Communitarianism vs. Cosmopolitanism Essay

The Internet is playing a very important role in the evolution of digital technology, but although it has seen remarkable growth over the last few years, its dispersion remains highly asymmetric. It is widely believed that the so called information age will bring radical change and improvement, and countries all over the world are busy with constructing the necessary infrastructure, the "information superhighways," in order to meet the challenges of the information society of the twenty-first century. Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay “Making Conversation” tell us about human’s conversation

Therefore, the definition given by dictionary.com is somewhat lacking. Cosmopolitanism does not just “belong to all the world,” (dictionary.com) but according to Appiah, it is so much more than that. Through his life experiences as a young child in Ghana, and through his explanation in his book, this is how Appiah defines cosmopolitanism: The success of international exchange is a product of the acknowledgment of different cultures and their

I personally think that by Cosmopolitanism is a great way to live because, there won't be more judgment and separation between citizen of different cultures. Nevertheless I think that Cosmopolitanism it's utopian and has little chance of really happening. I still hope that I'm prove wrong and that it can really become a possibility because, it will help avoid a lot of problems and judgment between different cultures, values and beliefs. For example, on my senior year of high school I took a Sociology class where we had debates almost every other week about various controversial topics and I had to learn to put myself on other people's shoes to see why they would think that way on these

The world’s population is continuously increasing and laws are being made to maintain a global social order. The social order includes, and is not limited to, world peace, free international economy, international trade, and assurance that basic human rights are respected by all nations and humans live a decent life, full of opportunities. This is an ideal that we all aspire to, in a way or another and although we want to create a perfect world, it is impossible to do so because of people’s interests and their own view of “perfection.” We, as humans, are not perfect, and therefore we cannot have a perfect world. Many have tried to create ideas of what would make a perfect society. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle have diligently tried for centuries to establish a well-balanced world in which each individual has their own freedom. More than two thousand years have passed since then and the world is still struggling to find a way to create a harmonious international society. Cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism have different ideas on how we can achieve this goal. To me, a combination of the two sounds more achievable. In this paper, I will try to demonstrate that today’s world is a combination of the two and ideas from both will take us a few steps forward towards an international goal.

2. Cosmopolitanism is the view that every single person are world natives (Greek, kosmopolitês) with obligations that stretch out past national fringes. Given the different way of the worldwide town, resilience and comprehension are the axioms. Supporters of cosmopolitanism, going back to the Stoics and Cynics of traditional artifact and in addition to Judaism

Another argument Appiah makes is for the liberties and freedoms that are entitled to us as individuals, an idea supported by cosmopolitans. In “A Case for Contamination”, he mentions the Unesco document for which its members’ priority was to protect and promote cultural diversity while shielding it from globalization. However, as Appiah points out the document is a paradox for it carefully upholds the significance of new ideas, human rights and values, and the freedom of thought and expression. Individuals should be able to make their own decisions based on their moral convictions and desires, isn’t that what freedom is? Shouldn’t societies operate with a moral compass, too? It should be in their best interest to take into account their members

In Kwame Appiah’s introductory chapter, Critical Thinking, he delves into the topic of cosmopolitanism, and its necessity within our modern world. Appiah claims that while complete cosmopolitanism may not be obtainable or optimal, partial cosmopolitanism is the ideal model for us to follow. He supports this claim by highlighting that the modern world is expanding rapidly in its population leading to a critical need for conversations to be established amongst ourselves. As a civilization who is divided by borders, social and cultural constructs we have little to no room for the fundamental ethical bonds that we possessed thousands of years ago. Furthermore, not only is our exponentially growing population the issue, but also our blatant

“No flags… something more interesting,” (186) says Julius choosing a stamp at the post office. What he is delivering is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism, but what this detail delivers to the text is important context to one of the subtle themes of Open City: Cosmopolitanism. With globalization and thus increasing access to different countries and cultures, there is a question of whether or not cosmopolitanism is a desirable outlook to move toward. For Appiah, there are two “strands” of cosmopolitanism– one strand pushes past nationalism in the way it opens up the conception of community. This not only means conceiving of ourselves as citizens of the world, but extending our duties and obligations beyond those immediate to us

