Per the syllabus, when assigned, you will each be responsible for contributing to an online discussion on this blog. For full credit each post will need to include a quote from the book, even in response to another comment.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Great TED Video that emphasizes points in Cosmopolitanism
In the very beginning of chapter 7, Appiah quoted John Stuart Mills’ On Liberty. He said, “Different persons also require different conditions for their spiritual development; and can no more exist healthily in the same moral, than all the variety of plants can exist in the same physical, atmosphere and climate.” (104) Everyone is different; I can especially identify with this idea. My family is very close knit, and we are all very much alike both in looks and personality. Yet despite our similarities, we each thrive in different environments. My sister and I are perhaps the most alike. My sister moved out as soon as she went to college. She needed the independence and thrived in making her own way. On the other hand, I am still staying at home both for financial support and the family atmosphere in which I thrive. My family is the perfect example the diversity of human life, even within families. “If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape.” (105) 100 years ago, my sister would have been expected to stay at home until she was married. Yet globalization has brought about many changes, including the ability for my sister to find the best environment for her development. From the beginning of civilization, cultures have been trading and borrowing from each other. Appiah posed a very important question, “how far back must one go” to find the authentic culture and what is not? This led me to wonder, if exchange of culture has occurred for so very long, why is it suddenly not ok? Im sure that this exchange of culture has from time to time been a painful process, but who are we to tell certain cultures that they can not globalize because we want their culture preserved? “Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes…”
Appiah writes about a moral requirement to assist fellow humans. Many of his examples include taking part in an activity that directly affects one and questions all moral value. With the examples provided I was forced to question what I and others would choose in certain situations. I hope that all who were able would take some action to help a drowning child, or would choose to not take another’s life, even indirectly, in exchange for money. Though I find these conditions to be mandatory in which to take moral action, I am one of the many who do not donate to organizations such as UNICEF. This may be because I do not know the individuals and am able to pass to problems off as someone else’s. I may even see the problem as the responsibility of someone who has more money than I do. I do not believe that this removes the moral responsibility to care for and attempt to help those that I do not know, even if they are on the other side of the planet. However, I think this approach is a common reaction to global problems. Appiah also states that “cosmopolitans think human variety matters because people are entitled to the options they need to shape their lives in partnership with others” (104). I believe this is the most important concept in Appiah’s book. There is a large variety of traditions, cultures, and beliefs that an individual may follow, and with the increase in globalization and trade these options are more readily available around the world. I believe it is important for one to be able to choose what belief and life style they want. If this option is not available I believe that people will become dissatisfied and questionable of their life style. Individual choice will allow people to be happier while living a more authentic life style that they agree with more than the alternatives. I think this concept is supported by the online video feed “East vs. West.” After comparing past Western and Eastern, mostly Indian, life styles, the speaker makes the point that there is no right or better form for a life style and these styles are all subjective to the individual and his or her situation. The speaker continues that, since there is free choice, understanding is immensely important in a world undergoing globalization. There is no natural formation or right way to live, all of the traditions and styles are human creations. For that reason I greatly agree with the speaker states in East vs. West. When encountering a stranger “understand that you live in the subjective truth and so does he… [in] understanding lies eternal truth. Who sees it all” gods have one-thousand or one-hundred eyes too view us, “you and I only have two.”
Appiah states that "[o]ne connection ... is the connection not through identity but despite the difference ... The connection through a local identity is as imaginary as the connection through humanity ... but to say this isn't to pronounce either of them unreal. They are among the realest connections that we have" (135). Though at times we may believe that the connections we draw from things are all in our head (even though they usually are), it does not take away from the significance of the connection. Furthermore, plenty of other people, or strangers in the world, do exactly the same thing; they draw personal connections to something, thinking that they're the only ones who do it. For this reason, "[c]ultural purity is an oxymoron" (113). Since we are all able to draw personal connections to something, there must be a common influence that allows us to do so, but that does not necessarily mean that we are inferring the same thing. Everyone and everything is influenced by one another to a certain degree. It's being able to live amongst the differences that make us more cosmopolitan.
I encounter different people and personalities everyday. From reading this book, I learned that it's not only important to just be tolerant of another's differences as compared to your's, but rather, it is just as important to be engaged in the differences. By being engaged, you are enriching your life and values in a completely different aspect. By putting yourself out amongst the difference, you are giving those "strangers" a chance to co-exist with you at the same level.
In the TED video, the speaker mentions how people usually differentiate the world as my world, and your world; my world is always better than yours. What we often times fail to see is that this is our world, a world that both offers us a separate identity, and an identity as a member of humanity. We so often forget the bigger picture of it all.
