the national economy. Accordingly, then, the dimensions of the cosmopolitan–local continuum take the form of different degrees of attachment to both geographical and sociocultural aspects of transnationalism. It is a foregone conclusion that different individuals’ sentiments would vary depending upon the particular dimension they feel is most important for themselves and others. Roudometof argues that the four continuous factors are a conceptualization of the cosmopolitanism–localism continuum. Our argument is that this model is too simplistic to catch the variation he sets out to capture and it is not possible to empirically detect the complexity of transnationalism in a one-dimensional conceptualization. Ideally, people identifying themselves as cosmopolitans or locals will empirically end up at the opposite ends of the continuum. The problem that arises using this model is to empirically distinguish between the variations along the continuum due to differences in attitudes and differences because subdimensions within the continuum are not correlated and therefore obscuring the picture. Therefore, we suggest that cosmopolitanism is better understood using a two-dimensional model, allowing us to differentiate between these different types of variation. In a two-dimensional model, individuals’ positions are easier to locate since it allows us to place them within a two-dimensional space. Variations between an individual’s position, for instance along the dimension ‘local attachment’ and the dimension ‘cultural/economic protectionism’, can then be better understood since the two-dimensional model allows for a position as both local and open. In the one-dimensional continuum, this individual’s position can be mistaken for a position in-between cosmopolitan and local and not capturing the interesting variations in individual positions. To be able to capture this complexity, of transnationalism and in people’s attitudes and ways of viewing the world, we suggest two continuous dimensions: one measuring local–global attitudes and one measuring the sociocultural aspect of attachment, protectionism–openness. We think that these core dimensions theoretically capture the main components of Roudometof’s concept. There could, of course, be more dimensions but following the criteria of parsimony, we believe that two dimensions are enough to map the relevant positions that comprise cosmopolitanism. Needless to say, we, as Roudometof, consider the usefulness of the model to be an empirical question. 882

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals

Method The analyses were made with data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP),1 more specifically, the 1995 and 2003 modules on national identity in Sweden. The data set used in the analyses is composed of representative samples of the Swedish population between the ages of 18 and 76 (1995: N = 2000; 2003: N = 2000). The response rate was 65 percent in the 1995 sample and 59 percent in 2003. Data from two years were used, since this makes it possible to see whether there are changes in the cosmopolitan–local continuum of values over time. To measure the cosmopolitanism–local continuum, seven questions from the survey were used, corresponding to Roudometof’s four aspects of attachment (see Table 1): degree of attachment to a locality/region; degree of attachment to a state or country; degree of support for local culture; and degree of economic, cultural and institutional protectionism. The questions do not correspond perfectly to Roudometof’s operationalization, but they are a relatively good estimation of his four aspects. Unfortunately, only one question to measure country solidarity was available, but considering the positions, Roudometof arguing for a one-dimensional continuum and ourselves for a two-dimensional, it is our position that comes off the worst. Needless to say, a questionnaire that was more adjusted to Roudometof’s operationalization would be preferable, although it would require a new survey and exclude the possibility of longitudinal testing. The table also Table 1 Questions from the ISSP Surveys, 1995 and 2003, Measuring Roudometof’s Cosmopolitanism–Local Continuum Roudometof’s operationalization: Locality Variables: Solidarity with home town Solidarity with region Solidarity with country It is impossible for people who do not share Swedish customs to become Swedish Ethnic minorities ought to get public support to preserve their customs Imports should be limited in order to protect the economy Foreigners should not be allowed to buy land in Sweden Authors’ dimensions:

Country

Culture

Protectionism

X X X X

X X

Local–global

Protectionism–openness

883

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6

indicates the two-dimensional model of cosmopolitanism proposed by the authors where the place-attached attitudes are expected to constitute one factor and the non-place-attached attitudes the other. Latent class (LC) factor analyses were used since the data level of the questions is not sufficient to use traditional factor analysis (Vermunt and Magidson, 2005). A latent class factor model is fairly similar to traditional factor analysis but has a number of advantages. Latent class analysis was developed to handle discrete variables, and variables of different scale types, and hence suitable in analyses of survey data (McCutcheon, 1987). The association between observed variables is explained by one or more unobserved, or latent, factors(s). The major difference between an LC factor model and traditional models of factor analysis is that the latent factors are assumed to be dichotomous or ordinal as opposed to continuous and normal distributed (Vermunt and Magidson, 2005: 29). An additional advantage of this approach is that it assures each factor to be one-dimensional (Vermunt and Magidson, 2005). Considering Roudometof’s hypothesis, assuming one factor of which the two ends represent ideal types of cosmopolitans and locals, this model better fits our intention than traditional factor analysis. For this purpose, the statistical programme Latent Gold was used, which also gives all respondents an individual modal score on each underlying factor, and in this way creates new variables according to the results of the factor analysis (see Vermunt and Magidson, 2000).2 As mentioned, the results of the factor analyses were used to categorize the respondents into four groups according to their modal scores on each factor. One could say that the result of this procedure is four ideal-type groups. To explore them further, the socioeconomic characteristics of people in the groups were analysed by chi-square tests. The objective of this analysis was to explore whether the groups differed not only in their view of the world but also with regard to gender, age, income, place of origin, etc.

