Becoming Cosmopolitan: Encountering difference in a City of Mobile Labour

Pre-print. In-Press – Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2016

1

Becoming Cosmopolitan: Encountering difference in a City of Mobile Labour.

Amanda Wise

Department of Sociology, Macquarie University, Sydney Australia

Email: [email protected]

Keywords :

Everyday cosmopolitanism ; working-class cosmopolitanism ; everyday multiculturalism ;

intercultural encounter; cosmopolitan disposition; migrant labour Singapore.

Abstract

Many who move countries today do so for work, and labour mobility—both temporary and

permanent—is the mechanism by which countless people (both movers and stayers) come

into contact with cultural difference. The domain of mobile labour is thus an important

context through which to consider the transformative possibilities of encounters with racial

and cultural difference. Situated within debates on everyday multiculture and vernacular

cosmopolitanisms this essay considers the question of intercultural encounter at work in

relation to the layered histories of race and variegated citizenships of mobile labour in

Singapore. Exploring the micro-nature of cosmopolitan practices, the paper considers under

what labour conditions might an outward looking cosmopolitan sensibility and a convivial

openness to otherness emerge amongst migrant workers, as against a set of survival based

intercultural capacities?

I reflect specifically upon two cases of ‘incongruous encounter’ in workplaces reliant on

precariously employed migrant labour: a mainland Chinese man and Filipina woman who,

because of Singapore’s racialised system of work visas, find themselves working in South

Asian restaurants in Singapore’s Little India. They both engage ‘cosmopolitan practices’ yet

their sensibilities differ sharply. Their stories highlight how, in a place like Singapore, the

‘encounter’ needs to be understood within a regime of mobile labour, situated racial

hierarchies and a highly stratified system of work visas. I further suggest that situational

factors such as the nature of work including its spatial and temporal qualities, the mixture of

co-workers and recognition relations with superiors all mattered in framing the affective

atmospheres of encounter. In a context of forced encounter, I argue that learnt capacities to

function and interact across difference should not necessarily be romanticised as a

cosmopolitan sensibility.

mailto:[email protected]


2

The domain of mobile labour is an important context through which to consider the

transformative possibilities of encounters with racial and cultural difference. Situated within

debates on everyday multiculture, lived diversity, and vernacular cosmopolitanisms this

article considers the question of intercultural encounter at work in relation to the variegated

citizenships of temporary migrant labour in Singapore. Exploring the micro-nature of

cosmopolitan practices, the article asks; under what labour conditions might an outward

looking cosmopolitan disposition involving a sensibility of convivial openness to otherness

emerge amongst migrant workers, as against a set of survival based intercultural strategies or

tactics?

I reflect upon two cases of ‘incongruous encounter’ in workplaces reliant on precariously

employed migrant labour: a mainland Chinese man and Filipina woman who find themselves

working in South Asian restaurants in Singapore’s Little India. They both engage

‘cosmopolitan practices’ yet their sensibilities differ sharply. Their stories highlight how, in a

place like Singapore, the ‘encounter’ needs to be understood within a regime of mobile

labour, racial hierarchies and a highly stratified system of work visas. I further suggest that

situational factors such as the nature of the workplace including its spatial and temporal

qualities, the mixture of co-workers and recognition relations with superiors all mattered.

Research on ‘everyday multiculturalism’; ‘everyday multiculture’ (Wise & Velayutham

2009; Swanton 2008; Gidley 2013; Neal et al 2013), ‘commonplace diversity’ (Wessendorf

2010), ‘ordinary cosmopolitans’ (Lamont and Aksartova 2002); and ‘everyday

cosmopolitanisms’ (Noble 2009; Datta 2009; Nowicka & Rovisco 2012) has burgeoned in

recent years. This research considers what underpins convivial (Gilroy 2004) or conflictual

inter-ethnic relations and hierarchies, when and how identities are reconfigured in the process

(cf: Watson 2006, Datta 2009, Blockland 2003, Wessendorf 2010, Noble 2009, Harris 2009,

Sandercock & Giovanni 2009, Radice 2009, Valentine 2008), and the nature of

cosmopolitanism at the vernacular, everyday level (Wang & Collins 2016; Radford 2016). A

touchstone for many in this field was Amin’s 2002 piece on ‘micro-publics’. Reflecting on

the possibilities of encounter, Amin argued that ‘micro-publics’ such as schools, workplaces,

and other spaces of association where ethnic and racial differences are confronted and

negotiated on an everyday basis ‘can offer moments of cultural destabilisation, offering


3

individuals the chance to break out of fixed relations and fixed notions..’ (2002:15).

Valentine (2008), however, urges caution in the enthusiastic embrace of ‘encounter’ as a

panacea to racial tensions. Her research has shown that sometimes contact with difference

either leaves views unchanged, and even hardened and points out that encounters always

occur in the context of history, material conditions and power (Valentine 2008: 333). The

workplace is a special kind of micro-public, where the rules and codes of contemporary

working cultures interplay with collegial and hierarchical relationships (Du Gay 1996, Willis

1981), which in turn mediate interethnic relationships (Essed 1991). The reflections in this

paper build on a rich vein of empirical research on migrant workers and ‘everyday

cosmopolitanisms’ (cf Datta 2009; Datta, McIllwaine Webner 1999; Nowicka & Rovisco

2012; Glick-Schiller et al 2011; Kothari 2008; Liebelt 2013; Diouf & Rendall 2000; Zeng

2014; Devadason 2010; Yeoh and Soco 2014; Ye and Kelley 2011; Mee 2015). Werbner’s

classic account of ‘working class, cosmopolitanism’ (1999), is an important predecessor to

these discussions. Like Clifford before her (1998), Werbner suggests that ‘sometimes it is

factory workers rather than wealthy merchants who show more openness to their non-

diasporic compatriots’ (2012:157).

It is important, as Calcutt, Woodward & Skrbis caution, to bracket some of the more idealist

readings of cosmopolitanism (2009:170). Noble (2009) points out that literature on

cosmopolitanism too often asserts it as a moral ideal and conflates the attitude of openness

and the dispositions this entails, with the actual practice of ‘doing cosmopolitanism’. He

argues that we need to examine the ‘practices through which attributes are habituated to

account for the dispositional nature of openness to others’ (2009:49) and highlights the fact

that the production of community (including community across difference) involves labour,

‘not just because it is hard...but because it is productive, transactional and cumulative’ (Noble

2009:53). My argument is intended to build on these insights to consider under what sorts of

conditions cosmopolitan capacities and practices become bedded into dispositional qualities

involving a convivial sensibility that is not so much about ‘loving of difference’, but open to

difference, a disposition with porous qualities and an affective orientation of hope, alive to

the possibilities of newness. This is not a question of normative ideals, nor simply describing

practices, but of under what circumstances those practices transform subjectivities and come

to be embodied, beyond the here and how, beyond surviving or navigating the situation.