"Depending on the context, depending on the outcome, choose your paradigm. You see, because both the paradigms are human constructions. They are cultural creations, not natural phenomena. And so the next time you meet someone, a stranger, one request: Understand that you live in the subjective truth, and so does he. Understand it. And when you understand it you will discover something spectacular. You will discover that within infinite myths, lies the eternal truth."
In Devdutt Pattanaik's talk on East vs. West--the myths that mystify, Pattanaik discusses the tendency for an individual to judge that his "world" is better than the "world" of another person. He points out that the "world" is subjective--how we see the world is based on our outlooks, which are variable due to the culture and environment we were raised within.
In Cosmopolitanism, Kwame Anthony Appiah says that if cosmopolitanism was to be summed up in a single slogan, it would be universality + difference. Cosmopolitanism, according to Appiah, is the combination of completely two different qualities.
Appiah and Pattnaik discuss the same idea: that although we are all different and have our own subjective viewpoints and opinions, we do share some universal ideas and this contributes to a greater understanding of "our world."
I share this understanding with my friends, some of the most important people in my life. I am Catholic and my best friends are Buddhist. We talk about our beliefs, share, compare, discuss, and talk about how we relate these beliefs to our lives. Some do not practice their religion as strongly as the others. One knows the history and traditions better than the rest. I am the only Catholic.
We are different. They are Vietnamese and I am full Filipino. They have large families and come from more difficult economic backgrounds. I have only my brother and parents, and live in a house that is not under federal housing.
Usually, when my friends argue about filling out their Section 8 Housing paperwork or MediCal papers for their families, I just sit and watch them. I have no personal connections to the struggles that they go through, nor they do mines. We have completely divergent viewpoints on many things, and I know this is the result of how we were raised and the environments that we grew up in.
The best part of our friendship, I think, is that we are all so different. The aspect that I find most intriguing is that we acknowledge our differences and yet, still find the universality across our cultures. We get along with each other so well and we learn from each other all the time! This, I think, is what Pattanaik and Appiah are talking about.
From the beginning of the reading, I was already able to relate the concept of change to experiences in my life. If there is one thing I learned, it's that everything changes, nothing is constant. The world, the times, the relationships and expectations are all changing. And I've experienced struggling to keep change away, to keep things the same... but it's all too impossible. We must change to fit our new surroundings but try to preserve as much culture and tradition as possible. “If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape.” (105) I agree with this because it has opened up so many chances and choices for everybody to do what makes them happy. Happiness is very important. However, it makes culture and tradition hard to sustain.
"One connection-- the one neglected in talk of cultural patrimony-- is the connection not through identity but despite difference." (135) This sentence was able to bring this book together for me. Appiah talks about the human connection. Though many cultures, ethnicities, colors, values, ethics-- we all are human. "My people-- human beings-- have made the Great Wall of China, the Chrysler building, the Sistine Chapel..." (135) We continually try to differentiate ourselves with eachother, we rejoice in our differences. But we seldom think about the things that bring us together. We all have the same basic needs and desires. We learn to live among eachother, respect eachother's customs and beliefs. I think it's beautiful how we can co-exist amongst eachother, each with a different mindset and perspective but all-the-same, we are human.
I received the same reaction from the TED video as Han. She summed it up well as: "the speaker mentions how people usually differentiate the world as my world, and your world; my world is always better than yours." We need to realize that we share a world too. It is not a separate my-your world, but an our world. I learn to live with you, you learn to co-exist with me. It's often in this "my-your" world that we become selfish and inconsiderate of other people and cultures and beliefs. We learn to view things from other perspectives. I think if we all decide to live in our world, we would get along much better.
Mina Salabasheva People around the world have different interpretations and different values, but if we want to have peace in this world we need to start tolerating others and caring about them. “Universalism without toleration, it's clear, turns easily to murder” (140). We have seen this throughout the years and we still continue to see people hurting and killing each other for pointless reasons. What is bothersome is that we know that if we don't tolerate each other anger and disagreement will arise. Individuals should always be friendly and accepting of others, because it is a step in the right direction “to minimize the amount of badness in the world” (161). Universally what is really important is that “Everybody matters” (144). Everybody does matter and we should be open in respecting others and seeing their points of views. Their views may teach us something and help us develop our thoughts and ideas. Everybody sees the world differently and we need to appreciate others of who they are, because if we were all the same, life would not be interesting or exciting. Archbishop of Canterbury said “God created diverse peoples. Had He wanted to create a single ummah, He would have…” (147). The archbishop of Canterbury makes a very good point that God wanted to create diverse individuals who are unique and contribute something different to society. The Students at the MYC are all unique, yet they share similarities that help them interact and learn from each other. I can see the similarities in them, but at the same time I can see the differences. Being unique is very important because it characterizes and allows individuals to achieve dreams that define who they are. Also this unique quality makes a family proud that their child or relative was able to accomplish what they enjoy in life. It has been said that “People die when their bodies die” (120). People's bodies die when they die, but their legacy lives on. Just because a person is not physically present, does not mean that they should be forgotten; on the contrary they should always be remembered. Families and friends should always cherish friendships and the valuable memories that they create.
