The Pros And Cons Of Cosmopolitanism

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

Humankind would be a better place if we were all just citizens of the world. In Martha Nussbaum’s “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” she argues whether children should be taught in education to be patriotic or cosmopolitan. Nussbaum’s definition of cosmopolitanism is a person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world. Nussbaum begins her argument by raising questions about education and how students ought to be taught that hunger in third world countries are problems of global problems and not the countries problem. She says “We should regard out deliberations as, first and foremost, deliberations about human problems of people in particular concrete situations, not problems growing out of a national

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

All around the world today, there is a lot of tension revolving around concepts of morality. In Moral Disagreement by Kwame Anthony Appiah, Appiah writes about differing values and morals around the world and within our society. He points out, “we aren’t the only people who have the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad; every society, it seems, has terms that correspond to these thin concepts” (658). However, these concepts are not always the same with each other in every society. In the same way that not everyone in our society believes in the same moral concepts. Unfortunately, it is these disagreements that often separate us as people. Forming different cultures, large and small, throughout the world. This is not a bad thing, but it does separate us as a race, leaving us to care more for one group of people rather than humanity as a whole. In Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, by Martha Nussbaum, Nussbaum suggest that a way to fix this problem, and to become a cosmopolitan person, is to teach students in our education systems more of different cultures throughout the world. Yet not only should we learn to accept other cultures and their beliefs, but we should also educate ourselves to accept everybody we meet, giving respect to them as individuals, if we ever truly want to become a citizen of the world.

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.

Relative preferred standpoint is the capacity of a country to deliver the different assets that are required by its subjects for and furthermore for import to gain it income. It's a monetary wonder where diverse nations effectively contend to create quality items at low costs. Generation of value items that are extremely modest interest to numerous clients. Such a circumstance has prompted clashes between countries as one country could be delivering a given item and pitches it to their natives at a higher cost than the cost of that comparative item that has been transported in. Such a circumstance has the two favorable circumstances and inconveniences as underneath examined.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Lastly, religions play an important role too by gathering people scattered across the globe under an identical cosmology, thus creating imagined communities (Anderson, 1983). Globalization, by connecting people through the media, also creates such a community: inhabitants of the world share the idea of a global community and an international identity. This is why we could define globalization as the compression of time and space (Harvey, 1983). Communications as well as people can travel at an ever increasing speed, thereby giving the impression that every corner of the world is at hand. The main thesis about globalization argues that it leads to a phenomenon of homogenization. My hypothesis however is that some cultures are so different and so deeply rooted in their environment that they can't simply be erased. They will be modified, influenced but not standardized under one unique model. This will lead to hybrid products, thereby proving the hypothesis of glocalization, introduced by

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

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.

The issues of globalization increasingly dominate the universe’s life. The concept of globalization according to Robertson (1992) refers to the narrowing of the world as incentives and increased our awareness of the world, namely the increasing global connections and our understanding of the connection. Globalization is a situation in which no boundaries between the people of the world and links communities in a country with people in another countries. Globalization departs from an idea to unite the nations which is expected to be a mutual agreement and guidelines for nations around the world. Globalization is able to waive the space and time constraints to get the interaction and communication between nations can be done