Results The seven attitude questions were factor analysed to test Roudometof’s hypothesis of a one-dimensional cosmopolitan scale. Three different solutions were tested; one, two and three factors, and the results show that a two-dimensional solution better fits the data; i.e. people’s attitudes in relation to local, national and global issues can be understood according to two underlying factors rather than one, or three for that matter (see Table 2). Separate LC factor analyses were made for each year with similar results, strengthening this conclusion. Table 2 not only shows that the one-dimensional solution has a poorer fit than the two-dimensional but also that adding a third dimension does not result in a better fit; on the contrary, looking at the goodness of fit 884

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals Table 2 Latent Factor Analysis, Model Fit for Different Factor Solutions, in 1995 and 2003

1995 1-Factor 2-Factor 3-Factor 2003 1-Factor 2-Factor 3-Factor

BIC (based on LL)

d.f.

p value

−3332.55 −3256.85 −3248.06

6765.17 6673.80 6702.91

251.63 100.23 82.65

112 103 96

.00 .56 .83

−3327.74 −2847.42 −2845.49

6767.34 5866.62 5895.78

396.01 113.71 109.85

238 101 96

.00 .18 .16

measurement BIC we find that a two-dimensional solution gives the lowest levels in both 1995 and 2003. However, the 1995 data show a slightly better fit than the latter year, indicated in 1995 by similar values in degrees of freedom and L2 statistics. The poorer fit in 2003 is probably due to one of the indicators, ‘Solidarity with region’, being significantly explained by both of the two underlying factors. All other indicators, both in 1995 and 2003, are related only to one of the factors (for significance and betas see Appendix, Table A1). To make the results comprehensible and at the same time show how well the two-dimensional solution fits the data, the two-dimensional solutions are presented as bi-plots (see Figure 1; the results from 1995 and 2003 are similar and therefore only one bi-plot is displayed in the main text while the second can be found in the Appendix; see Figure A1). In bi-plots the factor means for each factor are plotted in a two-dimensional space. Figure 1 shows that the horizontal factor ranges from local to open attitudes and the vertical factor ranges from protectionist to open attitudes, hence, they correspond to our hypothesis of one ‘local–global’ dimension and one ‘protectionism–openness’ dimension. The local–global factor is the strongest in terms of explained variance, the factor contributes to the explanation of the indicators between 29 and 68 percent. The strength of the second factor, ‘protectionism–openness’, is more modest; between 10 and 29 percent. The two factors are not significantly correlated, p = .46. These results indicate that there is a difference between attitudes based in a specific geographical setting and attitudes based on social and cultural aspects. Trying to fit all seven indicators into one factor not only rends poor model fit statistics but would also prevent us from embracing the complexity of people’s attitudes in times of transnationalism. Considering the similarity over time and the better fit of the two-factor solution, we think it feasible to go on with further analyses of the two-dimensional operationalization of transnationalism. To investigate if the two-dimensional model can help us to understand more about different population segments, the respondents were categorized into four groups. The factor modals from the LC factor analysis were used to 885