Cosmopolitanism has a hold on me personally given the nature of my major. I remember getting into a discussion with a couple of peers and a nun. It came to the point where I distinguished between knee-jerk charity, and rational charity. I said that knee-jerk charity could do more harm than good and is not in the long term interest of recipients. Whereas rational charity took the form of investments for recipients and sought to improve their well-being by thinking it of sort of an investment there'll be a return on eventually, rather than a self-righteous act that soothes a bleeding heart.
Of course the three bleeding hearts and the nun in the room looked at me and called me heartless.
The point I was getting at was the message behind "teach a man to fish" analogy. The same applies with people in need. Appiah hits on this idea when he brings up the possibility of "dumping free grain into the local economy... putting local farmers out of business... may, indeed, be doing more harm than good." (pg.170). Even though I used examples like microcredit and microfinance, I was labelled heartless because I had been reasoning my compassion, not feeling my compassion out with my heart and my emotions.
I'm reminded of what Appiah dubs the "golden rule of cosmopolitanism," "I am human: nothing human is alien to me." Using reason and logic to alleviate problems does not transform people into heartless calculators who pour hours into examining statistics and academic work. To use rational charity, if it could be dubbed charity, at all does not mean the spark of love that manifests itself as compassion, empathy, and sympathy, is extinguished. That very same spark is still evident in the minds of the like who thought of microfinance, or even service learning, for that matter.
The point that was missed in that discussion was that I very much felt the urge to dump food and medical supplies to starving villages following a natural disaster, but I also feel the need to send agricultural equipment, educational supplies, and the tools necessary for rebuilding and development along with it.
I like what Appiah says when he writes, "Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannont live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values. (But they have to be values worth living by)" then goes on to talk about "the sense that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional, subject to revision in the face of new evidence" (144). I don't think there is any real way of deciding that one value is more important than others and making it completely universal, as all societies place different emphasis on different values. For instance, some cultures place a higher value on the importance and closeness of family, while others might see freedom as a value of upmost importance. These differences are what make people unique and allow us to learn from each other and not become surrounded by homogenity. Yet, like Appiah states, I think there does have to be a sense that what we know and do is not perfect knowledge. The openness to learning from others and realizing that we may be wrong is essential to our ability to grow as people and as cultures. There is always more to learn, especially as change is always occurring. We may all be different, but this allows us the opportunity to learn from each other.
Appiah also talks about the human connection. He writes, "My people---human beings--made the Great Wall of China, the Chrysler Building, the Sistine Chapel: these things were made by creatures like me, through the exercise of skill and imagination...The connection through a local identity is as imaginary as the connection through humanity. The Nigerian's link to the Benin bronze, like mine, is a connection made in the imagination; but to say this isn't to pronounce either of them unreal. They are among the realest connections that we have" (135). This idea made me realize that while people are all different, we all share the connection of being human. We all have the potential to do great things and feel a connection to those things that "our people" have done. We may feel closer to those things that people related to us have produced, but there is also that sense of shared identity with the rest of humans in the world.
These ideas are both embodied in the TED video. Pattnaik talks about the uniqueness of Eastern culture and how it does differ from the West. He discusses how it is easier for everyone to believe that their way of doing things is better than others'. Yet, many of the things he said about Eastern culture, I could understand. This is what Appiah is talking about---to be able to realize that while there are differences, there is also a connection. Yes, East and West are different, but we are all human and being able to realize that and be open to our differences would, like Brittany said, create a more peaceful world.
The main concept that resonated with me most is when Appiah talks about "the connection to art through identity-is powerful...The cosmopolitanism, though, wants to remind us of other connesctions" (135). Those other connections he speaks about deal with our connections as humans. We have to look beyond our differences and see the bigger picture. We have to stop looking at our selves and respond to everyone and everything else is out there. This will allow us to live among each other and cope with all of our personal differences. Appiah illustrates this by saying that "We can respond to art that is not ours; indeed, we can fully respond to "our" art only if we move beyond thinking of it as ours and start to respond to it as art" (135). We begin to see the bigger when we first take the step to decide whether we are willing to see beyond our personal connections. When we are willing to do this then we are able to see a common influence which allows us to learn about each other's differences. As a result, by allowing ourselves to be captivated by others differences we are giving them a chance to co-exist with us and we are accepting their personal connections. Ultimately it is fascinating how we all have different mind sets, values and goals, but what it all comes down to is that we all have the same necessity. We all care for those whom we share a common connection with but we should expand that mindset and try to live among one anothers differences. Even though many still havent learned to live among each other and respect one anothers values, other have already learned to do this. When those who still havent yet reached that moment eventually do learn to share connections and learn to understand others is when we will all have a more peaceful world to live in. I think it is beautiful when we all acknowledge that "everybody matters"(144). It is nice to live in a world where we all are able to connect and find that common influence which enables us to learn from one another and live together with out any arguments or wars.
I strongly agree with Daniel’s perspective on the conflicting ideas he is illustrating about how to serve other global citizens. “Cosmopolitanism is about intelligence and curiosity as well as engagement” (Appiah 168). The most effective way to impart change is really to identify root causes and formulate ways to address these issues. This is the deep level where change really matters and makes differences, rather than a more superficial surface level that cannot be sustained. “But responding to the crisis of a child dying because her frail body cannot absorb fluids faster than they pour out of her is not really saving her, if tomorrow she will eat the same poor food, drink the same infected water, and live in a country with the same incompetent government; if the government’s economic policies continue to block real development for her family and community; if her country is still trapped in poverty in part because our government has imposed tariffs on some of their exports to protect American manufacturers with a well-organized lobbying group in Washington, while the European Union saves jobs for its people by placing quotas on the importation of others” (Appiah 168).
This need for change to occur at a root cause level is most definitely not an excuse for inaction. Contrary, it is a reason for greater action. When attempting to address a root cause, as illustrated through the presentations in class (particularly that of the AIDS crisis), it gets very complicated and difficult with many factors and ethical issues at play. Therefore, I must also propose then that a global citizen should strive to gain an active understanding of their personal ethic and global ethic in order to determine how to serve other global citizens that live with very different realities.
Appiah writes, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members"(p.105).
One of the most interesting things about our world is the idea that cultures vary so greatly. In the TED video Devdutt Pattanaik goes to great lengths to tell the story of Alexander and the "naked wise man" to exemplify the idea that two people, depending on their cultural background, can have two entirely separate views of the world. Differences are what make the world an interesting place. They challenge people to learn, to discover, to push themselves to new ideas and places. Cultural differences enrich everyday life, but there is no benefit from forcing people to remain separate and unchanged within their cultures of the world.
There are many people who "complain about the homogeneity produced by globalization" (101) but as Appiah writes, it can be seen that globalization has been just as much of a threat to homogeneity as it has been a cause. People in changing cultures may feel threatened because "the world, their world, is changing and some of them don't like it"(p.103). It is "unsettling" for people to accept this idea.
In the TED video, Pattanaik discusses the stark difference between "the world" and "my world". People have a natural tendency to view "my world" as better, or more correct, than "the world", or in other words, "your world". It is this, not globalization, that creates problems. As Sarah discussed, if people were more open and accepting of others ideas, to notice both the differences and connections, the world would be a better and more interesting place for all.
Cosmopolitanism is often times presented in a manner that suggests impossibility. However Appiah brings up the one aspect of life that is unfortunately straddling a border. Art scholars have long been divided in terms of belonging. There are two main schools of thought with regards to who owns art, if in fact it can be owned at all. The nationalist school of though believes that art belongs to the country in which it was created. This works well enough for historically ancient pieces in which an artist isn’t known. However, with the increasingly global nature of people, or artists in this case, limiting their work to the country of origin denies the world of a piece of art. Appiah addresses the problem of the “flamboyantly international” nature of art and how it often “ignores nationality altogether”( 126). His words led me to wonder then, why is it so easy to assign a global nature to art and not to people. Those who claim to be global citizens are often accused of being traitors to their homeland, or pitied for being “homeless”. It seems vastly contradictory that in order for art to be great it must deny it’s nationality, and yet for people to be cosmopolitanism, they must embrace all nationalities. This contrasting views left me with no real clear idea of who could possibly be a cosmopolitan. My service learning partner is world traveled and educated and is able to share a great many experiences with me, but her mind set is still associated with one type of culture. I’ve met others who haven’t traveled but who’ve thrown off their home cultures for something supposedly akin to tolerance on a global level. Perhaps cosmopolitanism then is just some sort of general mixture, a sliding spectrum upon which no human is ever at the same point with another. This results in multiple definitions and confusion, but it also leaves room for scholars like Appiah to present their theories to the world.
