The Culture Of Liberty, And Kanishka Chowdhury And The Reluctant Fundamentalist, By Moshin Hamid

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

Individuals of the same ethnic background share the same culture a factor that explains that there, as many cultures as there are ethnic backgrounds across the world. Globalization has, however, led to interaction of people from varied cultural backgrounds. Because of the interaction, globalization has been accused of limiting cultural diversity. It is, however, not the case in reality. The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the factors that justify that globalization has not limited cultural diversity as its critics say. Thus, globalization should not be viewed as a hindrance to cultural diversity because the best subject of moral concern should be the individual person and not the nation, community or the society.

Through the lenses of preservationists, culture is authentic, carries traditions that keep historical ancestry alive, and is threatened by “cultural imperialism”. From a cosmopolitan perspective, culture is the freedom of choice, made up of multiple values and ideas that allow individuals to reinvigorate its uniqueness in an ever changing society. In “The Case for Contamination”, published by the New York Times Magazine, Kwame Anthony Appiah addresses the concern regarding the diminishment of cultural identity in poor countries by introducing the idea of cosmopolitanism: being free from cultural preordains and engaging in a pluralist society. Appiah endorses globalization and explains that resisting cultural interconnection will perhaps trap people in a stagnating society and avert it from achieving a pluralistic environment. He claims that cosmopolitanism enables individuals to adopt foreign culture based on how they see fit within their cultural context, and without “structuring the consciousness” and detaching people from traditional beliefs.

Multiculturalism is the process of immigration and globalization of societies in the world. The world is made up of a mix of many nationalities, cultures, groups, orientations, or ideologies. Multiculturalism involves the acknowledgment of the different groups of ethnic people, cultures, and regions as opposed to the accepting an ideology of a single cultural identity or nation. Interculturalism involves the aspects of anthropology, cultural learning, psychology, and communication. It is these factors that cause the conflict and contrast between different generations, ethnic groups from different regions, and different character traits. The evolution of these struggles provides the root of the formation of the humankind in the society. Finally, the concept of transculturalism is the blending of all human culture styles. It involves combining elements of more than one culture. Transculturalism creates history, diversity, and the support to one another in the formulation of various vibrant experiences.

Appiah defines Cosmopolitanism as being conscious that every citizen that belongs to a community among other communities. The writer wanted to remind the reader the value being of conscious that we are part of a bigger community. Appiah main idea in his work was to start having conversations that discuss cultures, beliefs and values to expand our knowledge about other cultures and not having the excuse of marking another culture’s belief right or wrong. He argues that by using Cosmopolitanism we can create a more united community.

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

While cosmopolitanism can be viewed as a concise concept, it can also be viewed to have two different strands. The first strand, as Appiah explains, focuses on the obligations we have to one another as universal citizens of the cosmos; obligations that stretch beyond family or local community. The second strand is more intensive stating that not only are we obligated to those whom we share nothing in common with but also find ourselves accountable for knowing other individuals on a more profound level of their practices and belief systems. Yet, while there do exist these two varying strands Appiah also acknowledges that it is not desirable nor probable that as a collective population we want to live under a single model of living. All the while, he briefly states that these two varying strands of the same descending concept may conflict in certain instances. Those who advocate fiercely for the cause of unification and understanding were often mocked for their own hypocritical actions.

The reactions of characters towards a growing global culture, whether a retreat or an embrace, are heavily influenced by personal choices. Within the arena of Navigating the Global, choices are almost certainly influenced by the circumstances in which they occur, whether this be a choice to keep the connection to the local, or move towards a more global setting. Three key texts that exemplify this phenomenon include the film ‘Lost in Translation’ by Sophia Coppola made in 2003, the Seamus Heaney’s poems ‘Digging’ (1998) and ‘Personal Helicon’, and finally the illustration ‘Globalisation’ (2012) by Michael Leunig. All three delve deeply into the interplay between internal choice and external circumstance. While they do explore how

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

Stuart Hall’s work introduces readers to the discourse of “the West and the Rest”, and outlines how the “system of representation” it provides serves to validate the power of the Western world (186). He highlights how the dissemination of discourse about Western superiority and the comparative “otherness” of the non-Western world work to maintain power hierarchies. Hall pinpoints several historical events, from the Crusades to colonisation, as instrumental in forming a Western identity through opposition to “the

In other words, not only construction but deconstruction of the dubious entity “Orient” require the West (the Orient’s agent) to speak for the Orient. Another problem is what Said calls “a triumph of Orientalism” (323) today, the major source of which is no longer Britain or France, but the United States, the democratically totalizing economy power. It means cultural domination on the one hand (“Orientals” educated in the United States repeat the Orientalist cliché), and economic absorption of poor nations on the other (consumerism in the Orient). A simple example Said takes up is “the paradox of an Arab regarding himself as an ‘Arab’ of the sort put out by Hollywood” (325). The Orient, in short, playacts its image as imagined by the West. This is far more problematic than the former form of Orientalism because the subject position of an “Oriental” is now realized only as the subject that (re-)presents itself as the Other before the Western eyes, as imagined by the West: and this Western gaze is what the Oriental subject identifies her/himself. It is disappointing in a sense that Said does not develop his arguments more than the idea that this phenomenon of cultural domination is only the Orient’s

In his book Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said articulates on the hybrid nature of postcolonial identities:

As for effectiveness, cosmopolitan values (1) are extremely difficult to define and (2) fall short of being legally binding on international actors. These combine to undermine its assertion on the global stage. As for practicability, (1) there is moral debate as to who decides what cosmopolitanism ideals are; (2) it spells conflicts when it

Present-day classifications of the East and West are still commanded by a colonial past. Postcolonial modernity lingers through its imperialist predecessors’ emphasis on firm distinctions between the rational self, versus the irrational other; these categories of dissimilarity remain between the self and the other; the colonizer and the colonized; and tradition and modernity. Through these groupings, secular hierarchies are able to thrive even after blatant colonization has ended. The dogma formerly imposed by colonizers is continually visible politically, culturally, and socially. On the political sphere the article by Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai illustrate the Western use of nationalism, which aims to portray a “terrorist” image of

In the article “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization” author Robert Audi (2009) identifies different levels of nationalism and cosmopolitanism and how they can affect globalization. Audi categorizes nationalism and cosmopolitanism as being extreme, moderate, and minimal.