Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of cross-cultural communication
The importance of cross-cultural communication
The importance of cross-cultural communication
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of cross-cultural communication
Introduction
Cosmopolitanism is a Western concept that summarizes the needs of social agents to understand political and cultural values, larger than his home country on a global level. Cosmopolitanism is an ancient Greek word which means citizens of the world. In recent years cosmopolitanism has got a considerable importance and scholars of cosmopolitan thinking about the mutual responsibilities are arising in the global and International World. Cosmopolitanism promotes positive treatment towards differences, having great desires to construct a broad devotion and peaceful global community of citizens who should be able to communicate across cultural, social boundaries and universal solidarity.
According to German scholar Voltaire in a characteristic conversation of the ideal “Cosmopolitans… regard all people of the earth as so many branches of a single family, and the universe as a state of which they, with too many other rational beings, a citizen, promoting together under the general law of nature, the perfection of the whole, while each in his own fashion is about his own well-being” (1784 p. 241, Appiah, 2006, Ethics in a World of Strangers, p.13). The French scholar Wieland spoke fluently of obligations to understand those people with whom we share the planet, linking that need clearly with our global economic interdependence. “Fed by product of their soil, dress in their fabrics, amused by the game they invented, instructed by their ancient moral fables, why we would neglect to understand the mind of this nation, among whom our European traders were traveled ever since they could find a way to get to them” (Tauscher Merkur, August 1788, p.107, Appiah, 2006, Ethics in a World of Strangers, p.13,).
According to Daniel Archbu...
... middle of paper ...
...icular peoples that shapes our moral lives of global responsibility and make us effective world citizen.
Appiah theory encourages of following both local and universal loyalties and devotion and refuse that they are necessarily coming into the conflict of each other’s. As we look at the world, there are different way of life and thought and all disagreement cannot be resolved, but we have to accept the differences and embrace pluralism. Cross cultural conversation about cultural values do not have the ability to end in disagreement, but it is possible to agree even though we do not know the reason behind it. He gives the example of war between US and Iraq and says that the war has not been started due to the reason that the cultural values of the people of both countries are different, but the reason was that the politicians in the US accept war not the dialogue.
QUESTION: "What roles does religion play in Appiah’s analysis? How is your approach similar to or different from his? (That is, do you agree with Appiah’s analysis or disagree?)
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
Brookes, Julian. "Cosmopolitanism: How To Be a Citizen of the World." Mother Jones. N.p., 23 Feb. 2006. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
...dual to understand and take the effort to recognize and respect cultural differences. Regarding cultural relativism, Lughod mentions that, “the task is to critically explore what we might do to help create a just world.” This would mean to move past the notion of liberal imperialism, and women colonialism, because it is essential to connect with another when one considers the increasing globalization; this would then allow us to solve common problems that we are facing.
humans who are doing the most damage to the world we live on today and
Global imperialism began to take its toll on the world; a policy in which stronger nations extended their economic, political, or military control over weaker territories. As the United States began to plunge into the trend of overseas expansion, many wondered if the nation could justify its reasons for imperialism. The answer, my friend, is yes. It all began with European imperialism as Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain competed for African raw materials and markets. Soon after, Japan joined along with the European nations. There was much competition going around and surely the United States of America would not want to miss out on this opportunity to improve economy as its nation was producing more than it could consume. American businesses looked toward the rest of the world as a pillar of support for their growing industries. Senator Alfred Beveridge believed that imperialism was justified by the demands and economic competitions among the industrial nations.
Culture is a difficult concept to put into words. “Traditionally anthropologists have used the term culture to refer to a way of life - traditions and customs - transmitted through learning” (Kottak, et al. 2008: p.11). Children inherit their culture, as well as social norms and ethics, through a process called enculturation. Enculturation, in essence, determines who a person will become, because culture defines who a person is. More specifically, “Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs arts, morals, laws, customs, and any other capabilities or habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Taylor, 1971/1951: p. 1). In modern society, our traditions and customs come from a variety of different sources. Television,
World War I, which lasted from 1914 to 1918, and had a huge impact on the world throughout the twentieth century. This conflict is commonly referred to as the Great War and primarily involved Europeans. Although, other countries, particularly European colonial holdings, did participate. Before World War I began, no one expected such a destructive conflict, as many nations approached the idea of war with enthusiasm. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European nations began to expand their colonial holdings, strengthen their militaries, and in 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot. The primary cause of World War I was nationalism, as European imperialism, militarism, and the assassination of Ferdinand are examples of nationalism
However, a cosmopolitan would argue that the ethical value and rights granted should apply to every individual, instead of communities or nations. Even David Miller recognizes that it is natural to believe we have a certain obligation or responsibility to others outside our own nation, such as the world’s poor. This is because we are all human and have a humanitarian impulse inside us that makes us concerned with the well-being of others.
Peoples, James, and Garrick Bailey. Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003. Print.
Through the novel of Little Bee, I realized that we should know more about ourselves, and the sence of pride of our own culture; standing on the point of a global perspective. Remove prejudice, narrow-minded and limitations, and learn to observe the different nation, different social, different cultural customs, traditional idea. Make us more rational, and have a more comprehensive, more understanding of the human society. We need standing on a higher level to regard ourselves and others. On the whole, all the people are the member of human and the society after all. If both the oppressed and the oppressor can try the best, the oppressor can help the oppressed as unconditional, and the oppressed can identify with their cultural background and self-awareness. Then, I think that cosmopolitanism is not an especially difficult to accomplish.
Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state. It is because of these fundamental differences that they deal with international relations in significantly different ways. However, both theories have their flaws and it seems that we can have neither a fully cosmopolitan or communitarian world political system.
Our increased mobility has given us greater access to the world and the diverse people that inhabit it. With that mobility comes the shared responsibility to negotiate with people who may initially seem unfamiliar and learn to express the experience. The word “ethnicity” is used to describe a specific population’s characteristics of fundamental aspects that all humans share. When applied loosely, ethnicity becomes a blanket term to define large populations, undermining the worth and the diversity within that group and emphasizing the differences between cultures. Yet those differences come down to matters of preference and socialization within each culture. The dominant themes that rule human nature persist in every society – wondering where we came from and why we exist, social mores to guide how we relate to people or situations, and primal motivations such as hunger, fear, and a need to be loved and accepted.
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.