In the very beginning of chapter 7, Appiah quoted John Stuart Mills’ On Liberty. He said, “Different persons also require different conditions for their spiritual development; and can no more exist healthily in the same moral, than all the variety of plants can exist in the same physical, atmosphere and climate.” (104) Everyone is different; I can especially identify with this idea. My family is very close knit, and we are all very much alike both in looks and personality. Yet despite our similarities, we each thrive in different environments. My sister and I are perhaps the most alike. My sister moved out as soon as she went to college. She needed the independence and thrived in making her own way. On the other hand, I am still staying at home both for financial support and the family atmosphere in which I thrive. My family is the perfect example the diversity of human life, even within families. “If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape.” (105) 100 years ago, my sister would have been expected to stay at home until she was married. Yet globalization has brought about many changes, including the ability for my sister to find the best environment for her development.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of civilization, cultures have been trading and borrowing from each other. Appiah posed a very important question, “how far back must one go” to find the authentic culture and what is not? This led me to wonder, if exchange of culture has occurred for so very long, why is it suddenly not ok? Im sure that this exchange of culture has from time to time been a painful process, but who are we to tell certain cultures that they can not globalize because we want their culture preserved? “Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes…”
Appiah writes about a moral requirement to assist fellow humans. Many of his examples include taking part in an activity that directly affects one and questions all moral value. With the examples provided I was forced to question what I and others would choose in certain situations. I hope that all who were able would take some action to help a drowning child, or would choose to not take another’s life, even indirectly, in exchange for money. Though I find these conditions to be mandatory in which to take moral action, I am one of the many who do not donate to organizations such as UNICEF. This may be because I do not know the individuals and am able to pass to problems off as someone else’s. I may even see the problem as the responsibility of someone who has more money than I do. I do not believe that this removes the moral responsibility to care for and attempt to help those that I do not know, even if they are on the other side of the planet. However, I think this approach is a common reaction to global problems.
ReplyDeleteAppiah also states that “cosmopolitans think human variety matters because people are entitled to the options they need to shape their lives in partnership with others” (104). I believe this is the most important concept in Appiah’s book. There is a large variety of traditions, cultures, and beliefs that an individual may follow, and with the increase in globalization and trade these options are more readily available around the world. I believe it is important for one to be able to choose what belief and life style they want. If this option is not available I believe that people will become dissatisfied and questionable of their life style. Individual choice will allow people to be happier while living a more authentic life style that they agree with more than the alternatives. I think this concept is supported by the online video feed “East vs. West.” After comparing past Western and Eastern, mostly Indian, life styles, the speaker makes the point that there is no right or better form for a life style and these styles are all subjective to the individual and his or her situation. The speaker continues that, since there is free choice, understanding is immensely important in a world undergoing globalization. There is no natural formation or right way to live, all of the traditions and styles are human creations. For that reason I greatly agree with the speaker states in East vs. West. When encountering a stranger “understand that you live in the subjective truth and so does he… [in] understanding lies eternal truth. Who sees it all” gods have one-thousand or one-hundred eyes too view us, “you and I only have two.”
Appiah states that "[o]ne connection ... is the connection not through identity but despite the difference ... The connection through a local identity is as imaginary as the connection through humanity ... but to say this isn't to pronounce either of them unreal. They are among the realest connections that we have" (135). Though at times we may believe that the connections we draw from things are all in our head (even though they usually are), it does not take away from the significance of the connection. Furthermore, plenty of other people, or strangers in the world, do exactly the same thing; they draw personal connections to something, thinking that they're the only ones who do it. For this reason, "[c]ultural purity is an oxymoron" (113). Since we are all able to draw personal connections to something, there must be a common influence that allows us to do so, but that does not necessarily mean that we are inferring the same thing. Everyone and everything is influenced by one another to a certain degree. It's being able to live amongst the differences that make us more cosmopolitan.
ReplyDeleteI encounter different people and personalities everyday. From reading this book, I learned that it's not only important to just be tolerant of another's differences as compared to your's, but rather, it is just as important to be engaged in the differences. By being engaged, you are enriching your life and values in a completely different aspect. By putting yourself out amongst the difference, you are giving those "strangers" a chance to co-exist with you at the same level.
In the TED video, the speaker mentions how people usually differentiate the world as my world, and your world; my world is always better than yours. What we often times fail to see is that this is our world, a world that both offers us a separate identity, and an identity as a member of humanity. We so often forget the bigger picture of it all.
"Depending on the context, depending on the outcome, choose your paradigm. You see, because both the paradigms are human constructions. They are cultural creations, not natural phenomena. And so the next time you meet someone, a stranger, one request: Understand that you live in the subjective truth, and so does he. Understand it. And when you understand it you will discover something spectacular. You will discover that within infinite myths, lies the eternal truth."