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6

Openness

1.0 Hometown Region Country Import restrictions Property sales Become Swedish Support multiculture

0.8 OK foreigners buy property Not hard become No import Swedish restrictions Support multiculture

0.6

Attachment Attachment region hometown

Non-attachment hometown Non-attachment country Non-attachment region

Attachment country

0.4

Restrict import

No support multiculture

Not OK foreigners buy property Hard become Swedish

Protectionism

0.2

0.0 0.0

Local

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Global 1.0

Figure 1 Factor Means of Each Indicator's Answering Alternative; 1995 Data

extract the groups and gave us the groups: local protectionists, open globals, global protectionists and open locals (see Figure 2). Since this categorization is not statistically tested and our point of departure is theoretical rather than methodological, we present the following results as descriptions rather than explanatory analysis (bivariate analyses of differences between the groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; socioeconomic characteristics have been done, see Table A2).3 The aim was to see if differences in transnational attitudes are related to differences in socioeconomic characteristics such as gender, age and income. The first group, local protectionists, are people holding place-attached and protectionist values; the group is characterized by older people living in rural areas with a low level of education and a low income. Those in the second group, open globals, are quite the opposite; they hold open and global values and are usually young people living in cities with a high level of education, more women than men and voting to a higher degree for the Green Party and the Liberals. People with foreign backgrounds are also overrepresented in this group. As the name indicates, those in the third group, global protectionists, have global but protectionist values. Men are overrepresented in this 886

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals Global protectionists

1995 (8%) Age 17–32, 49–63 Compulsory school Upper secondary school (+2) Centre Party, Social Democrats Income 15–24,000 Country & towns Outside the Nordic countries

Open globals

Global 1995 (17%)

2003 (12%) Men Age 17–32 Compulsory school

Age 33–48 Compulsory school University

Upper secondary school (+3–4) Left party

2003 (7%) Women Age17–32 Upper secondary school (+2) University

Liberal Party, Green Party Liberal Party, Green Party, Left Party Cities Outside the Nordic Nordic & outside the countries Nordic countries

Nordic countries

Protectionism

Openness Local protectionists

Open locals

1995 (35%)

2003 (47%)

1995 (40%)

Age 64–79 Compulsory school

Age 49–63, 64–79 Compulsory school Upper secondary school (+2) Conservatives

Age 17–32

2003 (33%) Women Age 33–48

University

Conservatives, Social Democrats Income <14,000 Country Sweden

Sweden

Centre Party, Conservatives, Left Party Income 25–34,000 >35,000 Cities Sweden Local

Green Party, Left Party, Social Democrats

Outside the Nordic countries

Figure 2 Graphical Representation of the Four Groups within the Two-Dimensional Space: Local–Global and Protectionism–Openness Notes: Percentages represent how large each group is compared with the total sample, and each group’s predominant socioeconomic characteristics are shown for each year. The arrow indicates the development over time (from 1995 to 2003).

group, as are people with a low level of education, a low income and those who vote for the Social Democrats. People in this group also come from the countryside or towns to a higher degree than average. The fourth group, open locals, consists of people holding local/national and open values, and is mainly characterized by young and middle-aged women living in cities with a high level of education and a high income. Comparing the characteristics of the four groups, there are differences between all four groups: even though there are similarities between the two open and the two protectionist groups. However, the empirical evidence for a two-dimensional solution instead of a one-dimensional model is still strong. Apart from the better fit of the model, the two-dimensional model is supported also by the clear pattern of distinct and interpretable groups both when it comes to attitudes and to socioeconomic characteristics. The number of people in each group varies, and two of the groups, local protectionists and open locals, are larger than the groups of open globals and global protectionists. If we look at the changes in attitudes between 1995 and 887

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6

2003, we can conclude that the only significant change between these years is a move from open locals and open globals to local protectionists and global protectionists, as indicated by the large arrow in Figure 2. The group of global protectionists has grown by 4 percent and the group of local protectionists has grown by 12 percent between 1995 and 2003 at the expense of the groups of open locals and open globals.

Conclusion This study cannot support Roudometof’s suggested one-dimensional continuum of cosmopolitan–local attitudes, at least not in Sweden. Attitudes related to cosmopolitanism seem to be structured according to two dimensions: one local–global, based on attachment to a specific town, region or country, and the other of protectionism–openness, based on cultural and economic protectionism or openness. Our suggested two-dimensional model has several advantages over a one-dimensional continuum. Apart from the fact that it fits the actual empirical data better, it allows us to position people within this space, taking into account not only the level of cosmopolitanism but also variations within cosmopolitanism, i.e. the difference between geographical and ‘cultural’ aspects. A two-dimensional model also makes it possible to determine how these concepts relate to each other; for instance, the development from openness to protectionism that we find in our data between 1995 and 2003 might have been misinterpreted in a onedimensional continuum model, as Roudometof’s, as an overall change towards localism and protectionism. In our suggested model, it is possible to analyse this change as follows: attachment to a location does not increase between 1995 and 2003 but cultural and ethnical protectionism do, as openness generally decreases. Thus, the two dimensions of cosmopolitanism give us a better understanding of the complex processes involved. This tendency could hardly have been analysed within a one-dimensional model. By translating the two factors into four groups of people – local protectionists, open globals, global protectionists and open locals – we take the concretization of transnationalism one step further. This categorization can be used in empirical studies of, for example, environmental concern, attitudes towards migration and, perhaps most interestingly, comparisons of cosmopolitanism between different regions across the world, thereby investigating whether this is a thin or rooted cosmopolitanism. The analyses are stable over time, which indicates that our results are robust and not the product of a temporary flux. Even though this is important in empirical studies, it is more interesting to note the tendency regarding the distribution of attitudes over time. Roudometof does not specify whether a glocalized society will become more open or closed (if the locals or cosmopolitans, in a one-dimensional continuum, are in the majority); he holds both scenarios 888

Olofsson and Ă&#x2013;hman Cosmopolitans and Locals

as possible. As we have seen, in this study the number of local and global protectionists increases at the expense of open locals and globals. As we mentioned earlier, our interpretation is that the attachment to a geographical location does not change much, at the same time as cultural protectionism increases. This suggests that cosmopolitanism tendencies are not necessarily linear, but there can be parallel processes in society, some towards cosmopolitanism or localism and others towards cultural and economic protectionism, as in this case. The protectionists feel threatened by foreigners and new traditions imported from abroad. However, as we see, there are differences between groups of protectionists as well: the global protectionists are not only younger and better educated, they are not place attached as are the older, less educated local protectionists. It is plausible to picture global protectionists as aware of and occasionally interacting in transnational social spaces but not being transnationals in a cosmopolitan open sense. In fact, both Roudometof (2005a) and Beck (2002) state that there is no cosmopolitanism unless there is localism, and maybe there is no openness unless there is protectionism.

Appendix 1.0

Not hard to become Swedish

0.8

Ethnocentrism

Hometown Region Country Import restrictions Property sales Become Swedish Support multiculture

0.6

Support multiculture

No import restrictions Attachment hometown OK foreigners 0.4 Attachment buy property country Attachment region NotOK foreigners buy property Restrict import 0.2 No support multiculture

Non-attachment Non-attachment country region Non-attachment hometown

Hard become Swedish 0.0 0.0

0.2

0.4 0.6 Territorial belonging

0.8

Figure A1 Factor Means of Each Indicator's Answering Alternative (2003 data)

889

1.0

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6 Table A1 Latent Class Factor Analyses, Data Sets from 1995 and 2003, of the Attitudinal Questions of National Identity (betas). All Indicators Only Contribute Significantly to One of the Underlying Factors Except 'Solidarity with Region', which In 2003 Contribute to Both Factors 1995 Local– global

2003

Protectionism– Local– Protectionism– openness global openness

Solidarity with home town Solidarity with region Solidarity with country

1.4408** 2.8416** 1.5629**

0.1284 0.2969 0.1308

1.5455** 2.9167** 1.1211**

0.1966 0.7472* 0.2571

Imports should be limited in order to protect the economy Foreigners should not be allowed to buy land in Sweden It is impossible for people who do not share Swedish customs to become Swedish Ethnic minorities ought to get public support to preserve their customs

0.1967

0.7906**

0.0695

0.4862**

0.1588

1.2446**

0.0602

0.2517†

0.0539

1.2249**

0.3764

2.4119**

0.0884

0.6425**

0.0065

0.8574**

** p < .001, * p < .05, † p < .10.

890

891

Men Women χ2

17–32 33–48 49–63 64–79 χ2

Compulsory school (9 years) Upper secondary school (+2 years) Upper secondary (+3–4 years) University χ2

Centre Party Liberal Party

Sex

Age

Education

Political affiliation

19.7 24.6

18.3 19.8

9.1 14.7

30.0

34.1

3.8 3.3

25.7

14.5 27.6 35.0 22.8

50.4 49.6

2003

27.8

25.8 26.9 26.2 21.1

49.1 50.9

1995

Local protectionists

2.0 12.2

26.7

18.3

25.2

29.8

26.7 42.2 20.0 11.1

48.1 51.9

1995

7.0 14.0

35.3

13.7

31.4

19.6

35.3 27.5 27.5 9.8

41.2 58.8

2003

Open globals

4.5 4.5

15.2

10.6

37.9

36.4

31.8 24.2 28.8 15.2

57.6 42.4

1995

6.6 11.8

30.3

23.6

20.2

25.8

28.6 27.5 29.7 14.3

60.4 39.6

2003

Global protectionist

4.7 11.8

33.5

19.0

32.6

14.8

31.0 30.0 26.5 12.5

51.1 48.9

1995

4.7 9.1

40.7

22.6

25.9

10.7

23.5 32.4 27.9 16.2

44.1 55.9

2003

Open locals

3.9 8.4

26.0 37.760**

17.9

32.3

23.7

28.5 30.5 25.5 15.5 21.067*

50.4 49.6 1.886

1995

7.1 12.3

31.4 34.815**

20.7

27.6

20.3

20.7 29.2 31.5 18.6 26.525**

48.9 51.1 8.644*

2003

(continued)