4

The Study

The case studies which follow are drawn from a research project on ‘Everyday

Multiculturalism at Work’. The mixed methods project involved ethnographic research in

Singapore, 140 qualitative interviews conducted in Singapore and Australia, as well as

analysis of policy, print and social media. The study focused on how contexts of encounter

matter, and took the modern workplace as a key zone of contact. Scholars of intersectionality

(Yuval-Davis 2011, see also Datta 2009) and lately superdiversity (Vertovec 2007) remind us

that ‘difference’ and the conditionalities of encounter are shaped by a myriad of factors

including class, visa status, racialized histories and contexts of difference, as well as

situational aspects such as locality and the dynamics of particular social fields. The study

explored how the rules, conditions, codes and rhythms of neoliberal working cultures come to

bear on how intercultural encounters are experienced and shaped.

Singapore – global city of mobile labour

The tiny city-state of Singapore is among the most globalised and liberal economies in the

world, and also amongst the most unequal, especially when its vast army of migrant workers

are taken into account1. Singapore gained independence from the British in 1965. Today the

population consists of a Chinese majority (74.1%) followed by Malays (13.4%), Indians

(9.2%) and ‘Others’ (3.3%) (Singapore Census 2010). This ‘official’ racial profile forms the

basis for Singapore’s so-called ‘CMIO’ (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other) policy of

multiracialism which has been enshrined in Singapore since Independence (Chua 2003;

Velayutham 2007) and permeates almost every aspect of life there (Siddique 1991; Chua

1998). For example, there are official racial quotas allocating occupation of singapore’s

public housing estates which house 80% of the population. All public schools (which are

English medium) must teach the three official languages (Tamil, Mandarin, Malay) and all

students are required to choose one to study as their ‘mother tongue’. Extra educational

support and social services are clustered along racial groupings through race based ‘Self Help

Groups’. Festivals representing each grouping (primarily Deepavali, Chinese New Year, and

Hari Raya [Eid el Fitri]) are recognised on the national public holiday calendar and publicly

celebrated with decorations throughout the city. Public libraries have a section for each of

the languages. The government television broadcaster ‘Mediacorp’ has a channel for each

language group and government visual messaging in the public sphere always represents the

1 Singapore ranks 1st among OECD countries for income inequality using the 2013 GINI index and this figure does not include migrant workers.


5

four official races. There are many more examples. What I want to suggest through this

outline of the bureaucracy of race in Singapore is the way in which official systems,

discourses and structures of race in these key institutions of socialisation have a bearing on

race thinking at the everyday level. I will show in the following section that this extends in

the most intricate fashion, to the realm of migrant labour and the structures of opportunity

that are afforded to particular national groupings.

Singapore’s permanent population numbers about 3.81 million people and comprises citizens

(85.7%), and permanent residents (14.3%). Extraordinarily, non-residents residing there on

temporary work visas, number an additional 1.3 million people, and make up 37.9% (up

from 34.7% in 20101) of the Singaporean labour force in 2013. Singapore has a multilayered

differentiated system of visas and passes for overseas workers. At the top of the scale is the

‘Employment Pass’, typically the domain of the white collar professional ‘expat’ classes. The

minimum salary rate for an Employment pass is SGD$3300 per month for a younger degree

qualified professional, with higher salary rates expected of older experienced professionals.

These passes are renewable. Next is the ‘S-Pass’ visa for mid-level skilled workers which has

a base salary requirement of SGD$2200 per month. They need to be degree, diploma or

technically qualified. There are employer quotas of no more than 15-20% of their workforce

on S-Passes. The pass with most restrictions is the Work Permit, for low wage labour for

construction, cleaning, basic service workers and so forth. There is no base salary but Work

Permit holders must earn less than SGD$2000 per month. A typical monthly salary would be

in the vicinity of SGD $600 to $1000 a month with most workers relying on overtime to

supplement their salary. Work Permit holders are not permitted to bring dependents, nor

change employers. The passes are renewable.

Service sector employers (eg hospitality) have a quota of no more than 40% of their

workforce on Work Permit visas, and of these, only 8% of the workforce may be Work

Permit holders from People’s Republic of China (PRC). There are no quotas in other sectors,

but there are approved ‘source countries’ that differ per sector, as per the table below. Take

note of the terminology and the propensity for acronyms which, I suggest, normalises this

kind of racial classification and ‘national sorting’ (Swanton 2010) in the manner of audit

culture (cf Cross 2010).


6

Domestic Workers Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Macau, Malaysia,

Myanmar, Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and

Thailand

Construction Malaysia

People's Republic of China (PRC)

Non-Traditional Sources (NTS): India, Sri Lanka, Thailand,

Bangladesh, Myanmar and Philippines

North Asian Sources (NAS): Hong Kong*, Macau, South

Korea and Taiwan.

Service Sector Malaysia; People's Republic of China (PRC)

North Asian Sources (NAS): Hong Kong#, Macau, South

Korea and Taiwan.

Marine Sector Malaysia; People's Republic of China (PRC)


Bangladesh, The Republic of the Union of Myanmar and

Philippines


Korea and Taiwan.

Process Sector Malaysia; People's Republic of China (PRC)


Bangladesh, Myanmar and Philippines


Korea and Taiwan.

Manufacturing Malaysia; People's Republic of China (PRC); North Asian

Sources (NAS): Hong Kong*, Macau, South Korea and

Taiwan.

Figure 1: Work Permit Approved Source Countries, by sector.

As is apparent from these complex bureaucracies of racial and national sorting, Singapore

stands out as a case where intersections of race, work, and mobile citizenship are at their

most acute. Encounters with difference are intimately entwined with Singapore’s hierarchical

regime of racial differentiation and immigrant status. So embedded in everyday and

bureaucratic thinking is race, this unsurprisingly translates into the sphere of migrant labour

through the source country quota system. This has resulted in some incongruous cultural

juxtapositions, especially in the hospitality sector. Singapore’s little India district is packed

with Indian restaurants and business servicing the Indian community. Because of the source


7

country restrictions on hiring from India, Indian restaurants are forced to hire cleaners, cooks,

kitchen hands and wait staff from approved source countries like China. While Malaysian

Tamils are commonly employed, Chinese migrant workers are often preferred for low end

jobs like cleaners and table clearers as they are cheaper to hire because there are different pay

scales for each national grouping. Malaysians generally earn more than other source country

nationals; followed by Filipinos, while Chinese for the most part attract the lowest salary2.

Filipinos on the other hand, are not allowed to be hired on Work Permits in the services

sector, but are sometimes favoured for front line roles due to their enhanced English language

abilities. This requires their appointment on the mid-tier S-Pass2.

Figure 2: A typical casual South Indian eatery in Little India

Although promoted as a tourist attraction, Singapore’s Little India is a ‘living’ precinct in that

it serves the food, cultural and religious needs of Singapore’s Indian population. There are

Hindu temples, supermarkets, a wet market and hawker centre, Sari and Indian jewellery

shops, many restaurants and eateries, mobile phone sellers, and so on. It is a busy and lively

hub for the Indian community, and never more so on Sundays when thousands upon

2 Although this differs to some extent by industry.


8

thousands of Singapore’s Indian and Bangladeshi migrant workers descend on the precinct

for their one day off per week.

Figure xx: Little India on a typical Sunday

I turn now to two case studies of non-Indian migrant workers employed in South Asian

restaurants in Little India. I explore how they deal with life in this situation of rather

incongruous encounter, look at their cosmopolitan practices and reflect on their affective

sensibility toward cultural difference.

‘Old Zhong’ – MAINLAND CHINESE WORKER IN INDIAN RESTAURANT (Work

Permit)

‘Old Zhong’ is a 43 year old mainland Chinese man from Henan province. He owned his own

restaurant in China and was, by his account, a skilled chef and businessman. When his eatery

had a downturn in business because of a main road diversion, he was forced to look for

employment opportunities abroad and thus began a downward spiral of social mobility.

Through an agent he secured a position in Singapore and Work Permit visa, for which he paid


9

his agent about SGD$6000. He knew nothing of his work destination until he arrived in

Singapore where he discovered his new employer was a chain of Indian restaurants and he

would be based in Little India. He spent the first year as a chef in the kitchen responsible for

‘dough preparation’, then requested to be reassigned to the service area of the restaurant as a

table clearer when the intensity of his work became too much and he felt his skills as a cook

were not adequately recognised.

He is one of four Chinese workers in his workplace, the balance of the 40 staff being mostly

Malaysian Tamils. He had never met a non-Chinese before leaving China so this was quite a

cultural shock. It has been a period of rapid learning on his part, compounded by the fact that

he spoke almost no English and certainly no Tamil. As is typical for Singapore’s low paid

foreign workforce, his hours are long – normally working twelve hour plus shifts with only

two rest days a month, which he often works to earn overtime. He earns a base salary of

SGD$1000 plus overtime after the first 10 hours of the day. Due his work hours he had only

once ventured to explore elsewhere in Singapore on a day off (taking the MRT to visit the

famous Merlion) so his life experience and social encounters had been confined to his

workplace and room-mates. His days are busy with one twenty-five minute meal break,

which he takes on the premises. He is acutely aware that his Tamil co-workers (who are

mostly from Malaysia) are paid more and have more favourable conditions. He also feels

they receive more respect than he.

Old Zhong: China workers are not put on the 8-hour shift [like the Indians].

None of us. …

Old Zhong: Did you question why China workers are treated differently?

Old Zhong: Ah . . . it is obviously useless to bring this up.

He is reflecting here on the fact that ‘China workers’ only earn overtime after a 10-hour shift,

while the Malaysian Tamil workers receive overtime after the 8th

hour. He expresses a sense

of hopelessness about raising the matter. He also talks quite negatively about the fact that

when he was deployed in the kitchen on ‘dough duty’ his superiors did not recognise his

skills as a chef and allow him to do more complex cooking.

Interviewer: Have you ever attempted to tell them your expertise is in cooking?

You were a chef at home.

Old Zhong: I’ve mentioned this not just once or twice, but many times. I’ve been

in this line. I’m particularly interested in food preparation.


10

…. Despite coming here, to work at an Indian restaurant, the principles of

cooking remain…

The frustrating lack of opportunity to exercise his talents, combined with the physical

demands and sheer intensity of the work in the kitchen causes him to request a transfer to

cleaning and table clearing duties. He clearly feels frustrated at the lack of recognition for his

craft and experiences this as downward mobility.

Despite his palpable feeling of diminished dignity at this downward shift in occupation, he

still speaks with pride about his capacity to acquire the new language. He carries a notebook

with him everywhere he goes and notes down Tamil words he learns throughout the day,

translating them phonetically into Chinese.

I carry a small notebook with me everywhere I go. I ask the chef what this is, or

what that is in the Indian language. And I make note of everything he taught me. I

wrote down what these things are, what the words mean in Mandarin. I learned a

couple of words everyday. Day by day, my vocabulary grew. … Yesterday they

taught me this . . . I scribbled the words on a napkin (proceeds to display the

napkin with scribbling). This is “how are you” in Indian. And the numbers one to

ten in Indian3.

He uses Tamil familial terms to address co-workers (Thambi, Akka, An-na etc) but this is

framed in terms of not knowing their proper names, or as a sign of respect to the female

colleagues rather than a basis for convivial interchange. His colleagues address him by his

name. There are no nicknames.

He often relies upon the elderly Singapore-Chinese cleaning ‘aunty’ and one Singaporean-

Chinese colleague to interpret more complex things for him and they have also shared with

him some knowledge of the different cultures and religions of Singapore. However he is very

dismissive of their ability to speak proper Mandarin and there is not a great deal of

intercultural affinity, despite their ostensibly shared ‘race’.

If we have any doubts [when we need to communicate to the Indians], we would

approach that old lady [Singapore Chinese lady cleaner]. We could manage

speaking in simple English for basic matters. We also used gestures. But when it

3 His use of the term ‘Indian language’ is a literal one which he uses instead of ‘Tamil language’. This shows perhaps a rather limited understanding of the fact that there are many Indian languages and that his colleagues are ethnically Tamil.


11

comes to more complicated matters, we could not express ourselves in English.

We had to seek the old lady’s help. But her Mandarin . . . aiyah3! Really, her

Mandarin is nothing like yours. Vastly different.4

Despite being around Indian food all day he hasn’t developed a taste for it and he makes

somewhat chauvinistic remarks about the inferiority of Indian culture and cuisine.

Old Zhong: From the way I see it, Indian cuisine is too unscientific. Too

unscientific!

Interviewer: Well, they are still alive. (Laughs.)

Old Zhong: Have you not noticed, they [Indians] tend to have huge tummies? Yes

they are still alive, but their longevity is compromised.

…Our culinary habits are different. The Indians eat with their bare hands. That’s

not good. It’s better to use chopsticks. See, using chopsticks make your hands and

fingers more nimble. Good training. They (the Indians) can’t do that.

And again:

Actually Indians can be quite stupid. Not as quick-thinking as Chinese. They

could not perform many seemingly simple tasks. And also hygiene issues.

It is also quite telling that he uses the expression ‘Indian’ rather than ‘Tamil’ and also refers

generically to ‘the Indian language’ rather than the Tamil that is spoken. Throughout the

interview, he uses the term “hei ren” , the Mandarin term for ‘black people’.

There are very occasional moments of intercultural learning and conviality in his story. For

example he is proud of the fact that he is famous in his workplace for knowing all the words

and being able to sing along to the popular Tamil songs on the radio. He enjoys the attention

from his Indian colleagues this brings. He describes his boss as ‘quite nice’ when talking

about the fact that his employer brings in Ang Pows5 (red packets) for his China workers on

Chinese new year, and also all workers on the Hindu festival Deepavali. He is also quite

proud of the informal role he has taken on in the restaurant assisting mainland Chinese

tourists to select food to order and sometimes guides Singapore Chinese who are unfamiliar

with the menu. He feels good about these new skills but for the most part he frames them as

strategies he has learnt to survive in this workplace (cf Datta 2009) rather than emerging from

convivial relationships with his colleagues and employer. These are momentary openings but

don’t seem to have transformed or de-stabalised negative views of ‘Indians’ and ‘Indian

culture’. He emphasises that the language barrier means it is simply difficult to establish

deeper relationships with his colleagues. What dominates his narrative is a sense of despair at


12

his downward mobility, the difficult and unfulfilling work, a lack of control over his

situation, a lack of recognition for his skills, and feeling unfairly discriminated against.

Old Zhong: Think about it: from a cook, I became a general labourer. How can

that be ideal?

Interviewer: And what about your new colleagues? Are they nicer?

Old Zhong: Everyone’s thoughts and opinions are different . . . I guess I can say

we still manage to get along. We work together every day. There are things we

cannot avoid. So many things beyond our control, you know.

Interviewer: I see. So you can’t claim to love the job or your colleagues. Can only

say you can put up with them.

Old Zhong: Indeed. Each day, I struggle to get by . . . especially difficult to get

along with them.

As an experienced chef, who formerly ran his own eating establishment, he feels

dispossessed and unvalued – his skills and talent unrecognised - now just seen as a low

skilled, uneducated ‘China cleaner’.

The Indians discriminate against us Chinese. . . yes, there are some who are like

that. What do they have in them, to discriminate against us?

He expresses this dynamic with a palpable air of frustration. There are no reflections that

might describe an ‘emerging cosmopolitan sensibility’ and little sense of hope for the future.

His affect is restrained and mostly negative and expresses a sense of hopelessness and lack of

control. His is a narrative of resignation and survival.

… No choice. Take it as it comes. … since I am here, I will have to accept these

conditions. Since I made this decision, I must accept it. I chose this.

TERESA – FILIPINA WORKER IN NEPALESE RESTAURANT (S-Pass holder)

Old Zhong’s narrative contrasts sharply with Teresa—a 35year old Filipina ‘S-Pass’ holder

working around the corner in a Nepalese restaurant. She is the only Filipina in the restaurant,

which employs about fifteen staff. She works closely with her boss and the chef. Her boss is

Nepalese (a Singaporean permanent resident), the Chef is Punjabi, and her co-workers are a

mix of Punjabis and Nepalese – all migrant workers. They communicate amongst themselves

in Hindi, which is the language they all share. Some speak a little English, while her boss is

fluent. She feels she has a good relationship with her boss involving a sense of respect,

autonomy, trust, acknowledgement of her skills and mutual support. In contrast to Old

Zhong, she says she is treated as an equal.


13

Actually we used to talk about it, like my boss and us, like we don’t really make a

label, like me as a supervisor, me as a manager, or he as a boss. If we’re working

inside, we help each other. That’s the good thing about it. I can tell my boss to

get something for me. It’s not like a boss-employee thing, no.

Unlike Old Zhong, Teresa’s daily rhythm is much less intense. Although her hours are long

she works a split shift so has a long break in the afternoon. She says she ‘only’ works six

days and although sometimes called in on the 7th

day for an extra half day, is pleased she is

compensated with overtime. Work is much less intense than in Old Zhong’s workplace, and

as front of house staff, feels her position is one of elevated status which gives her a sense of

pride, recognition, and upward mobility.

Like Old Zhong, familial terms are used frequently amongst her co-workers but the tone in

which she talks about these exchanges is quite different from his.

A: …Have you learnt some words in Hindi or Nepali?

T: Yes. Recently, just recently. Some small, small words. …for brother, “da”,

“baya”.

….“bayaji”, for respect.

… Ah, for boss, its “boss.” Sometimes “dai,” I will call him “dai.”

A: What is “dai?”

T: “Older brother”, in Nepal.

T: …Some part timers would call me “a-tey”. “A-tey” means older sister in the

Philippines. So over the time, if you spending time with them, for a long period

of time, then you tend to forget that you came from different country.

In contrast to Old Zhong—whose use of familial terms are a means of filling in for the fact he

does not know given names, and as a mark of formal respect—Teresa’s exchanges seem to be

linked to an incremental increase in relational connection and also open onto humorous

exchanges. It is a very Southeast Asian style of familial banter and in her case led to

reciprocal forms of micro recognition where her colleagues use familial terms from her native

Tagalog in return. Her narrative suggests that her working day is full of humour and

convivial banter.

. . . the thing is, this worker, this chef, they are in a lot of stress. Sometimes you

have to cheer them up, you have to joke around. That is one of my job. (Laughs.)

Because if they are not happy, the food won’t turn out great. Sometimes if they

are stressed, so I will joke around. Like I will call him something else in Tagalog.

And they would be happy about it. …


14

Sometimes the [chef], I call him “lolo.” “Lolo” means grandfather [in Tagolog].

(Laughs.) And if he asks me, “‘lolo ’means what?” “It means ‘handsome.’”

(Laughs.) And then at the end of the day I would tell him the meaning. (Laughs.)

And then, “what’s the word for ‘grandmother’ in Filipino?” Then I told him,

“lola.” Then he call me “lola.” (Laughs.)

Humour is a key part of how Teresa and her workmates relate and this seems to smooth over

the language barrier and any tense moments that come up in a busy workplace. Indeed Teresa

herself is quite explicit that sometimes the joking is used strategically to deal with stress,

diffuse tension, and to bridge awkwardness surrounding their linguistic and cultural

differences.

T: Sometimes they [colleagues] would speak in English, but if they don’t, I will

tell, “English please.” (Laughs.) In the . . . it’s like a joke for us. They would talk

[in Hindi], like even though I am not involved in the things they are talking about,

(when I say) “English,” then they would laugh and then they would translate for

me.

Unlike Old Zhong who attributes difficulties to differences at the group level, Teresa tended

to describe difficulties in terms of individual personality differences, rather than in group-

based racialised terms.

R: So what’s it like, coming from the Philippines to Singapore, which is very

multi-cultural . . . and then finding yourself in an Indian, Nepali place?

T: That’s new, everything is new for me. Actually even if you have the same

country men working with you, all of us has different personality. So that itself

will have a contrast in the workplace. And having different religion, having

different background would add to it. It’s quite difficult at first.

She acknowledges that all this ‘difference’ was difficult to deal with at first but indicates she

and her colleagues have developed ways to deal with it. For example they avoid discussing

religion (she is a Christian while her colleagues are Muslims and Hindus) or only talk it about

in terms of similarities. Sometimes, religion is used as a basis to exercise relational forms of

reciprocity through gift exchange or gestures of hospitality (cf Wise 2005, 2009). In this way,

instead of emphasising the ‘difference’ of their respective faiths, religion in practice offers an

opportunity to form a bridge to connect across that divide.

… Religion wise I, I avoid having conversations with them about it. I have two

chef, one is Hindu, one is Muslim. (Laughs.) Yes, it is interesting. … And


15

sometimes I know they would talk about religion. And it would be hard for me,

you know, I don’t want to be involved, and you know, have a battle of religion or

something. (Laughs.) I’m avoiding that, because god love us to love each other.

You know what I mean.

There was also a lot of mutual accommodation going on with the co-workers attempting to

learn and communicate with her in English instead of the Hindi they were used to among the

group.

Actually for the chefs, because previously all the employee they have can speak

Hindi. Nepalese can speak Hindi, so they can communicate very well. But then

when I came, I’m a Filipino, I can’t speak Hindi. I can only speak English to

them. They were shocked. (Laughs.) For a while, yes, because they have to speak

English.

…

But over the time, he [the Chef] got used to it…And he said, he even apologised

to me, ’cos at first he’s not really good in English. “But now I’m getting better at

English because of you. You should teach me how to speak English.” (Laughs.)

So that’s nice, yes.

This relatively positive atmosphere evolved into gestures of reciprocity and hybrid

accommodations involving food. She talked about developing a taste for spicy food during

her time at the restaurant, which she describes as unusual for Filipinos.

T:. Most Filipino they don’t really like spicy but I’m a different breed. (Laughs.) I

love spicy food but there are some spices I am not used to, like cumin. The smell,

most Filipino don’t like that. I get used to it, I think, if you’re smelling it every

day. (Laughs.)

… I’m used to it right now, I love it actually.

She recounted how her boss developed a liking for the lunch she sometimes brought in – a

traditional Filipino dish called ‘Adobo’.

….. And they get to eat Filipino food as well. My boss loves adobo -

…adobo is like a stew. A stew in .., soy sauce and vinegar.

I would cook inside (the restaurant). (Laughs.) My boss loves it. And one day, I

was surprised. Because his wife has Filipina friend as well so he tried adobo. …

And then he asked me, “do you know how to cook adobo?” “Ah yes, boss, that’s

our national dish in the Philippines.” So one day I was really shocked (laughs)

and mesmerised about it. My boss came early, he’s holding a plastic bag. “Do

you know what is this for you?” Then when I opened it, this is soy sauce and

vinegar, local product from the Philippines. “Where did you get?” (Laughs.)

’Cos he wants me to cook adobo. (Laughs.) So then I cook and he likes it.

He eventually added it as a special to his restaurant menu. Later she told us how at Christmas

her Hindu employer hosted a Christmas lunch for his employees and his family, serving

‘tandoori Turkey’. She describes how, as the only Christian at the table, she felt it was her job


16

to say grace – which she modified to acknowledge the different backgrounds and religions of

people a the table.

T: Last Christmas, ah, ya, …. The Christmas dinner. They we were about to say

the grace But then (laughs) I was really, you know, it feels a bit weird because I

am the only Christian. (Laughs.) But then I said that even though all of us came

from different background, different religion, all of us just sitting here at the table

sharing this beautiful meal. Ah, thank god, whichever. (Laughs.) Then they all

laughed. (Laughs.) And Amen. Then we had dinner, my boss, his family, all the

staff.

…

T: We had a tandoori turkey, yes. (Laughs.)

Teresa feels that she is in a relatively privileged position compared to her Filipina

compatriots working elsewhere for Singaporean-Chinese employers. In a country where most

domestic workers are Filipinas, where the majority of these work in Chinese households, and

where there are many cases of abuse and disrespect - to be a Filipina is to some extent a

‘spoiled identity’.

[In my restaurant] there is usual arguments, but never racism or bad treatment

because I’m Filipino … That’s why I would consider myself lucky in my situation

right now. Compared to other Filipinos. If you would be able to talk to them, you

know, some of them the Chinese employers are really yelling and yelling and

yelling. They would look down on other races.

In her situation, she is not only working for a racial minority group, her boss himself is an

immigrant Indian, and as a Nepalese, he is also a minority among Tamil dominated

Singapore Indians. Her status in that workplace is further elevated by her light skin and

ability to speak fluent English.

Humour is extremely important in her workplace and there is bridging talk of ‘same same but

different’. Humour is acknowledged in the literature as serving several functions, including

mediating incongruity, reducing tension, providing a sense of micro-resistance, and building

solidarity among workers (see Cooper 2008; Korczynski 2011; Tracey et al 2006; Handelman

& Kapferer 1972; Collinson 1988). In Teresa’s case, humorous banter and hybrid practices of

accommodation run both ways – her colleagues also take in a little of Teresa’s traditions,

language and culture.


17

DISCUSSION

To what extent do those exposed to cultural difference on a daily basis become

‘cosmopolitans’ in the sense of an enhanced capacity to deal with difference, and a convivial

open disposition to Otherness (Skrbis 2009, Hannerz 1990 )? Here I want to differentiate

between cosmopolitan ‘practice’ and something more sustained that could be described as a

cosmopolitan disposition or habitus, involving embodied capacities for negotiating cultural

difference, and a convivial sensibility receptive to newness and cultural transformation.

While many writers emphasise cosmopolitanism as a sensibility and normative orientation

(cf Nussbaum 1994, Hannerz 2004, Beck 2002). Glick-Schiller et al (2011:2) advocate a take

on cosmopolitanism that links it to practices of sociability rather than normative sensibilities

linked to tolerance for cultural difference, curiosity, self reflexivity and anti-parochial

attitudes. In their view, cosmopolitan sociability as arises from ‘human competencies that

create social relations of inclusiveness’ (2012:1). I suggest that in focusing only on

cosmopolitan practices of sociability, we miss the question of how and under what

circumstances those capacities and ‘human competencies’ are learnt and become part of an

enduring, embodied disposition. This takes us a little closer to questions of ‘habit’ and

‘habituation’ (Crossley 2013). Noble describes ‘cosmopolitan habits’ as ‘a ‘web or

assemblage of feelings, attitudes and practices that coalesce as a disposition’ (2013:168) and

raises questions about studies that simply aim to describe cosmopolitan ‘types’, ‘rather than

exploring how these capacities are acquired in ensembles of social practices and relations’

(167). The situatedness of those relations are key. Datta’s important work on vernacular

cosmopolitanisms among migrant workers in London (Datta 2009; Datta, McIllwine et al

2007; Datta 2011) urges a more situated grasp of the cosmopolitan. She has argued that many

instances of ‘working class cosmopolitanism’ reveal not so much an ethical sensibility, but a

strategic ‘engagement with others through coerced choices in order to survive in new

environments’ (Datta 2009:2). Datta, McIllwine et al (2007) further argue that among

particularly disadvantaged migrant worker groups in London, where the prevailing power

relations ‘erode the potential for migrants to develop strategic responses to their new

situation’ (409) workers they have researched often rely on more provisional, reactive and

fragile cosmopolitan ‘tactics’ (425 and see also Landau & Freemantle 2009). Datta thus

argues for a multiplication of cosmopolitanisms, understood as shaped by individual


18

biographies, access to forms of capital, and the localised spatial contexts in which specific

attitudes and behaviours towards others are practised’ (Datta2009:25).

In line with this, I argue that the specificities of work, work conditions, and workplace- and

in the context of mobile labour, the citizenship regimes under which mobility takes place -

are key ‘environing conditions’ (Dewey 2007, also in Noble 2013:175). So too, as Datta

(2009) highlights in her work, are the layers of national and racial hierarchy that form the

background evaluative conditions to everyday practice. Environing conditions are key in

understanding the dialectic between embodied subjectivity and practice in terms of whether

or not a sensibility or disposition one could describe as a ‘cosmopolitan outlook’, might

evolve out of the repertoire of intercultural capacities, practices and forms of intercultural

sociality a migrant worker develops to survive.

Exposed for the first time to South Asians in situations of forced encounter, Teresa and Old

Zhong have both deploy ‘cosmopolitan strategies’ around language, culture and food that

help them survive as a culturally different minority in their respective workplaces. However

their narratives are starkly different in tone. Teresa is altogether more positive about her

situation. She feels she is valued and on an upward trajectory and describes her encounters

with cultural difference in positive, convivial terms. Old Zhong is quite bitter about his work

conditions as a Work Permit holder, and this seems to have a bearing on his negative

assessments of his Indian colleagues and their culture. Certainly issues of personal biography

and personality come in to play, also the cultural background of the two participants differ.

Not the least of which is Teresa’s English speaking Filipino background. Importantly though,

in their home countries, both Teresa and Sun occupied very similar class positions. However

I want to argue that there is something more at work than simply personality and biography

that has to do with the affective atmospheres produced by conditions of labour and

differences in status and mobility linked to the their working environments, the nature of their

respective work visas, and the complex intersections between occupation, racial and national

hierarchies in Singapore.

Priming Bodies: Pedagogical Affect and Disposition


19

Spinoza’s conceptualisation of ‘affect’ relates to one’s capacities to affect and be affected, in

which the body’s power to act is increased or diminished (Spinoza in Seyfert 2015). This is

intimately tied up with the notion of hope conceived as the capacity to move forward and

beyond (cf Anderson 2006). According to Anderson (2014), the ‘initial task for an analysis of

affective life is…. To attend to differentiated ‘capacities to affect and be affected’’ while the

second task ‘is to trace how affects emerge from and express specific relational

configurations, whilst also themselves becoming elements within those formations’

(Anderson 2014: 11). These configurations, which are more than interpersonal, contribute to

the formation of particular affective atmospheres. Borrowing loosely from Watkins’ (2006)

notion of pedagogic affect, I suggest these workplaces evoke quite different affective

atmospheres, and these in turn have a bearing on the degree of receptiveness to dispositional

change in Old Zhong and Teresa. Watkins4 describes ‘pedagogic affect’ (2006; 2010) as that

which ‘primes bodies towards pedagogic receptiveness’5. We need to consider what kinds of

atmospheres (cf Conradson & Latham 2007) are produced by different constellations and

configurations of social actors and other non-human material and immaterial environing

conditions. What sorts of atmospheres are likely to ‘prime bodies’ to be receptive to

‘newness’ and generate pleasurable feelings towards engaging with and negotiating

difference? What kinds of atmospheres form the precondition for an affective receptiveness

to cultural ambiguity and ultimately incremental transormations in disposition? I argue that

‘pedagogic receptivity’ is at the heart of shifting from ‘cosmopolitan survival strategy’ to an

emergent and more enduring disposition one might describe as a ‘cosmopolitan sensibility’.

In Teresa’s case, these conditions are linked to a sense of conviviality, giving rise to a feeling

of hope (cf Anderson 2006, Thrift 2004), recognition, respect, and feelings of upward

mobility and this in turn ‘primes’ her receptiveness towards embodying a cosmopolitan

sensibility. The opposite appears to be the case for Old Zhong, where the constellation of

environing conditions in his work situation dampens his affective relationship to his

colleagues and diminish the likelihood of him moving beyond a ‘survival’ mode of

cosmopolitan practice. There is a deadness, a lack of hope, in Old Zhong’s narrative, whereas

Teresa’s interview bristles with anecdotes of reciprocity, humour, respect, cultural diffusion

and accommodation.

4 Writing on student receptivity and teacher affect in the classroom. 5 See also Wendelin Kupers 2011, Shilling 2008, Anderson 2006)


20

I suggest that the following conditions underpin, in part, the differences in their experience

and their divergent affective orientations. First; the conditions and temporalities of work –

including employment terms and conditions, the relative intensity of their respective jobs, the

day to day temporalities of work, and the spatial qualities of the two sites of employment.

Although Teresa works long hours, she is able to rest during the quiet part of the day, and has

a half day off each week. Old Zhong, on the other hand, works much longer hours. His work

is difficult, busy and intense. As we saw in his interview, he asked to be demoted from the

role of cook (for which he is most qualified) in part because of the sheer intensity of that role.

As a consequence he now occupies the role of table clearer – a clearly stigmatised job. There

is little time for rest, for engaging in banter, or the ‘slow time’ needed for building

relationships and a sense of conviviality. The spatial qualities of their workplaces also differ.

For example Old Zhong’s workplace is a busy casual eatery that serves through the day. The

material qualities of this fast paced eatery produce a set of expectations about the kind of

‘labour’ you might find there. The restaurant where Teresa works is a little more up market,

doing a standard lunch and dinner service. Because it closes during the afternoon she is able

to sit with her boss or colleagues in the empty restaurant to talk. As front of house manager

she has a sense of ownership over the space. She is able to dress smartly and stay clean,

unlike Old Zhong. Although she is paid only a little more than Old Zhong ($400SGD per

month more), Teresa believes her pay is fair and feels a sense of recognition for her work

when she receives overtime. Moreover, she no longer has a migration debt as she was able to

pay that off in her first year of work. In contrast, Yaochun’s lingering large debt compounds

his sense of powerless and being ‘stuck’ without choices.

Second, is the sphere of recognition relations, work autonomy and relations of respect (cf

Sennett 2003; Honneth). Teresa is afforded good degree of trust, autonomy and respect in her

work. She feels that her skills are well regarded, and this extends to a feeling of self-worth

when she recounts the story of her boss enjoying her Philipines dish of Adobo. The two

narratives show starkly different experiences here. Teresa talks about her boss helping her,

how they don’t think of themselves as ‘worker and boss’ but as ‘family’. Feelings of respect

and autonomy (Sennett 2003; Hodson 2001; ) have a bearing on her sense of hope and

dignity, her capacity to affect and be affected, and feelings of being on an upward journey.


21

Third, are the differences in status, opportunity, mobility, and conditions afforded by their

respective migrant worker visas.

Although both had experience running a restaurant before they came to Singapore, and

indeed, Old Zhong owned his own eatery – their status as workers is defined by their national

origin, embedded structurally through Singapore’s visa system. Filipinas in the hospitality

sector are typically on an ‘S-Pass’ – the mid-range employment visa. This is because the

Philippines is not an approved ‘source country’ for work permits in the service sector.

Mainland Chinese, on the other hand, come in on Work Permits – the lowest status of the

temporary visas with salary cap and punitive conditions, including the inability to change

employers without permission. This variegated system of visas has both material and

discursive effects – affording particular conditions, but also framing perceptions towards

national groups who are employed under a particular visa. Singaporeans are conditioned to

see ‘China workers’ as occupying menial positions as cleaners. This ‘way of seeing’ is

habituated among the population particularly because of the visibility of ‘china cleaners’ in

public spaces of hospitality such as kopitiams (coffee shops), shopping centres and hawker

centres. Their very predominance in this stigmitised occupation arises from the system of

racial sorting embedded in Singapore’s ‘approved source country’ system of low wage

foreign worker passes.

The fourth set of environing conditions stem from the complex local dynamics of race,

migration and minority status in Singapore. Old Zhong is working for all intents and purposes

as a mainland Chinese minority among Tamils, who in turn are a minority in Chinese

majority Singapore. As his colleagues are almost all Tamil speaking Indians they are less

likely to feel any need to reach out across the cultural divide and to modify their own cultural

orientation. For the most part, the learning and accommodation is uni-directional – with

Yaochaun learning Tamil and Indian customs. Teresa, on the other hand is enmeshed in a rich

set of relational reciprocities with her colleagues. Moreover, she is employed by a Nepalese

permanent resident – who is therefore both a minority and ‘new Singaporean’ himself – and

thus a marginal belonging even among Singapore-Indians. Her colleagues are all migrant

workers too and vary in both national origin (albeit all South Asian) and religion. Thus they

are much less likely to have internalised negative stereotypes of Filipina’s as nothing more

than domestic workers, which is an attitude common among many long-time Singaporeans.


22

Conclusion

There is something at once structural and atmospheric at work here. Work intensity; relations

of respect linked to visa, and in turn, intersections of occupation, race and nationality, as well

as the temporal qualities of their work, I suggest, have a large bearing on Teresa and Old

Zhong’s affective disposition toward their respective workplaces. In turn, this shapes

perceptions of colleagues that, in such highly racialised workplaces, inevitably become

entangled with comparisons and evaluative thoughts. In this way, it is possible to imagine

that in the more punitive work environment, intercultural ‘survival skills’ remain just that,

whereas in Teresa’s situation, the work and collegial environment and the sense of respect

and autonomy she experiences spark in her hopeful openings towards a more cosmopolitan

sensibility and moments of cultural porousness, incorporation, and accommodation that stand

a chance of becoming part of a more enduring disposition. Evident in Teresa’s situation is a

sense of mutuality and conviviality in the way she describes her working life and

relationships – underpinned by relations of reciprocity, accommodation, humour and respect

(Sennett 2003) which have a bearing on her sense of hope, capacity and feelings of being on

an upward journey (cf Wise 2005).

As Sennett has argued, ‘people who sense they are stuck are not likely to look outward or

forward.’ (Sennett 2012). There is, in Old Zhong’s narrative, an overwhelming sense of

downward mobility, lack of autonomy or power to control his situation, and a lack of respect

and regard for his skills. I suggest that the negative environing conditions outlined above for

Old Zhong damp down his affective state and this in turn diminishes the likelihood that the

strategies he has adapted to survive as a migrant worker will evolve into a more enduring

disposition ‘turned outward’.

Of course these vignettes are singular slices and represent only one of the many layered and

overlapping spheres of interaction that shape lives and dispositions. The intention here was to

capture how the ‘slice of life’ that is work might feed into the shaping of a particular

sensibility around difference in the context of a highly regulated and racialised regime of

mobile labour in a society like Singapore where so much of life is framed and regulated

through race.


23

References

Amin, Ash. 2002. “Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.” Environment

and Planning A, 34, 959-980.

Amin, Ash. 2012. Land of Strangers. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Anderson, Ben. 2006. “Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect.”

Environment and planning D, 24(5), 733.

Anderson, Ben. 2014. Encountering affect: capacities, apparatuses, conditions. London:

Ashgate Publishing.

Beck, Ulrich. 2002 "The cosmopolitan society and its enemies." Theory, culture & society

19, no. 1-2 (2002): 17-44.

Bennett, Tony, Dodsworth, Francis, Noble, Greg., Poovey, Mary, & Watkins, Megan. 2013.

“Habit and Habituation Governance and the Social.” Body & Society, 19(2-3), 3-29.

Blackman, Lisa. 2013. “Habit and affect: Revitalizing a forgotten history.” Body &

Society, 19(2-3), 186-216.

Chua, Beng Huat. 1998. “Culture, multiracialism and national identity in Singapore.” In .

Trajectories: inter-Asia cultural studies, edited by Kuan-Hsing Chen.186-205 Psychology

Press.

Chua, Beng Huat. 2003. “Multiculturalism in Singapore: An instrument of social control.”

Race & Class, 44(3), 65-77.

Clayton, J. 2009. “Thinking spatially: towards an everyday understanding of inter-ethnic

relations.” Social & cultural geography, 10(4), 481-498.

Collinson, David L. 1988: "'Engineering humour': masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-

floor relations." Organization Studies 9:2 181-199.


24

Conradson, David, and Alan Latham. 2007. "The affective possibilities of London:

Antipodean transnationals and the overseas experience." Mobilities 2(2) 231-254.

Cooper, C. 2008. “Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process

model.” Human Relations, 61(8), 1087-1115.

Crossley, N. 2013. “Habit and habitus.” Body & Society, 19(2-3), 136-161.

Datta, Ayona. 2009. “Places of everyday cosmopolitanisms: East-European construction

workers in London.” Environment and planning A, 41(2), 353-370.

Dewey, John. 2007. Experience and education. Simon and Schuster.

Devadason, Ranji. 2010 "Cosmopolitanism, geographical imaginaries and belonging in

North London." Urban Studies 47(14) 2945-2963.

Diouf, M., & Rendall, S. (2000). The Senegalese Murid trade diaspora and the making of a

vernacular cosmopolitanism. Public Culture, 12(3), 679-702.

Du Gay, Paul. 1996. Making up managers: enterprise and the ethos of bureaucracy. The

politics of management knowledge, 19-35.

Essed, Philomena. 1991. Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory (Vol.

2). Sage.

Gidley, Ben. (2013) "Landscapes of belonging, portraits of life: researching everyday

multiculture in an inner city estate." Identities 20:4 361-376.

Glick-Schiller, Nina, Darieva, T., & Gruner-Domic, S. 2011. “Defining cosmopolitan

sociability in a transnational age. An introduction.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(3), 399-

418.

Handelman, Don, and Bruce Kapferer. 1972 "Forms of Joking Activity: A Comparative

Approach." American Anthropologist 74:3 484-517.

Hannerz, Ulf. 2004. "Cosmopolitanism.", in Nugent, David, and Joan Vincent, eds. A

Companion to the Anthropology of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell: 69-85.

Harris, Anita. 2009. “Shifting the boundaries of cultural spaces: young people and everyday

multiculturalism.” Social identities, 15(2), 187-205.

Hodson, Randy. 2001. Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press.


25

Kendall, Gavin, Skrbis, Zlatko & Woodward, Ian (2009) The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism:

Globalization, Identity, Culture and Government. London: Palgrave.

Korczynski, Marek. 2011. “The dialectical sense of humour: routine joking in a Taylorized

factory.” Organization Studies, 32(10), 1421-1439.

Kothari, U. 2008. “Global peddlers and local networks: migrant

cosmopolitanisms.” Environment and planning. D, Society and space, 26(3), 500.

Kupers, Wendelin 2011. “Embodied Pheno-Pragma-Practice-Phenomenological and

Pragmatic Perspectives on Creative" Inter-practice” in Organisations between Habits and

Improvisation. Phenomenology & Practice, 5(1).

Liebelt, Claudia. 2008. “On sentimental Orientalists, Christian Zionists, and working class

cosmopolitans: Filipina domestic workers’ journeys to Israel and beyond.” Critical Asian

Studies 40(4) 567-585.

Mee, Wendy. 2015. Work and Cosmopolitanism at the Border: Indonesian Women Labour

Migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(12), pp.2041-2060.

Moroşanu, Laura. 2013 “‘We all eat the same bread’: the roots and limits of cosmopolitan

bridging ties developed by Romanians in London.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(12) 2160-

2181.