ReplyDeleteIn Devdutt Pattanaik's talk on East vs. West--the myths that mystify, Pattanaik discusses the tendency for an individual to judge that his "world" is better than the "world" of another person. He points out that the "world" is subjective--how we see the world is based on our outlooks, which are variable due to the culture and environment we were raised within.
In Cosmopolitanism, Kwame Anthony Appiah says that if cosmopolitanism was to be summed up in a single slogan, it would be universality + difference. Cosmopolitanism, according to Appiah, is the combination of completely two different qualities.
Appiah and Pattnaik discuss the same idea: that although we are all different and have our own subjective viewpoints and opinions, we do share some universal ideas and this contributes to a greater understanding of "our world."
I share this understanding with my friends, some of the most important people in my life. I am Catholic and my best friends are Buddhist. We talk about our beliefs, share, compare, discuss, and talk about how we relate these beliefs to our lives. Some do not practice their religion as strongly as the others. One knows the history and traditions better than the rest. I am the only Catholic.
We are different. They are Vietnamese and I am full Filipino. They have large families and come from more difficult economic backgrounds. I have only my brother and parents, and live in a house that is not under federal housing.
Usually, when my friends argue about filling out their Section 8 Housing paperwork or MediCal papers for their families, I just sit and watch them. I have no personal connections to the struggles that they go through, nor they do mines. We have completely divergent viewpoints on many things, and I know this is the result of how we were raised and the environments that we grew up in.
The best part of our friendship, I think, is that we are all so different. The aspect that I find most intriguing is that we acknowledge our differences and yet, still find the universality across our cultures. We get along with each other so well and we learn from each other all the time! This, I think, is what Pattanaik and Appiah are talking about.
From the beginning of the reading, I was already able to relate the concept of change to experiences in my life. If there is one thing I learned, it's that everything changes, nothing is constant. The world, the times, the relationships and expectations are all changing. And I've experienced struggling to keep change away, to keep things the same... but it's all too impossible. We must change to fit our new surroundings but try to preserve as much culture and tradition as possible. “If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape.” (105) I agree with this because it has opened up so many chances and choices for everybody to do what makes them happy. Happiness is very important. However, it makes culture and tradition hard to sustain.
ReplyDelete"One connection-- the one neglected in talk of cultural patrimony-- is the connection not through identity but despite difference." (135) This sentence was able to bring this book together for me. Appiah talks about the human connection. Though many cultures, ethnicities, colors, values, ethics-- we all are human. "My people-- human beings-- have made the Great Wall of China, the Chrysler building, the Sistine Chapel..." (135) We continually try to differentiate ourselves with eachother, we rejoice in our differences. But we seldom think about the things that bring us together. We all have the same basic needs and desires. We learn to live among eachother, respect eachother's customs and beliefs. I think it's beautiful how we can co-exist amongst eachother, each with a different mindset and perspective but all-the-same, we are human.
I received the same reaction from the TED video as Han. She summed it up well as: "the speaker mentions how people usually differentiate the world as my world, and your world; my world is always better than yours." We need to realize that we share a world too. It is not a separate my-your world, but an our world. I learn to live with you, you learn to co-exist with me. It's often in this "my-your" world that we become selfish and inconsiderate of other people and cultures and beliefs. We learn to view things from other perspectives. I think if we all decide to live in our world, we would get along much better.
Mina Salabasheva
ReplyDeletePeople around the world have different interpretations and different values, but if we want to have peace in this world we need to start tolerating others and caring about them. “Universalism without toleration, it's clear, turns easily to murder” (140). We have seen this throughout the years and we still continue to see people hurting and killing each other for pointless reasons. What is bothersome is that we know that if we don't tolerate each other anger and disagreement will arise. Individuals should always be friendly and accepting of others, because it is a step in the right direction “to minimize the amount of badness in the world” (161). Universally what is really important is that “Everybody matters” (144). Everybody does matter and we should be open in respecting others and seeing their points of views. Their views may teach us something and help us develop our thoughts and ideas. Everybody sees the world differently and we need to appreciate others of who they are, because if we were all the same, life would not be interesting or exciting. Archbishop of Canterbury said “God created diverse peoples. Had He wanted to create a single ummah, He would have…” (147). The archbishop of Canterbury makes a very good point that God wanted to create diverse individuals who are unique and contribute something different to society. The Students at the MYC are all unique, yet they share similarities that help them interact and learn from each other. I can see the similarities in them, but at the same time I can see the differences. Being unique is very important because it characterizes and allows individuals to achieve dreams that define who they are. Also this unique quality makes a family proud that their child or relative was able to accomplish what they enjoy in life. It has been said that “People die when their bodies die” (120). People's bodies die when they die, but their legacy lives on. Just because a person is not physically present, does not mean that they should be forgotten; on the contrary they should always be remembered. Families and friends should always cherish friendships and the valuable memories that they create.
