Global self-identification is therefore produced by context-dependent configurations of particular dispositions, migration, class fractions, and societal conditions, not by a unified upper-class, migrant, transnational, global, or cosmopolitan habitus.

Global self-identification is therefore produced by context-dependent configurations of particular dispositions, migration, class fractions, and societal conditions, not by a unified upper-class, migrant, transnational, global, or cosmopolitan habitus.

• Experience-oriented dispositions are the most consistently cosmopolitan, while tradition-seeking generally aligns with national orientation and status-seeking does not consistently drive cosmopolitanism.
• In almost all studied countries, people identify more nationally than globally, indicating the continued importance of the nation-state.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries — Synthesis: context-dependent configurations and caution against universal habitus labels

  more likely to self-identify nationally than globally

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p3
• Using World Values Survey data from 2005–2015, the study examined class, migration, and habitual dispositions in relation to global self-identification across 74 countries and nearly 100,000 respondents.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries — Synthesis: context-dependent configurations and caution against universal habitus labels

  we have examined the effects of class, migration, and habitual dispositions on global-self-identi fi cation in 74 countries

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p1
• There are substantial cross-country differences, and the mechanisms that produce or hinder global self-identification can be assumed to differ by country.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries — Synthesis: context-dependent configurations and caution against universal habitus labels

  there are substantial differences across countries

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p2
• Habitual dispositions predict cosmopolitan attitudes above migration, class, and sociodemographic factors: traditional and security-minded people are less globally oriented in almost all countries, while hedonistic and adventurous people are more globally oriented almost everywhere.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries — Synthesis: context-dependent configurations and caution against universal habitus labels

  habitual dispositions are associated with cosmopolitan attitudes over and above the effects of migration, class, and sociodemographic factors

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p4
• The study's decomposition of habitus shows that similar or identical dispositions can have different effects depending on societal context.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries — Synthesis: context-dependent configurations and caution against universal habitus labels

  similar or even identical dispositions can have different effects depending on the societal context

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p5
• Cultural and economic capital have country-specific effects, so cosmopolitanism is an elite project only in some countries and the two upper-class fractions usually differ in global self-identification.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries — Synthesis: context-dependent configurations and caution against universal habitus labels

  Cosmopolitanism can therefore be described as an “ elite project ” in some countries, but not in all

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p6

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Is there a plausible alternative hypothesis that has not been considered or that would explain the facts at least as well?Answer under review
  Draft answer

  The paper directly considers a totalizing unified habitus category as an alternative account. It argues that variation in the associations of dispositions, capital, and migration across national societies makes that category inadequate, while not ruling out every other possible alternative explanation. Paper basis — This is a comparative empirical inference: because observed associations of dispositions, capital, and migration with global self-identification vary across national societies, a totalizing habitus category cannot validly be treated as a universal determinant; the relevant explanatory unit is the configuration of dispositions and societal contexts. (from unit-7#w; no verbatim anchor). Reconstructed from Christian Schneickert & Sören Carlson (2026); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7#w
• Could the facts be jointly explained by a conjunction of weaker causes rather than a single dominant H?Answer under review
  Draft answer

  The paper's account is explicitly configurational rather than based on one dominant cause: the decomposition shows that similar or identical dispositions can have different effects depending on societal context. Its conclusion likewise combines dispositions with migration, class fractions, and societal conditions. Paper basis — "similar or even identical dispositions can have different effects depending on the societal context" (Habitus, Globalization, and Cosmopolitanism: How Dispositions, Class, and Migration Shape Global Self-Identification Differently in 74 Countries, p. 18). Reconstructed from Christian Schneickert & Sören Carlson (2026); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833261430381#unit-7-p5
• Could the body of facts F itself be an artifact of selection, measurement, or reporting bias rather than a real phenomenon needing causal explanation?Open
• Does H actually explain the full body of facts F, or only a salient subset?Open
• Are the criteria used to judge H 'best' (scope, simplicity, mechanism, prior probability) appropriate for this domain, and are they applied consistently across the alternatives?Open

No one has cited this argument yet.

No arguments cite this one yet — no one has built on or contested it. That is an absence of engagement, not a finding of soundness. Build on or contest it on Isonomia to change that.