More handpicked essays just for you.
Challenges to cross cultural communication
Communitarianism and cosmopolitanism
The importance of cross-cultural communication
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Kwane Anthony Appiah is deeply invested in the theory of Cosmopolitanism, and which he defines as “it’s OK for people to be different.” The family dynamics in which he was raised is evident in his writing and allows him a unique perceptive of the world. Having a bicultural upbringing in addition to a multicultural and political family permits him a critical perspective of various cultures and philosophies which has helped to sculpt his beliefs and values of the world. He believes that to achieve progress as individuals, in this global world, our nations are obligated to be accountable for it citizenship within the world (Taylor, 2009).
Given his upbringing you do not have to go far to understand why he believes in cosmopolitanism. If as a person he were to say anything but that he would likely offend a percentage of his family. He also firmly believes that just because something does not make sense to you does not give you permission to dismiss it as bad, unproductive or wrong. As a citizen of the world we must work for understanding of ALL and be tolerant of the differences and to not judge the process but to assess the outcome through personal investigating of the beliefs behind the actions
He uses his extended multicultural family in support of his argument and his participation in the various culture nuances
…show more content…
Imagine if this idea of cosmopolitism’s was presented by a white male who lived in nowhere ville, Idaho who had never traveled, never experience different cultures, never even talked to someone that was not American how much stock could you actually invest in his proposal. The diversity that Appiah possesses just in his immediate family is enough to give believability, however his extended family and their active participation in his life gives him authority in the presentation of this
Amin Ahmad was born in Calcutta, India. He now lives in Washington D.C. as a published author and has had some of his work appear in such prestigious journals as The Harvard Review (1). Knowing the intelligence and high credibility of the author makes his argument more substantial. Over the years he has built himself up in spite of being an immigrant. Ahmad is no longer looked down upon, because he has worked hard for his position in society. However he still feels the burden of discrimination when people judge him before they learn more than just his skin color. If no one takes the time to learn about his success and only look at the color of his skin or the looks of his passport then all of his hard work is for nothing. Ahmad did not let the world’s hate keep him from living his dream. He got passed the poverty and judgment to pursue his education and make something of his self. Not only is this inspiring; it is heat-warming. It is as if he is proving everyone who ever doubted him wrong. Everyone who looked down upon him with a watchful eye or whispered behind his back should be sulking in their seats.
Ronald Takaki is one of the foremost-recognized scholars of multicultural studies and holds a PhD. in American History from the University of California, Berkeley. As a professor of Ethnic Studies at the same university, he wrote A Different Mirror: a History of Multicultural America as a fantastic new telling of our nation’s history. The book narrates the composition of the many different people of the United States of America.
It is essential to understand the differences and similarities that people have within other people, to just try to accept the fact that some people may be different. However conversation often leads to social change because people tend to want to fit in where most people are the same. Appiah explains “Depending on the circumstances, conversations across boundaries can be delightful, or just vexing” (Page 73). That is why Appiah believes people need to be more accepting, more globalized. He initially feels that conversation can lead people to create change and can hinder their reasons to fit in because they are different. However, conversation is not enough because people are still changing to fit in, people are constantly feeling left out, not valued for their customs or beliefs. He also asserts “We can’t hope to reach a final consensus on how to rank and order such values. That’s why the model i 'll be returning to is that of conversation” (Appiah 73). With this being said it is clearly stated how Appiah is a firm believer that conversation is the number one key for understanding of others. This can be very controversial because Munoz may disagree. He asserts “The English- only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish” (Munoz 308). Conversation is leading to a change that is creating to erase the differences among people. For instance, Munoz asserts how people are changing their names because they feel comfortable and different. People are erasing their names and putting American names and forgetting where their names came from and how much it means to their culture. This is a major issue when conversation is changing but not necessarily for the better. It does create and effect in many people whom they are talked into how they are different and due to because people just don’t accept and understand the different cultures. It is
middle of paper ... ... Given that multiculturalism is a framework that says that anyone can sit at the table so long as they accept certain political and cultural divisions which ultimately work to make impossible your ability to change the basic structure of meaning in society, or which seek to extract any political potential from the things you say, the things you embody and the things you want. You can have holidays, but not your language. You can have a month of the year for your race, but no justice.