Neal, Sarah, Katy Bennett, Allan Cochrane, and Giles Mohan. 2013 “Living multiculture:

understanding the new spatial and social relations of ethnicity and multiculture in

England.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31:2 308-323.

Noble, Greg. 2009. “Everyday cosmopolitanism and the labour of intercultural community”.

Everyday multiculturalism, 46-65.

Noble, Greg. 2011. “Belonging in Bennelong: Ironic Inclusion and Cosmopolitan Joy in

John Howard's (Former) Electorate”, in Ocean to Outback: Cosmopolitanism in

Contemporary Australia, edited by KA Jacobs and J. Malpas Perth: UWA Press.

Noble, Greg. 2013. “Cosmopolitan Habits: The Capacities and Habitats of Intercultural

Conviviality.” Body & Society, 19(2-3), 162-185.

Nowicka, Magda, & Rovisco, M. Eds. 2012. Cosmopolitanism in practice. London: Ashgate

Publishing.

Nussbaum, Martha. 2010. “Patriotism and cosmopolitanism”. In The cosmopolitan reader,

edited by Garrett W Brown and David Held.Cambridge: Polity. 155-162.


26

Osella, Filippo, and Caroline Osella. 2007. “'I am Gulf': the production of cosmopolitanism

in Kozhikode, Kerala, India.” SOAS Eprint https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/5178/1/ch9_osellas.pdf

[Accessed 15/10/15]

Radford, D., 2016. ‘‘Everyday otherness’–intercultural refugee encounters and everyday

multiculturalism in a South Australian rural town.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,

pp.1-18. [Online first]

Shilling, Chris. 2008. Changing bodies: Habit, crisis and creativity. London: Sage.

Sennett, Richard. 2002. “Cosmopolitanism and the social experience of cities.” Conceiving

cosmopolitanism: Theory, context, and practice, 42-7.

Sennett, Richard. 2003. Respect in a World of Inequality. New York: WW Norton &

Company.

Sennett, Richard. 2012. “Fractures.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews,41(2),

164-166.

Seyfert, Robert. 2012. “Beyond personal feelings and collective emotions: Toward a theory

of social affect.” Theory, Culture & Society, 29(6), 27-46.

Siddique, Sharon. 1990. “The phenomenology of ethnicity: a Singapore case-study.”

Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 35-62.

Skeggs, Beverly & Vik Loveday. 2012. “Struggles for value: value practices, injustice,

judgment, affect and the idea of class”. The British journal of sociology, 63(3), 472-490.

Swanton, Dan. 2008. “Everyday multiculture and the emergence of race”. New geographies

of race and racism, 239-253.

Thrift, Nigel. 2004. “Intensities of feeling: towards a spatial politics of affect.” Geografiska

Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 86(1) 57-78.

Tracy, Sarah, Myers, Karen, & Scott, Clifton. 2006. “Cracking jokes and crafting selves:

Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers.” Communication

Monographs, 73(3), 283-308.

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/5178/1/ch9_osellas.pdf


27

Vertovec, Steven., & Cohen, Robin. Eds. 2002. Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory,

context and practice. Oxford University Press.

Vertovec, Steven. 2007. “Super-diversity and its implications.” Ethnic and racial studies,

30(6), 1024-1054.

Wang, Bingyu and Collins, Francis Leo. 2016. “Becoming cosmopolitan? Hybridity and

intercultural encounters amongst 1.5 generation Chinese migrants in New Zealand.” Ethnic

and Racial Studies, pp.1-19.

Watkins, Megan. 2006. “Pedagogic affect/effect: Embodying a desire to learn.” Pedagogies,

1(4), 269-282.

Watkins, Megan. 2010. “Desiring Recognition, Accumulating Affect”, in The affect theory

reader, edited by Gregg, Melissa, and Gregory J. Seigworth. Durham: Duke University Press.

269-85

Werbner, Pnina. 1999. “Global pathways. Working class cosmopolitans and the creation of

transnational ethnic worlds.” Social anthropology, 7(1), 17-35.

Werbner, Pnina. 2012. “Anthropology and the new ethical cosmopolitanism.” Routledge

International Handbook of Cosmopolitan Studies, Oxford, Routledge, 153-65.

Wessendorf, Susanne. 2013. “Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’: perceptions

of difference in a London neighbourhood.” Identities, 20(4), 407-422.

Wessendorf, Susanne. 2014. “‘Being open, but sometimes closed’. Conviviality in a super-

diverse London neighbourhood.” European Journal of Cultural Studies,17(4), 392-405.

Wilson, Helen. 2013. “Collective life: parents, playground encounters and the multicultural

city”. Social & Cultural Geography, 14(6), 625-648.

Wise, Amanda. 2005. “Hope and belonging in a multicultural suburb”. Journal of

intercultural studies, 26(1-2), 171-186.

Wise, Amanda. 2009. “Everyday multiculturalism: transversal crossings and working class


28

cosmopolitans”, in Everyday Multiculturalism. Edited by Amanda Wise & Selvaraj

Velayutham Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Ye, Junjia, and Philip Kelly. 2011. “Cosmopolitanism at work: Labour market exclusion in

Singapore's financial sector.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37(5): 691-707.

Yeoh, Brenda & Maria Andrea Soco. 2014. The cosmopolis and the migrant domestic

worker. Cultural Geographies, 21(2), 171-187.

Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2011 The politics of belonging: Intersectional contestations. London:

Sage.

Zeng, M. 2014. “Subaltern cosmopolitanism: concept and approaches.” The Sociological

Review, 62(1), 137-148.

1 This figure sourced from NGO ‘TWC2’ who produced the estimate for 2013. http://twc2.org.sg/2014/09/29/980000-work-permit-holders-as-at-june-2014/ They note: In 2013, MOM (Ministry of ManPower) reported that the total labour force numbered 3,443.7, of which 2,138.8 (62.1%) were residents, i.e. citizens and Permanent residents (source). This indicates that foreigners from all classes of work passes, made up 37.9% of Singapore’s labour force. Work Permit holders made up 28.3 percent of the total labour force

2It is reportedly extremely common for employers to attempt to by-pass the quota system by appointing people on S-Passes (which requires a salary of over $2000 per month). They then reach a private illegal agreement with the worker to hand back a portion of the salary to bring their pay down to work permit levels. This then side steps the source country problem and also the quota system which only allows 40% of workforce in the service sector to be work permit holders. 3 Ironically, he uses ‘aiyah!’ to emphasise his point. Aiyah! Is a local Singlish expression roughly translating as ‘oh my goodness!’ 4 The interview was conducted by a Singaporean Chinese research assistant fluent in Mandarin. 5 Chinese ‘Red Packets’, red envelopes with money in them, traditionally gifted at Chinese New Year. In singpapore this tradition has expanded beyond the Chinese community and many Indians will gift them at Deepavali – the major Hindu festival of the year – and Malays will gift them at Hari Raya (Eid). They are also swapped between the different groups at Chinese New Year.

http://twc2.org.sg/2014/09/29/980000-work-permit-holders-as-at-june-2014/

http://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Labour-Force-Summary-Table.aspx

Documents

Becoming Cosmopolitan: Encountering difference in a City of Mobile Labour