In the theoretical framework, I draw on Kwame Anthony Appiah’s (2005, 2007) ethical perspective on cosmopolitanism and David Hansen’s (2008a, 2008b) concept of educational cosmopolitanism. In the discussion from which point of reference communication with ‘strangers’ becomes possible, Donald Davidson’s (2001) notion of a shared world and a triangulation between one's own thoughts, others' thoughts and a common object are fruitful (Wahlström 2010). Davidson’s emphasis on a shared world is in accordance with Appiah’s (2005) claim that human beings can learn from each other’s stories only if they understand that they share a single world.  According to Appiah (2007), one of the central ways to coordinate our lives with others is through language of values. Thus, conversation means to be engaged in others and others' ideas, rather than coming to a common agreement. Hansen (2008a) examines curriculum as a ‘cosmopolitan inheritance’ and pays attention to which issues the world puts forth to students today. Rizvi (2009), on the other hand, inquires into cosmopolitan learning, with an emphasis on the identity and the connectivity with the rest of the world. I will use the concept of educational cosmopolitanism in this broader meaning of global interconnectedness and actual intercultural meetings in classrooms.

In understanding educational cosmopolitanism as conversations on values, listening becomes the crucial point.  We must, as Garrison (1996) puts it, put our own ideas at risk in listening with openness to others. A reason to take such a risk, is, according to Garrison, that we already always are vulnerable, and at risk, since we are all already members of different cultures and groups, and are already in dialogues with others, even if we perhaps are not always fully aware of it. However, in a cosmopolitan view of education, the importance of listening needs to be emphasized, and the role of the listener needs to be recognized.