Abstract
The article addresses the issue of which societal groups are involved in transnational activities like cross-border mobility and long-distance networking. It is assumed that not all social strata are equally involved in transnational activities, and that one will find striking differences between different status groups. Given differences in opportunities, competences and contexts of occupational and social activities, the more educated can be considered the pioneers of border-crossing. The article scrutinizes this assumption looking at the German population and using a representative survey which focuses on different types of transnational activities. Furthermore, it relates the involvement in transnational activities to peoples’ attitudes asking whether those who are more “transnational” are also more open towards foreigners and more positive with regard to supranational political responsibility. Overall, the article sheds light on a new type of social differentiation, namely the link between social status on the one hand, and the social and geographical space people relate to on the other.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This might also include persons with dual citizenship, provided one of their citizenships is German.
- 2.
As sample outcomes are not equally distributed, we have used a weighting factor which adjusts the unweighted sample structure to the official statistics. To do so, a weighting was undertaken on the basis of the characteristics age, gender, Bundesland (federal state), community size and education.
- 3.
David Lodge has erected fondly ironic memorials to the mobile and globally travelling scientist with his two novels Changing Places and Small World. The titles of the two books are more than just a hint: While the first is about the academic exchange of the Englishman Phillip Swallow from the University of Rummidge in England with the American Morris Zapp from the University of Euphoria in California and the resulting entanglements and intricacies of the protagonists, the second book caricatures, academic conference tourism around the globe.
References
Bauman, Z. (1998). On glocalization: Or globalization for some, localization for others. Thesis Eleven, 54, 37–49.
Beaverstock, J. V. (2005). Transnational elites in the city: British highly-skilled inter-company transferees in New York City's financial district. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(2), 245–268.
Beck, U. (2004). Der kosmopolitische Blick oder: Krieg ist Frieden. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1–23.
Beisheim, M., Dreher, S., Walter, G., Zangl, B., & Zürn, M. (1999). Im Zeitalter der Globalisierung? Thesen und Daten zur gesellschaftlichen und politischen Denationalisierung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Brinkschröder, M. (1999). Klassenstruktur und Vergemeinschaftung im Postfordismus. In C. Rademacher, M. Schroer, & P. Wiechens (Eds.), Spiel ohne Grenzen? Ambivalenzen der Globalisierung (pp. 203–238). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Carroll, W. K., & Fennema, M. (2002). Is there a transnational business community? International Sociology, 17(3), 393–419.
de Swaan, A. (1995). Die soziologische Untersuchung der transnationalen Gesellschaft. Journal für Sozialforschung, 35(2), 107–120.
Dreher, J. (2005). Interkulturelle Arbeitswelten. Produktion und Management bei Daimler Chrysler. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 237–251.
Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. London: Routledge.
Held, D. (2002). Culture and political community: National, global, and cosmopolitan. In S. Vertovec, & R. Cohen (Eds.), Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice (pp. 48–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keupp, H. (1988). Riskante Chancen: Das Subjekt zwischen Psychokultur und Selbstorganisation. Heidelberg: Asanger.
Konrad, G. (1984). Antipolitics. San Diego/New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kriesi, H., & Grande, E. (2004). Nationaler politischer Wandel in entgrenzten Räumen. In U. Beck, & C. Lau (Eds.), Entgrenzung und Entscheidung (pp. 402–420). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Kuckartz, U., & Rheingans-Heintze, A. (2006). Trends im Umweltbewusstsein. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Kwok-Bun, C. (2002). Both sides, now: Culture contact, hybridization, and cosmopolitanism. In: S. Vertovec, & R. Cohen (Eds.), Conceiving cosmopolitanism. theory, context, and practice (pp. 191–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mau, S. (2007). Transnationale Vergesellschaftung. Die Entgrenzung sozialer Lebenswelten. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.
Mau, S., & Mewes, J. (2007). Transnationale soziale Beziehungen. Eine Kartographie der deutschen Bevölkerung. Soziale Welt, 58(2), 207–226.