Cosmopolitanism has a hold on me personally given the nature of my major. I remember getting into a discussion with a couple of peers and a nun. It came to the point where I distinguished between knee-jerk charity, and rational charity. I said that knee-jerk charity could do more harm than good and is not in the long term interest of recipients. Whereas rational charity took the form of investments for recipients and sought to improve their well-being by thinking it of sort of an investment there'll be a return on eventually, rather than a self-righteous act that soothes a bleeding heart.
ReplyDeleteOf course the three bleeding hearts and the nun in the room looked at me and called me heartless.
The point I was getting at was the message behind "teach a man to fish" analogy. The same applies with people in need. Appiah hits on this idea when he brings up the possibility of "dumping free grain into the local economy... putting local farmers out of business... may, indeed, be doing more harm than good." (pg.170). Even though I used examples like microcredit and microfinance, I was labelled heartless because I had been reasoning my compassion, not feeling my compassion out with my heart and my emotions.
I'm reminded of what Appiah dubs the "golden rule of cosmopolitanism," "I am human: nothing human is alien to me." Using reason and logic to alleviate problems does not transform people into heartless calculators who pour hours into examining statistics and academic work. To use rational charity, if it could be dubbed charity, at all does not mean the spark of love that manifests itself as compassion, empathy, and sympathy, is extinguished. That very same spark is still evident in the minds of the like who thought of microfinance, or even service learning, for that matter.
The point that was missed in that discussion was that I very much felt the urge to dump food and medical supplies to starving villages following a natural disaster, but I also feel the need to send agricultural equipment, educational supplies, and the tools necessary for rebuilding and development along with it.
Daniel
I like what Appiah says when he writes, "Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannont live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values. (But they have to be values worth living by)" then goes on to talk about "the sense that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional, subject to revision in the face of new evidence" (144). I don't think there is any real way of deciding that one value is more important than others and making it completely universal, as all societies place different emphasis on different values. For instance, some cultures place a higher value on the importance and closeness of family, while others might see freedom as a value of upmost importance. These differences are what make people unique and allow us to learn from each other and not become surrounded by homogenity. Yet, like Appiah states, I think there does have to be a sense that what we know and do is not perfect knowledge. The openness to learning from others and realizing that we may be wrong is essential to our ability to grow as people and as cultures. There is always more to learn, especially as change is always occurring. We may all be different, but this allows us the opportunity to learn from each other.
ReplyDeleteAppiah also talks about the human connection. He writes, "My people---human beings--made the Great Wall of China, the Chrysler Building, the Sistine Chapel: these things were made by creatures like me, through the exercise of skill and imagination...The connection through a local identity is as imaginary as the connection through humanity. The Nigerian's link to the Benin bronze, like mine, is a connection made in the imagination; but to say this isn't to pronounce either of them unreal. They are among the realest connections that we have" (135). This idea made me realize that while people are all different, we all share the connection of being human. We all have the potential to do great things and feel a connection to those things that "our people" have done. We may feel closer to those things that people related to us have produced, but there is also that sense of shared identity with the rest of humans in the world.
These ideas are both embodied in the TED video. Pattnaik talks about the uniqueness of Eastern culture and how it does differ from the West. He discusses how it is easier for everyone to believe that their way of doing things is better than others'. Yet, many of the things he said about Eastern culture, I could understand. This is what Appiah is talking about---to be able to realize that while there are differences, there is also a connection. Yes, East and West are different, but we are all human and being able to realize that and be open to our differences would, like Brittany said, create a more peaceful world.
The main concept that resonated with me most is when Appiah talks about "the connection to art through identity-is powerful...The cosmopolitanism, though, wants to remind us of other connesctions" (135). Those other connections he speaks about deal with our connections as humans. We have to look beyond our differences and see the bigger picture. We have to stop looking at our selves and respond to everyone and everything else is out there. This will allow us to live among each other and cope with all of our personal differences. Appiah illustrates this by saying that "We can respond to art that is not ours; indeed, we can fully respond to "our" art only if we move beyond thinking of it as ours and start to respond to it as art" (135). We begin to see the bigger when we first take the step to decide whether we are willing to see beyond our personal connections. When we are willing to do this then we are able to see a common influence which allows us to learn about each other's differences. As a result, by allowing ourselves to be captivated by others differences we are giving them a chance to co-exist with us and we are accepting their personal connections.
