(2000), cosmopolitanism is not an easy term to define. Harvey (2009) contends that "cosmopolitanism has been reconstructed from a variety of standpoints as such, meanings have become complicated". Despite the difficulty to define the term, the basic ideal of cosmopolitanism dictates that every individual is a citizen of the world (Appiah,2006). Since the definition dictates that every human being is a citizen of the world, the fact that the term 'cosmopolitanism' is often used in a pluralised form is quite ambiguous. To this end, this paper draws upon from Malcomson (1998) and Robbins (1998) to discuss the pluralism of the term.
The term cosmopolitanism is increasingly evoked in debates, be it economic, political, social or cultural. Initially founded by the Stoics (Malcomson,1998) and later revived by Kant, cosmopolitanism upholds ideas of responsibility, duty and concern for mankind, irrespective of one's own socioeconomic and political affiliations. However, scholars like Pollock et al. (2000) discredit the whole concept as being white, patriarchal and of catering for only upper class people. They (Pollock et al. 2000) argue that having one single 'cosmopolitanism' to alleviate racial conflicts and other national and international conflicts is not the solution. Similarly, Calhoun (2008) attests that, since cosmopolitanism comes from the Western philosophy, the assumption in the Left is that cosmopolitanism is very elitist and that it comes from the free-loating attitude of the rich people who can travel all around the world (Robbins, 1998 )tasting a little bit of this culture and that one and not being responsible about it (Appiah, 2006).
Robbins (1998, p.1) states that "cosmopolitanism is being redefined as it has a new cast of characters" , it now encompasses ordinary people whose lives involve movement, from North Atlantic merchant sailors or Carribeans au pair in the US, to Egyptian workers in Iraq (Robbins, 1998) , resulting in a number of cosmopolitanisms.