Mau, S., & Mewes, J. (2008). Ungleiche Transnationalisierung. Zur gruppenspezifischen Einbindung in transnationale Interaktionen In P. A. Berger, & A. Weiß (Eds.), Transnationalisierung sozialer Ungleichheit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag (forthcoming).
Mau, S., Mewes, J., & Zimmermann, A. (2008). Cosmopolitan attitudes through transnational practices? Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 8(1), 1–24.
Nowicka, M. (2006). Transnational professionals and their cosmopolitan universes. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.
Pries, L. (2002). Transnationalisierung der sozialen Welt? Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 12(2), 263–273.
Roudometof, V. (2005). Transnationalism, cosmopolitanism and glocalization. Current Sociology, 53(1), 113–135.
Sklair, L. (1991). Sociology of the world system. London: Prentice Hall.
Stichweh, R. (2000). Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Szanton Blanc, C., Basch, L., & Glick-Schiller, N. (1995). Transnationalism, nation-states, and culture. Current Anthropology, 36(4), 683–686.
Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (Eds.) (2002). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zürn, M. (1998). Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Construction of the Transnationality Index
Appendix: Construction of the Transnationality Index
The transnationality index is an additive index and consists of three components, private transnational relations, short-term stays abroad and long-term stays abroad.
-
1.
Private transnational relations (30%)
Every respondent was asked whether he communicates regularly with foreign friends and/or relatives as well as with Germans living abroad. Detailed information about at most four foreigners in each of these three dimensions was gathered. The score of the sub-index “transnational relations” refers to the number of persons that are reported in the three categories, not taking into consideration the total number of possible contact partners. Each of the three categories increases the index at a maximum of 1, adding a value of 0.25 per person. For instance, an interviewee who declared he was communicating regularly with two foreign relatives and three Germans living abroad boosts the index by 1.25 (2 × 0.25 + 3 × 0.25). Thus, the sub-dimension “transnational relations” increases the index-value by 3 at most.
-
2.
Short-term stays abroad (30%)
Here we refer to the question as to how often the interviewee stayed abroad for a time-span less than 3 months during the last 12 months. The majority of Germans did cross the German borders during this period: 37.8% once or twice, 20.4% three times and more. Yet 41.8% of the interviewees declared that they had not set foot on foreign soil during the last 12 months. In terms of contributing to the index, respondents who stayed abroad more than twice increase the value by “3”, whereas one or two stays boost the value by “2”. If the response to this question was “never”, the value for this sub-index is zero. Thus, the highest value this sub-dimension can add to the index is 3.
-
3.
Long-term stays abroad (40%)
This sub-index takes into account all stays lasting 3 months or longer. While 5.2% of the respondents have spent 3 to 12 months of their life abroad, 6.2% had lived for one year or more outside the borders of Germany. Each interviewee could declare a maximum of five countries he had lived-in previously. For every country we collected information about the total span of time the respondent had stayed there. For example, if a person stayed twice in Brazil, once for a year and once for 4 months, the interviewer coded “Brazil, 1 year, 4 months”, not taking into account that the respondent lived there at two different times (with a possible interruption of several years or even decades). For the purposes of our calculations, all of the five variables containing information about the time spent abroad were aggregated. The sub-index scores as follows: “0” for no long term stays abroad, “2” for stays of an aggregate time of 3–12 months and “4” for all stays with a total time of 13 months and more.
In terms of calculation of the transnationality index, we summed the three subcomponents. Finally the results were rounded up. Thus the index ranges from 0 (= no involvement in transnational interaction) to 10 (= very high level of involvement in transnational interaction). Table 4.3 gives the frequencies of the index.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mau, S. (2009). Who are the Globalizers? The Role of Education and Educational Elites. In: Meier, L., Lange, H. (eds) The New Middle Classes. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9938-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9938-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9937-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9938-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)