1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 Latin American Pentecostalism and ecumenical alterglobalism as cases of agonistic cosmopolitanism Joanildo A. Burity This chapter will argue for an understanding of religious cosmopolitanism which is neither attached to the opposition between cosmopolitanism and localism nor to liberal tolerance and pluralism. This requires problematizing conventional cosmopolitan rhetoric, particularly in view of the complex relationship that can be found between the latter and contemporary globalization. Globalization, rather than serving as a platform for unbridled cosmopolitanism, creates a much more dificult scenario for the materialization of a Kantian-inspired project. Being inextricably coupled with local afirmation, globalization involves highly negotiated and contested or politicized forms of cosmopolitanization. Cosmopol- itanism in this respect can only be glocal. Key features associated with globalization, such as heightened economic and political interconnections, time–space compression and growing consciousness of the world as one place, have faced several forms of critique. The latter stems from intellectual and political challenges to the asymmetric regimes positioning nations, cultures and people in the global order. Such regimes result from a history of western dominance, colonialism, imperialism and war. They are also compounded by translocal labour and citizens’ movements claiming rights or expressing solid- arity, and by local histories which, combining in different measures subjection to, autochthonous self-assertion and hybridization of western forms. From within these interlocking histories, openness to strangers, the unfamiliar or the unforeseen and various ‘geometries’ of inclusion and exclusion have led to a variety of local, ‘vernacular’ or ‘rooted’ cosmopolitanisms (Werbner 2006) as well as various kinds of qualiications or objections to cosmopolitanism in general (Mignolo 2000; Derrida 2001; Santos 2005; Cheah 2006). Moreover, it ‘hangs’ between institutional, practical and ethical interpretations that point to different embodiments of the concept (Nowicka and Rovisco 2009). Cosmopoli- tanism is thus entangled in agonistic contests, both historically and nowadays. Globalization actually intensiies these agonistic relations, and seriously quali- ies cosmopolitanism as a moral aspiration or a political project seeking to diffuse contestation and promote dialogue beyond loyalties and practices rooted in local cultures and national states. Religious identities and practices are signiicant loci from where to capture that dynamic in today’s global context. For one, ‘religion’ has often been 927 04 Cosmopolitan 04.indd 68 26/11/13 08:18:09