So many of the problems we face today as a country and as a world are the result of ignorance and ethnocentrism. The misguided War on Terror, one of the more important examples in our time, is the result of religious and cultural intolerance on both sides. In her essay “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” Martha Nussbaum argues that to remedy such issues, we should forgo our nationalist tendencies and view ourselves first and foremost as citizens of the world, or cosmopolitans. The majority of her suggestions are well taken, but her belief that national boundaries are morally irrelevant and that patriotism is altogether poisonous may be taking the idea too far, and in a very impractical direction. In this paper, I will argue for a vision of cosmopolitanism more in line with that of Anthony Appiah in his book Cosmopolitanism. His theory of a “rooted cosmopolitanism” takes into account the moral significance of nations and is better suited to a democratic world.

However, as Linklater writes, “contemporary economic and political conditions require support for forms of cosmopolitanism that erode the powers of the state” (2002, pp.142). Thus, in recent years the pursuit of humanitarian intervention as a way to protect and promote human rights has rendered the concept of sovereignty as being conditional upon a state’s willingness to protect those within

succeed which was astonishing regarding the history of enslaving the minority group. The cosmopolitan domestic policy would appeal to Web Dubious because the ideology, “Demand for integration a genuine integrity, a wholeness and soundness of enthusiasm and purpose which can only come when no national colony within our America feels that it is being discriminated against or that its cultural case is being prejudged” (Bourne, 13). The argument is immediately dispelling the Anglo-Saxon imperial mindset by knocking down the eurocentric hierarchy. The preferential treatment that develops from the race chain of command does not allow African-Americans to advance socioeconomically at all or at a slower rate than europeans economic mobility. The policy is advocating for geniune involvement of all ethnic group in

Politics will try and dominate some places where there is a vast majority of supporters both to the government and to the opposition. Spade has highlighted the need to avoid these resistances that is likely to create hatred among different communities thereby resulting into exploitations of different communities. It is, therefore, important to analyze the norms so as to help eliminate the resist against some individual who may be proposing or opposing the developments. The book has generated individualistic rights that can be achieved as a result of the norms. “dispersion of power among people will help realize the generation of a mutual relationship between different people from different communities.” Spade has used the description given by Mitchell Dean to show different kinds of analysis that are experienced through the use of bureaucracy. The identification of different regimes within the government set up will, therefore, create a platform for generating multiplicity through heterogeneous and unlimited

Citizenship could be having more relevant significance as compared to the past years. It tends to create a major dilemma for industrialized countries that are already advanced, and this poses significant implications to the rest of the world especially to the survival and future of the nation state in international politics. It is as well not disputed that regional integration, economic globalization as well as cultural cosmopolitanism have gone to the extent of, if not broken then have blurred some of the boundaries that were clear and had their existence within the classic model of singular national identification and belonging, (Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, and Douglas Klusmeyer,, eds. 2001). However,

In the pursuit to gain the greatest understanding and respect of human rights projects and global social justice cosmopolitanism is necessary. Looking at cosmopolitism’s roots, features and limits through the lenses of authors Fine, Held and Calhoun to further address the importance of this ideal regardless of its weaknesses. Following the debate of whether critics are right about cosmopolitanisms liberal biases undermining its critical potential will be discussed, to suggest where cosmopolitanism needs adjustments in order to progress. Lastly, this paper will consider the idea that cosmopolitan ideals are more necessary then ever given the resurgence of nationalist and isolationist politics worldwide. Through an overall analysis of

These documents, at the same time, take back the sociopolitical thought that had been developped in a long tradition, and whose most striking stages are: the supreme value of reason as basis for any sociopolitical relation such as we discover at the Greek Polis and such as it is presented by the great thinkers Plato and Aristotle; the intrinsic value of human person, son of the same Christian God, and capable, because of his freedom, either of salvation or of condemnation, as it was understood by the main thinkers in the Middle Ages; the human Individual, considered as a juridical subject, capable of making contracts and assuming rights and duties and, therefore, as the last foundation of any sociopolitical organization, as he was thought by the liberal tradition embodied by Hobbes, Locke and the Encyclopedists. The concrete praxis of these theoretical principles in democratic societies and nations where the Individuals are the cause and the end of this sociopolitical order such as we find in Great Britain, Switzerland, Holland, USA, France, Sweeden, Norwegen, Canada and many other nations throughout the five continents.