ReplyDeleteUltimately it is fascinating how we all have different mind sets, values and goals, but what it all comes down to is that we all have the same necessity. We all care for those whom we share a common connection with but we should expand that mindset and try to live among one anothers differences. Even though many still havent learned to live among each other and respect one anothers values, other have already learned to do this. When those who still havent yet reached that moment eventually do learn to share connections and learn to understand others is when we will all have a more peaceful world to live in. I think it is beautiful when we all acknowledge that "everybody matters"(144). It is nice to live in a world where we all are able to connect and find that common influence which enables us to learn from one another and live together with out any arguments or wars.
I strongly agree with Daniel’s perspective on the conflicting ideas he is illustrating about how to serve other global citizens. “Cosmopolitanism is about intelligence and curiosity as well as engagement” (Appiah 168). The most effective way to impart change is really to identify root causes and formulate ways to address these issues. This is the deep level where change really matters and makes differences, rather than a more superficial surface level that cannot be sustained. “But responding to the crisis of a child dying because her frail body cannot absorb fluids faster than they pour out of her is not really saving her, if tomorrow she will eat the same poor food, drink the same infected water, and live in a country with the same incompetent government; if the government’s economic policies continue to block real development for her family and community; if her country is still trapped in poverty in part because our government has imposed tariffs on some of their exports to protect American manufacturers with a well-organized lobbying group in Washington, while the European Union saves jobs for its people by placing quotas on the importation of others” (Appiah 168).
ReplyDeleteThis need for change to occur at a root cause level is most definitely not an excuse for inaction. Contrary, it is a reason for greater action. When attempting to address a root cause, as illustrated through the presentations in class (particularly that of the AIDS crisis), it gets very complicated and difficult with many factors and ethical issues at play. Therefore, I must also propose then that a global citizen should strive to gain an active understanding of their personal ethic and global ethic in order to determine how to serve other global citizens that live with very different realities.
--Coleman
Appiah writes, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members"(p.105).
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting things about our world is the idea that cultures vary so greatly. In the TED video Devdutt Pattanaik goes to great lengths to tell the story of Alexander and the "naked wise man" to exemplify the idea that two people, depending on their cultural background, can have two entirely separate views of the world. Differences are what make the world an interesting place. They challenge people to learn, to discover, to push themselves to new ideas and places. Cultural differences enrich everyday life, but there is no benefit from forcing people to remain separate and unchanged within their cultures of the world.
There are many people who "complain about the homogeneity produced by globalization" (101) but as Appiah writes, it can be seen that globalization has been just as much of a threat to homogeneity as it has been a cause. People in changing cultures may feel threatened because "the world, their world, is changing and some of them don't like it"(p.103). It is "unsettling" for people to accept this idea.
In the TED video, Pattanaik discusses the stark difference between "the world" and "my world". People have a natural tendency to view "my world" as better, or more correct, than "the world", or in other words, "your world". It is this, not globalization, that creates problems. As Sarah discussed, if people were more open and accepting of others ideas, to notice both the differences and connections, the world would be a better and more interesting place for all.
Cosmopolitanism is often times presented in a manner that suggests impossibility. However Appiah brings up the one aspect of life that is unfortunately straddling a border. Art scholars have long been divided in terms of belonging. There are two main schools of thought with regards to who owns art, if in fact it can be owned at all. The nationalist school of though believes that art belongs to the country in which it was created. This works well enough for historically ancient pieces in which an artist isn’t known. However, with the increasingly global nature of people, or artists in this case, limiting their work to the country of origin denies the world of a piece of art. Appiah addresses the problem of the “flamboyantly international” nature of art and how it often “ignores nationality altogether”( 126). His words led me to wonder then, why is it so easy to assign a global nature to art and not to people. Those who claim to be global citizens are often accused of being traitors to their homeland, or pitied for being “homeless”. It seems vastly contradictory that in order for art to be great it must deny it’s nationality, and yet for people to be cosmopolitanism, they must embrace all nationalities. This contrasting views left me with no real clear idea of who could possibly be a cosmopolitan. My service learning partner is world traveled and educated and is able to share a great many experiences with me, but her mind set is still associated with one type of culture. I’ve met others who haven’t traveled but who’ve thrown off their home cultures for something supposedly akin to tolerance on a global level. Perhaps cosmopolitanism then is just some sort of general mixture, a sliding spectrum upon which no human is ever at the same point with another. This results in multiple definitions and confusion, but it also leaves room for scholars like Appiah to present their theories to the world.
ReplyDelete