In Nussbaum’s article I have a problem with the unrealistic goal of universal cosmopolitanism, as it is impossible for an individual to think of themself fully a citizen of the world. A sense of home identification will always linger as no one feels welcome or is welcomed in every nation or community on earth. It is impossible to make a patriotic person non patriotic as no one person has had the exact same
Think of the term ‘globalization’. Your first thought may be of people from all corners of the Earth exchanging ideas, views, products, and so much more. Appiah introduces his article by describing a scene of a traditional Wednesday festival in the town of Kumasi. He allows the reader to visualize the traditions held by those in attendance, but begins his case by providing details of men on their cellphones and holding conversations on contemporary topics such as H.I.V/AIDS. When Appiah speaks of “contamination,” he highlights the way one culture is influenced by another accepting an exchange of ideas. In his article he asks, “why do people in these places sometimes feel that their identities are threatened?” (Appiah). This question raises a topic that is central to the unification of peoples’ ideals and cultures...
First, it must be explained how both sides of his family are essentially different. Each side carries certain traditions and ideas that have been passed on from generation to generation;
...s culturally enforced cover up of reticent inscrutability, has just donned one more, by which he conveys the distanced fondness of free pluralism for the striving common people looking for investment decision in America's melting pot.
Secondly, he said that nations are not the best units to study cultural differences (McSweeney, 2000). This is a key criticism as it guides you to the fact that people in a nation tend to have similar cultural beliefs and traditions. This is a point clearly seen in South Africa where people from all reaches of life and all different areas of the country and completely ...
Describe how you will promote sensitivity to racial, cultural, religious, and ethnic differences in your position.
Appiah and Toure’ both views are somewhat connected. In their work they mention things about the irony of how many races are today and also include postmodernism. In the work of Appiah he talks about how once people are given racial labels they are somewhat stuck to believe that they should act according to the labels they are given. According to Appiah “Once the racial label is applied to people, ideas about what it refers to, ideas that may be much less consensual than the application of the label, come to have their social effects. But they have not only social effects, but psychological ones as well; and they shape the ways people conceive of themselves and their projects. In particular, the label can operate to shape what I want to call ‘identification’: the process through which an individual intentionally shapes her projects including her plans for her own life and her conception of the good-by reference to available labels, available identities.”(44) Toure’ believes that people can break away from their labels and become something better, and that’s where black irony comes from.
Kwame Anthony Appiah argued that objects of cultural are of potential value to all human beings, holding an opinion of a universal ownership of cultural objects and the on-going appropriations underwritten by such claims. However, his support for pan-human ownership of cultural artifacts and cosmopolitanism are questionable. I sustain a “property” perspective on cultural artifacts and believe that the cosmopolitanism should be based on peace and development of humanity.
This book was written in 1936 by Dale Carnegie. Some of the terms and vocabulary used are dated but the advice and information can still be used today. It deals with communication with others and the need for all parties to be able to perceive the objective from the others' viewpoint. The perspective of the book is from a position of power or management but it can be useful to anyone that reads it. While this book is useful, it should be remembered it was written during a time when the people in the workforce had a very strong protestant work ethic socialized into them. The book is divided into four parts, and they are:
...observe and report facts as given from both sides without interfering with any data. This is because people may base their decision to join a certain religion from the findings, only to be misguided by lack of objectivity by the researcher.
Our world is constantly changing and it requires a society that is well versed in understanding the problems deriving from culture differences and tolerance of one another’s beliefs and perceptions. We are dealing with systemic problems in education, economic, government, religion and culture differences.