More handpicked essays just for you.
Communitarianism and cosmopolitanism explained
Essay on cosmopolitanism
Communitarianism and cosmopolitanism explained
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Kwane Anthony Appiah is deeply invested in the theory of Cosmopolitanism, and which he defines as “it’s OK for people to be different.” The family dynamics in which he was raised is evident in his writing and allows him a unique perceptive of the world. Having a bicultural up bringing as well as a multicultural and political family permits him a critical perspective of various culture and philosophies which has help to sculpt his beliefs and values of the world. He believes that to achieve progress as individuals, in this global world, our nations are obligated to be accountable for it citizenship within the world (Taylor, 2009).
Giving his upbringing you do not have to go far to understand why he believes in cosmopolitanism. If as a person
…show more content…
he were to say anything but that he would likely offend a percentage of his family. He also firmly believes that just because something does not make sense to you does not give you permission to dismiss it as bad, unproductive or wrong. As a citizen of the world we must work for understanding of ALL and be tolerant of the differences and to not judge the process but to assess the outcome through personal investigating of the beliefs behind the actions .He uses he extended multicultural family in support of his argument and his participation in the various culture nuances as reasons to how one cultures traditions and values are not necessarily right or wrong just different.
He points out that the end result is the goal, therefore if two different societies do things two completely different ways but end up with the same result who are we to question this process are, his specific example of this it the explanation of matrilineal and patrilineal families and how these are 2 ways of organizing intergenerational responsibility for raining of children and both work …show more content…
well. Appiah uses globalization and it evolution over time to qualify his claims of the needed cosmopolitan perspective. As he explains human being are fashioned to exist within a band of one hundred people with little to no outside interaction between bands. While the world has changes that primal instinct has not and humans are swimming in a sea of information that does not compute with their primal instincts and is therefore creating a world that has little to no understanding and compassion for those that are different. Basically he is saying that our brains have not caught up with the globalization of the current world. This is a pathos type of qualification by giving the reader permission to be wrong however none of the accountability. It is, saying, yes we are wrong to not think globally however it is not your fault, which in my opinion in brilliant given the self-centered egotistical world that we currently reside in. Appiah says he had two very different family histories, this ethos element of persuasion that helps to qualify his credential for believing the way he does.
Imagine if this idea of cosmopolitism’s was presented by a white male who lived in nowhere ville, Idaho who had never traveled, never experience different cultures, never even talked to someone that was not American how much stock could you really invest in his proposal. The diversity that Appiah possesses just in his immediate family is enough to give believability, however his extended family and their active participation in his life gives him authority in the presentation of this
topic. Universalism and cultural relativism were two theories that Appiah brought up that were contradictory to his theory of cosmopolitism. While both have similarities to cosmopolitanism they don’t have the open-mindedness that it does. And by presenting the two opposing views and pointing out the explicit differences in a clear and straightforward explanations including examples he helped to dispel the notions that they might be the same and avoid any misunderstanding that not addressing these 2 very similar but radically different theories might bring up. “We know how to be responsible for children and parents and cousins and friends, but we now have to be responsible for fellow citizens both of our country and fellow citizens of the world. The question is can we figure that out?” (Taylor, 2009). This statement sums up what Appiah idea of Cosmopolitanism and also what he believes the next step is to achieve the idea of cosmopolitism. Reading through this argument you are moved and persuaded to believe in his reasoning. And his presentation of the arguments evokes the process of questioning your world view and how you might be critical of other cultures. It also forces to look at the world in terms of globalization and how that globalization has change the way we live. And that globalization is not just a process but a way of living and how we are commonly joined with the whole world not just our nation. If the flu can travel from China to the U.S. in a millisecond should we not join forces to solve problems together and put aside differences that prevent that from happening? Is it not the goal of human beings to live and love not judge and criticize?
Amin Ahmad was born in Calcutta, India. He now lives in Washington D.C. as a published author and has had some of his work appear in such prestigious journals as The Harvard Review (1). Knowing the intelligence and high credibility of the author makes his argument more substantial. Over the years he has built himself up in spite of being an immigrant. Ahmad is no longer looked down upon, because he has worked hard for his position in society. However he still feels the burden of discrimination when people judge him before they learn more than just his skin color. If no one takes the time to learn about his success and only look at the color of his skin or the looks of his passport then all of his hard work is for nothing. Ahmad did not let the world’s hate keep him from living his dream. He got passed the poverty and judgment to pursue his education and make something of his self. Not only is this inspiring; it is heat-warming. It is as if he is proving everyone who ever doubted him wrong. Everyone who looked down upon him with a watchful eye or whispered behind his back should be sulking in their seats.
