Kwame Anthony Appiah Summary

Kwame Anthony Appiah is a contemporary philosopher born in London. Although raised in the “Western” world, he comes from Ghanaian descent, making his life rich in culture. He presents a compelling argument in his piece “The Case for Contamination”. Appiah argues that we are living in a globalized world, and that while characteristics and ideas in society are changing, it does not necessarily mean that there is a loss of culture. His “case for contamination” preaches the notion that sometimes change is good, and that in order for us to thrive as a society, change is need and should be welcomed with grateful attitude.

Appiah starts of his piece of describing a traditional Ghanaian ceremony that Appiah states the world is unfamiliar with (unless of course, you are from Ghana). He describes the rich scenery that surrounds him and the buzzing of people as they await for the king. However, he notes that the scenario has changed: as the people wait for their king, they are talking on their cellphones, they are texting, and they are participating in millennial practices. He goes on to explain

that in today’s world we can participate in century old rituals and ceremonies, but still we will see the convergence of today’s world with the older world. Speaking from personal experience, this is an argument that I foresee as true.
As a Spaniard, I have been raised with a very strong Catholic influence (although personally I do not follow a Catholic path) nevertheless, I have participated in traditional Catholic ceremonies and experienced their changes.

When I attended Sunday mass with my grandmother, the priest spoke of good versus evil...and then he spoke about bluetooth. He literally spent fifteen minutes talking about the bluetooth device in his car and used it in an analogy to preach his good versus evil sermon. Why? Because he knew that in order to get his message across, he had to deliver it in a way that the younger generation would understand, and although he used modern methods to get his message across, he still delivered the central idea that he wanted. This is what Appiah is arguing: in order to grow as a civilization we must accept change, but change does not mean that culture will be

“destroyed”.
Appiah asserts that globalization has not only affected Ghana, but it has also swept the world. He says that you can find century old traditions anywhere from Moscow to Mexico City, and still, they will have levels of modernization. Because we live in a technological era, information and ideas spread rapidly, and these new ideas and “Western thoughts” have spread to different countries. In Mexican festivals and activities you might find traces of globalization such as radios and cellphones, and hear the indigenous people talk amongst themselves of global, current, events. A few decades ago, many of the indigenous people’s knowledge of the outside world would have been more limited to just their surroundings, but now, that is not the case.
Globalization is not solely tiered at entertainment and technology, it has also amounted to the spread of civilizations and the bettering of lives for many individuals-something that Appiah notes is crucial to world development. Medicine, concepts of sanitation, education, and an overall broader view of the world has impacted societies for years to come. Just like Johann Gutenberg’s printing press revitalized the world forever, the introduction of penicillin and vaccines have allowed people to survive and better their lives. Appiah comments that globalization has led to many differences in lifestyles among small communities as well as larger metropolitan areas, but that the differences are convenient and valuable rather than detrimental.
Any argument has its opposing view, and while Appiah sees “contamination” (globalization) as a high-minded, necessary occurrence, many see it as literal contamination and as a damage to society. Change is inevitable, but not everyone welcomes it. This change is resented by some because they feel that their changing world is hurting them. For instance, Appiah mentions the cocoa farmers who rely on their crop to make ends meet. Locally they produced their crop and made enough money to get by and live comfortably. However, over the course of the years, people discovered cocoa (and its ability to be produced into delicious chocolate), and the demand for the crop grew. Now, cocoa is not a stable crop and its prices fluctuate, meaning that the people that once relied on the crop cannot do so anymore and must find another source of income. This is an example of how globalization can harm the lives of some individuals, and why some societies will be resistant to change.
Globalization has also challenged religion and patriarchally dominated societies. It used to be that nobody dared question God or doctrine, yet with the spread of globalization and ideas, people began to question religion and leadership, and leaders- or those with control do not often appreciate the questioning. In a society where one was raised to accept and not question, it can become unsettling to realize that one’s child is questioning all they have ever known. A person who has been raised in a highly traditional society can view new ideas and new beliefs as detrimental to their values, and as a result, shun globalization.
When Karl Marx presented his ideas of communism and a Utopian society, people rebelled in order to achieve this Utopian society. Russia went from a monarchy to what would become the Soviet Union. As a result of the spread of those ideas, millions suffered and died, and society changed drastically. It was a product of globalization-the spread of ideas. Of course, not every change in society means that it will lead to such a terrible fate, it often produces more pleasurable results than destructive results, but the fear of not knowing, the fear of not being in control, and the fear of having everything you know disappear, will cause the reluctance of accepting globalization. It will cause the notion that change contaminates.
Change, Appiah argues, is vital. Change does not have to bring about a negative connotation. Just because a society accepts and adopts new norms and ideas, does not mean that everything will go to waste. Appiah preaches the importance of tolerance and it is tolerance, accompanied with change that will allow the world to prosper. Society can adopt new ideas, and still remain unique, is what Appiah is mostly trying to say. Just because in Ghana people are becoming technologically savvy, or citizens of Spain eat Thai food, or even if some Muslims choose to wear jeans instead of traditional clothing, it does not change the fact that each culture is unique, and it does not change the fact that the coming together of cultures in order to share ideas and norms is a beneficial thing- a beneficial thing that can still allow a culture to have a piece of their identity. Just because you share and adopt ideas does change where you come from.