Kwame Appiah’s “The Case for Contamination” is an article written about the analysis of globalization. He provided a history of globalization, and its effect on the world. Appiah presented the arguments for cosmopolitans, and neo fundamentalists. A cosmopolitan is a “citizen of the world” and is pro-globalization. Cosmopolitans believe in the individual’s culture. Neo fundamentalists are against globalization and believe in preservation of traditional ideals. I read his essay, and felt that I was more inclined to side with cosmopolitans. I appreciate their views of cultural acceptance and integration. Neo Fundamentalists though are on the right track in their ideals on preserving some traditions. I feel that the best situation would be a combination
…show more content…
Their theory is justifiable. I do agree that traditions should be preserved, but not to the extreme that they want. This community is adamant that all traditions should never change. Neo fundamentalists each believe that they are living in the correct way, and that everyone else is incorrect. I did not agree with this extreme counter-cosmopolitan view of, “If you don 't want to be my brother, then I 'll smash your skull in.” This is a very group centered thinking, and they do not acknowledge that globalization is beneficial to a certain extent. Many neo fundamentalist communities end up secluding themselves from society in attempt to preserve their traditional ways, and they condemn others for not following them. Globalization is definitely inevitable, and happens naturally. No matter how much they try to isolate themselves, they cannot run away from the ever changing world. A flaw in their theory is that they do not acknowledge the benefits that globalization has achieved. If we agree with neo fundamentalists then we would’ve never abolished slavery, or become so advanced in technology. Not all traditional views are bad, because traditions are the roots of many religions and communities. The world has to grow and improve though. If globalization did not exist then majority of the world would still be in a backward third world …show more content…
They believe that each individual has the right to think and shape their own culture to the way they want. This group does not place emphasis on the culture that would benefit the community or nation as a whole. This mentality has been a driving factor that has led to many improvements in society, but it could also lead to downfalls. If we agreed and followed this fully then people who still believed in slavery, such as the KKK, should not be persecuted for thinking and acting the way they do. The same would go for murderers or cults who make their warped views their culture. Maria Montserrat Guibernau i Berdún voiced similar concerns in her book “The Identity of Nations”. She wrote about her apprehensions on globalization used in politics. Berdun acknowledged that they could use it to defend the principles of cosmopolitans, or “to promote values hostile to global justice and defense of human rights.” There definitely needs to be a certain level of society census on major views of the
Their theory is justifiable. I do agree that traditions should be preserved, but not to the extreme that they want. This community is adamant that all traditions should never change. Neo fundamentalists each believe that they are living in the correct way, and that everyone else is incorrect. I did not agree with this extreme counter-cosmopolitan view of, “If you don 't want to be my brother, then I 'll smash your skull in.” This is a very group centered thinking, and they do not acknowledge that globalization is beneficial to a certain extent. Many neo fundamentalist communities end up secluding themselves from society in attempt to preserve their traditional ways, and they condemn others for not following them. Globalization is definitely inevitable, and happens naturally. No matter how much they try to isolate themselves, they cannot run away from the ever changing world. A flaw in their theory is that they do not acknowledge the benefits that globalization has achieved. If we agree with neo fundamentalists then we would’ve never abolished slavery, or become so advanced in technology. Not all traditional views are bad, because traditions are the roots of many religions and communities. The world has to grow and improve though. If globalization did not exist then majority of the world would still be in a backward third world …show more content…
They believe that each individual has the right to think and shape their own culture to the way they want. This group does not place emphasis on the culture that would benefit the community or nation as a whole. This mentality has been a driving factor that has led to many improvements in society, but it could also lead to downfalls. If we agreed and followed this fully then people who still believed in slavery, such as the KKK, should not be persecuted for thinking and acting the way they do. The same would go for murderers or cults who make their warped views their culture. Maria Montserrat Guibernau i Berdún voiced similar concerns in her book “The Identity of Nations”. She wrote about her apprehensions on globalization used in politics. Berdun acknowledged that they could use it to defend the principles of cosmopolitans, or “to promote values hostile to global justice and defense of human rights.” There definitely needs to be a certain level of society census on major views of the