Who are the Globalizers? The Role of Education and Educational Elites

  • Steffen Mau


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.


Cosmopolitanism Mobility Social inequality Transnationalism Transnational networks 


  1. Bauman, Z. (1998). On glocalization: Or globalization for some, localization for others. Thesis Eleven, 54, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (2004). Der kosmopolitische Blick oder: Krieg ist Frieden. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, W. K., & Fennema, M. (2002). Is there a transnational business community? International Sociology, 17(3), 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Swaan, A. (1995). Die soziologische Untersuchung der transnationalen Gesellschaft. Journal für Sozialforschung, 35(2), 107–120.Google Scholar
  9. Dreher, J. (2005). Interkulturelle Arbeitswelten. Produktion und Management bei Daimler Chrysler. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  10. Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Keupp, H. (1988). Riskante Chancen: Das Subjekt zwischen Psychokultur und Selbstorganisation. Heidelberg: Asanger.Google Scholar
  14. Konrad, G. (1984). Antipolitics. San Diego/New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Kuckartz, U., & Rheingans-Heintze, A. (2006). Trends im Umweltbewusstsein. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Mau, S. (2007). Transnationale Vergesellschaftung. Die Entgrenzung sozialer Lebenswelten. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  19. Mau, S., & Mewes, J. (2007). Transnationale soziale Beziehungen. Eine Kartographie der deutschen Bevölkerung. Soziale Welt, 58(2), 207–226.Google Scholar
  20. 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).Google Scholar
  21. Mau, S., Mewes, J., & Zimmermann, A. (2008). Cosmopolitan attitudes through transnational practices? Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 8(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nowicka, M. (2006). Transnational professionals and their cosmopolitan universes. Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  23. Pries, L. (2002). Transnationalisierung der sozialen Welt? Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 12(2), 263–273.Google Scholar
  24. Roudometof, V. (2005). Transnationalism, cosmopolitanism and glocalization. Current Sociology, 53(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sklair, L. (1991). Sociology of the world system. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Stichweh, R. (2000). Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  27. Szanton Blanc, C., Basch, L., & Glick-Schiller, N. (1995). Transnationalism, nation-states, and culture. Current Anthropology, 36(4), 683–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (Eds.) (2002). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zürn, M. (1998). Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS)University of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations