This paper will critically analyze Elijah Anderson’s paper titled “The Cosmopolitan Canopy.” Anderson and I share two things in common; we are both long-time residents of Philadelphia, colloquially known as Philly, and we both have developed deep insight on how individuals behave and react relative to others in public settings. In short, we both study and partake in the field of sociology.
In “The Cosmopolitan Canopy”, Anderson argues that immigration, laws, and affirmative action have led to a greater diversity in urban cities and metropolitan areas, thus creating settings where individuals can mingle and interact freely with one another in a peaceful manner. While in a “canopy”, individuals can be rest assured that they can approach others …show more content…
While this statement may be true, it fails to capture the state of said diversity. Diversity has very positive connation in the 21st century. When something is diverse, it usually includes many individuals from varying backgrounds, which is always a positive aspect.
However, according to Anderson, diversity, whether it be good or bad, is always good. Diversity is only good, progressive, when the individuals who make up the community or public space respond well to one another on regular occurring periods. On the other end of the spectrum, diversity is bad, regressive, when the individuals who make up the community or public space respond negatively towards each other frequently. The latter, of these two scenarios, occurs more frequently than the former in reality, thus this manifests into disdain, and overall, a sense of disrespect and disgust for your fellow …show more content…
It is clear, in a majority of cases that this reverence is lacking, thus creating two scenarios for our beloved cosmopolitan canopies. The first, cosmopolitan canopies exist in reality, but they quickly vanish or falter due to the lack of respect. The second, cosmopolitan canopies do not exist, but instead of the canopy you have a system in which individuals choose to react to what occurs around
In “The Cosmopolitan Canopy”, Anderson argues that immigration, laws, and affirmative action have led to a greater diversity in urban cities and metropolitan areas, thus creating settings where individuals can mingle and interact freely with one another in a peaceful manner. While in a “canopy”, individuals can be rest assured that they can approach others …show more content…
While this statement may be true, it fails to capture the state of said diversity. Diversity has very positive connation in the 21st century. When something is diverse, it usually includes many individuals from varying backgrounds, which is always a positive aspect.
However, according to Anderson, diversity, whether it be good or bad, is always good. Diversity is only good, progressive, when the individuals who make up the community or public space respond well to one another on regular occurring periods. On the other end of the spectrum, diversity is bad, regressive, when the individuals who make up the community or public space respond negatively towards each other frequently. The latter, of these two scenarios, occurs more frequently than the former in reality, thus this manifests into disdain, and overall, a sense of disrespect and disgust for your fellow …show more content…
It is clear, in a majority of cases that this reverence is lacking, thus creating two scenarios for our beloved cosmopolitan canopies. The first, cosmopolitan canopies exist in reality, but they quickly vanish or falter due to the lack of respect. The second, cosmopolitan canopies do not exist, but instead of the canopy you have a system in which individuals choose to react to what occurs around