Total

Table A2 Results of the Chi-Square Analysis on Socioeconomic Factors for the Four Groups in 1995 and 2003. All Figures are Percentages

892

Rural Urban Cities χ2

Sweden Nordic countries Outside the Nordic countries χ2

Region

Origin

** p < .001, * p < .05, † p < .10.

<14,000 15–24,000 25–34,000 >35,000 χ2

Income

Christian Democrats Green Party Conservatives Social Democrats Left Party χ2

Table A2 Continued

97.4 2.2 0.4

13.9 56.6 29.6

48.9 44.0 5.6 1.5

2.2 4.4 23.0 53.6 9.8

1995

96.6 2.0 1.4

10.9 58.3 30.9

32.1 48.9 13.8 5.2

9.8 2.0 18.6 40.1 5.9

2003

Local protectionists

93.1 3.1 3.8

4.5 56.7 38.8

41.4 49.2 7.0 2.3

1.0 11.2 19.4 46.9 7.1

1995

89.6 6.3 4.2

17.6 52.9 29.4

41.7 47.9 4.2 6.3

11.6 9.3 9.3 37.2 11.6

2003

Open globals

95.4 1.5 3.1

13.6 59.1 27.3

42.6 54.1 1.6 1.6

0.0 4.5 20.5 61.4 4.5

1995

91.2 6.6 2.2

7.7 59.3 33.0

23.4 49.4 20.8 6.5

10.5 1.3 15.8 40.8 13.2

2003

Global protectionist

97.4 0.6 1.9

10.3 50.6 39.1

37.1 48.9 9.1 4.9

2.8 3.8 24.6 41.2 10.9

1995

95.9 0.8 3.3

11.7 52.2 36.0

30.0 51.5 13.7 4.8

8.2 6.5 12.1 47.0 12.5

2003

Open locals

95.2 2.5 2.3

11.2 56.0 32.7 5.576

31.1 49.8 13.8 5.3 9.944

9.4 4.0 15.3 42.4 9.4 33.470*

2003

10.945† 15.360*

96.5 1.7 1.8

10.8 54.5 34.7 14.882*

42.4 47.6 7.0 3.0 17.469*

2.1 5.4 22.8 48.1 9.3 30.093*

1995

Total

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals

Notes 1. The collection of data was made within the research collaboration the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), and titled ‘Åsikter om nationell identitet 1995, SSD 0502’ and ‘2003, SSD 0805’ respectively. The primary researchers are Stefan Svallfors (for 1995) and Stefan Svallfors and Jonas Edlund (for 2003). The Swedish Social Science Data Service (SSD) provided the data. The ISSP is a partnership of researchers and institutions from about 30 countries that conducts attitude surveys on various topics (Svallfors, 1999). The main purpose of the ISSP network is to create a structure that allows for comparative and time series analysis. In this way, the danger of different understandings of questions in different countries is minimized. 2. A K-means cluster analysis was conducted to confirm that a four-group solution best fits the empirical data. Nevertheless, since a two-factor analysis is similar to a four-cluster analysis using LC analysis, we chose to use the factor modal scores to categorize the participants. In this way, the empirical presentation was simplified without compromising the results. 3. Multiple multinomial regression analyses were made to test each individual item’s effect, and the results were identical in the 2003 data, but in 1995 two items, region and political affiliation, were no longer significant. These two items are therefore not stressed in the conclusions of the article.

References Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalisation: The Human Consequences. London: Polity Press. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernisation. London: Sage. Beck, U. (2000) ‘The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity’, British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 79–105. Beck, U. (2002) ‘The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies’, Theory, Culture & Society 19(1–2): 17–44. Beck, U. (2003) ‘Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent’, Constellations 10(4): 453–68. Beck, U. (2004) ‘Cosmopolitical Realism: On the Distinction between Cosmopolitanism in Philosophy and the Social Sciences’, Global Networks 4(2): 131–56. Beggs, J. J., Hurlbert, J. S. and Hains, V. A. (1996) ‘Community Attachment in a Rural Setting: A Refinement and Empirical Test of the Systemic Model’, Rural Sociology 61(3): 407–26. Giddens, A. (2002) Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping our Lives. London: Profile Books. Gubert, R. (1999) Territorial Belonging between Ecology and Culture. Trento: University of Trento Press. Gubert, R. (2000) ‘Territorial Belonging’, in E. F. Borgotta and R. J. V. Montgomery (eds) Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. 5, pp. 3128–37. New York: Macmillan. Flanagan, S. C. (1982) ‘Changing Values in Advanced Industrial Societies’, Comparative Political Studies 14: 403–44.

893

Current Sociology Vol. 55 No. 6 Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsøe, E. and Öhman, S. (2002) ‘Traditional Blue and Modern Green Resistance’, in M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. E. (2000) ‘Modernization, Cultural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values’, American Sociological Review 65(1): 19–51. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) ‘Exploring the Unknown: Predicting the Responses of Publics Not Yet Surveyed’, International Review of Sociology 15(1): 173–201. Knutsen, O. (1989) ‘The Priorities of Materialist and Post-Materialist Values in the Nordic Countries – A Five-Nation Comparison’, Scandinavian Political Studies 12: 221–43. Knutsen, O. (1990) ‘Materialist and Postmaterialist Values and Social Structures in the Nordic Countries’, Comparative Politics 22: 85–104. Krebs, D. (1992) ‘Werte in den alten und neuen Bundesländern’, in J. Zinnecker (ed.) Im Spiegel der Wissenschaften, pp. 35–48. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987) Latent Class Analysis, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences series. London: Sage. Mazlish, B. (2005) ‘Roudometof: A Dialogue’, Current Sociology 53(1): 137–41. Olofsson, A. and Öhman, S. (2006) ‘General Beliefs and Environmental Concern: Transatlantic Comparisons’, Environment and Behavior 38(6): 768–90. Pollini, G. (2005a) ‘Socio-Territorial Belonging in a Changing Society’, International Review of Sociology 15(3): 493–6. Pollini, G. (2005b) ‘Elements of a Theory of Place Attachment and Socio-Territorial Belonging’, International Review of Sociology 15(3): 497–515. Rosenberg, J. (2000) The Follies of Globalization Theory. London: Verso. Roudometof, V. (1999) ‘Nationalism, Globalisation, Eastern Orthodoxy: Unthinking the “Clash of Civilizations” in South-Eastern Europe’, European Journal of Social Theory 2(2): 233–47. Roudometof, V. (2003) ‘Glocalization, Space and Modernity’, The European Legacy 8(1): 37–60. Roudometof, V. (2005a) ‘Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalisation’, Current Sociology 53(1): 113–35. Roudometof, V. (2005b) ‘Response: The Moral Conundrums of the Global Age’, Current Sociology 53(1): 143–7. Svallfors, S. (1999) ‘National Differences in National Identities? An Introduction to the International Social Survey Program’, in N. Tos, P. P. Mohler and B. Malnar (eds) Modern Society and Values: A Comparative Analysis Based on ISSP Project, pp. 3–14. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. Tos, N., Mohler P. P. and Malnar, B. (eds) (1999) Modern Society and Values: A Comparative Analysis Based on the ISSP Project. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.

894

Olofsson and Öhman Cosmopolitans and Locals Turner, B. S. (1994) Orientalism, Postmodernism, and Globalism. London: Routledge. Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. (2000) Latent GOLD – User’s Guide. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc. Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. (2005) Technical Guide for Latent GOLD – Basic and Advanced. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc. Waldinger, R. and Fitzgerald, D. (2004) ‘Transnationalism in Question’, American Journal of Sociology 109(5): 1177–95.

Biographical Note: Anna Olofsson is associate professor in sociology at Mid Sweden University and she coordinates the CRIHS research group (www.miun.se/crihs). Her areas of interest include risk communication, sensemaking of risk and globalization, particularly in relation to a heterogeneous society. Address: Department of Social Sciences, Mid Sweden University, 831 25 Östersund, Sweden. [email: anna.olofsson@miun.se]

Biographical Note: Susanna Öhman is senior lecturer in sociology and is currently head of the Social Sciences Department at Mid Sweden University. Her areas of interest include environmental sociology, risk perception research and globalization. She is also interested in social vulnerability and social resources in relation to risk perceptions. Address: Department of Social Sciences, Mid Sweden University, 831 25 Östersund, Sweden. [email: susanna.ohman@miun.se]

895