It is essential to understand the differences and similarities that people have within other people, to just try to accept the fact that some people may be different. However conversation often leads to social change because people tend to want to fit in where most people are the same. Appiah explains “Depending on the circumstances, conversations across boundaries can be delightful, or just vexing” (Page 73). That is why Appiah believes people need to be more accepting, more globalized. He initially feels that conversation can lead people to create change and can hinder their reasons to fit in because they are different. However, conversation is not enough because people are still changing to fit in, people are constantly feeling left out, not valued for their customs or beliefs. He also asserts “We can’t hope to reach a final consensus on how to rank and order such values. That’s why the model i 'll be returning to is that of conversation” (Appiah 73). With this being said it is clearly stated how Appiah is a firm believer that conversation is the number one key for understanding of others. This can be very controversial because Munoz may disagree. He asserts “The English- only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish” (Munoz 308). Conversation is leading to a change that is creating to erase the differences among people. For instance, Munoz asserts how people are changing their names because they feel comfortable and different. People are erasing their names and putting American names and forgetting where their names came from and how much it means to their culture. This is a major issue when conversation is changing but not necessarily for the better. It does create and effect in many people whom they are talked into how they are different and due to because people just don’t accept and understand the different cultures. It is
In Nussbaum’s article I have a problem with the unrealistic goal of universal cosmopolitanism, as it is impossible for an individual to think of themself fully a citizen of the world. A sense of home identification will always linger as no one feels welcome or is welcomed in every nation or community on earth. It is impossible to make a patriotic person non patriotic as no one person has had the exact same
Think of the term ‘globalization’. Your first thought may be of people from all corners of the Earth exchanging ideas, views, products, and so much more. Appiah introduces his article by describing a scene of a traditional Wednesday festival in the town of Kumasi. He allows the reader to visualize the traditions held by those in attendance, but begins his case by providing details of men on their cellphones and holding conversations on contemporary topics such as H.I.V/AIDS. When Appiah speaks of “contamination,” he highlights the way one culture is influenced by another accepting an exchange of ideas. In his article he asks, “why do people in these places sometimes feel that their identities are threatened?” (Appiah). This question raises a topic that is central to the unification of peoples’ ideals and cultures...
The final paragraph of Watson’s chapter, he asks “where does the transnational end and the local being?” This opened my eyes to further examine my own environment to see what is specifically from my culture and what I have adopted from other nations. The majority of nations can be viewed as a melting pot. We are all a mixture of different aspects of cultures to create a growing and changing culture.
A first example in the book is the process in which babies are “born.” The intricate fertilizing, decanting, and conditioning processes is directly used to produce and control a 5 caste system in society. Now, this is not a bad idea, other system is flawed. We see this in people like Bernard. An alpha is supposed to be at the top of society being well formed, tall, good looking and intelligent. Bernard however is somewhat shorter and less handsome than the rest of the men in his caste, and therefore is thought of as queer. This inconsistency in the hatching system shows proof that the system is not completely safe or stable, and will in time produce more and more “social rejects” that can only lead to destroy the system.
His conclusion stated that as long as the older tribes were hostile to each other and independent in the past, the separate groups were stable. He blamed failures of countries on the innate flaws of certain races. Slavery also introduced weakness, since slaves were debased humans. He didn’t say that slaves were any particular race, but were of a lower quality of people because of their station in life.
Knott , Kim, and Seán McLoughlin, eds. Diasporas Concepts, Intersections, Identities. New York : Zed Books, 2010. Print.
been part of a developed culture and a traditional culture, he brings such a fresh and knoweledgable aspect to light of all the things we have to gain from other cultures rather than just labeling them as exotic from different
...periences with Western ideology, Etgar Keret and Marjane Satrapi offers methods for claiming identity that do not revolve around blind attempts to return to cultural roots.
Why do we other and is there an ethical way to live with the other in an increasingly diverse world? In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah considers otherness as coming from two interconnected concepts: first, the other are those who are not local or related to us; second, we perceive the other to have a conflicting set of values to our own. However, Appiah contends that the values between a group and an other are not significantly different. As for an ethical means of living together with the other, Appiah puts forth the concept of cosmopolitanism, which has two fundamental ideas: that we have an obligation of concern for others; and a respect for what he refers to as “legitimate difference” (Appiah: xv). Additionally, he puts forth that agreement on values is not necessary to live together in society, rather, the necessity is the ability to perform socially required actions regardless of whether there is agreement on the rationale for those actions.
Humans are deeply and irrevocably bound to their contexts —historical, social, geographical, political, etc. No one person’s context—or, more accurately, experience of that context—is the same. Diversity is what unifies people, what makes humanity such a deeply intricate species. Diversity is important. Each experience is lived, is valid, is full and as intricate as your life, billions of times over. I think that, when moving through the world, preoccupied with our own personal intricacies, we tend to align people with certain typification schemes, we place them into theses pre-made
considered separately as causes of change in the society. He used the relationship between society and the individual to explain the causes of change in terms of social development.
Shankeswari, J. ASSIMILATION VS IDENTITY:A STUDY ON AMIRI BARAKA’S (LEROI JONES) DUTCHMAN. 2010. ASSIMILATION VS IDENTITY:A STUDY ON AMIRI BARAKA’S (LEROI JONES) DUTCHMAN. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 163-73. Print.
Our world is constantly changing and it requires a society that is well versed in understanding the problems deriving from culture differences and tolerance of one another’s beliefs and perceptions. We are dealing with systemic problems in education, economic, government, religion and culture differences.