The case for contamination article. Religous Essay

Being pretty honest, “The case for contamination” article is one of the most relevant readings which were met last few years. This idea is based on the problems, which are addressed there. In this order, the author is very persuasive with the statement that globalization and universalism are positive processes for recent humanity in fact. Moreover, the writer distinguishes dangerous neofundamentalism from above mentioned terms. Statement of this paper dedicated to the idea that globalization is beneficial to humanity process, in case of proper universalism concepts following.
Talking about Doctor Appiah’s work, we cannot leave aside the fact that religion became significant part of his research. This approach doesn’t look surprising as religion is essential and inherent part of every identity. It worth being noted that religion itself did not became the subject of investigation in article. It was used to provide clear differences between universalism and neofundamentalism, what is one of the key issue of analyzed work. Claiming that radically approached neofundamentalism is dangerous display of globalization aspiration, the writer present next example: “It underlay the French Wars of Religion that bloodied the four decades before the Edict of Nantes of 1598, in which Henri IV of France finally granted to the Protestants in his realm the right to practice their faith. In the Thirty Years’ War, which ravaged central Europe until 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia, Protestant and Catholic princes from Austria to Sweden struggled with one another, and hundreds of thousands of Germans died in battle. Millions starved or died of disease as roaming armies pillaged the countryside.”. According to common opinion, neofundamentalists are different form cosmopolitanists with the absence of tolerance. However, the author is opposing to this idea, claiming that there are a lot of things neofundametalists are tolerant to. In general, real universalism is different from neofundamentalism with “universe truth”, which should be accepted by everyone. On the other hand, real universalists follow the idea of pluralism: “Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannot live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values“. One more significant point that make cosmopolitism different from neofundamentalism is called falibilism, which might to be treated as sense that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional, subject to revision in the face of new evidence. The contrast of neofundamentalism also should be supported by next quote from read text: “These counter-cosmopolitans (neofundamentalists), like many Christian fundamentalists, do think that there is one right way for all human beings to live; that all the differences must be in the details. If what concerns you is global homogeneity, then this utopia, not the world that capitalism is producing, is the one you should worry about. Still, the universalisms in the name of religion are hardly the only ones that invert the cosmopolitan creed”. These were the main author’s thoughts connected to religion in some way. As you see, this part became useful to get the principle differences between two controversial to each other terms. Being clear with the meaning of real cosmopilitsm and neofundamentlism, we have to claim that most of humanity today keep and follow the first concept, as religious plurality is inherent feature of every civic state today.
The previous part is addressed the issue of religion in Doctor Appiah’s work. Now, we are going to talk about the general experience and impressions from read work. To interpret the main idea of it, words form the last page are the most useful: “I am human: nothing human is alien to me”. Frankly, these words are enough meaningful to experess the entire message of article. Thereby, such term as “cultural Contamination” as the result of globalization trends look pretty unacceptable to me. It worth being recognized that Doctor Appiah made rather good job to make comprehensive research, which involves different sides of the same coin. For example, the author placed pretty good example that displays the opinion of cultural preservationists: “It’s the same with the international movements to promote women’s equality. We know that many Islamists are deeply disturbed by the way Western men and women behave. We permit women to swim almost naked with strange men, which is our business, but it is hard to keep the news of these acts of immodesty from Muslim women and children or to protect Muslim men from the temptations they inevitably create. As the Internet extends its reach, it will get even harder, and their children, especially their girls, will be tempted to ask for these freedoms, too. Worse, they say, we are now trying to force our conception of how women and men should behave upon them”. However, Doctor Appiah is not less persuasive with arguments to support cosmopolitism. For example, he is pretty clear with the idea that approach of culture preservationists have several weak points. First of all, he claims that the aspiration to find primordially authentic culture can be like peeling an onion, as cultural exchange takes its roots many centuries ago and was irreplaceable part of humans’ development and progress in general. At second, cosmopolitism requires the choice making option and plurality derivatively. Thereby, no one of cultural income is imposed. Consumers are allowed to adapt products to suit their own needs, and they can decide for themselves what they do and do not approve of. Here is the good example of such selective consuming, which was announced in article: “In terms of our culture, a girl is expected to enter into relationships when she is about 20. In the Western culture, a girl can be exposed to a relationship as early as 15 or 16. That one we shouldn’t adopt in our culture. Another thing we shouldn’t adopt from the Western culture has to do with the way they treat elderly people. I wouldn’t like my family to be sent into an old-age home”. One more point to criticize the term “cultural contamination” are significant transformational realities, which are natural to every local societies. Therefore, the need in changes is stressed by Doctor Appiah in his work: “Societies without change aren’t authentic; they’re just dead”. In this regard, the concept towards “purity into contamination” cultural evolvement is strong opposed by the author. He states, that the talk about changes is much more pertinent here: “change is more a gradual transformation from one mixture to a new mixture, a process that usually takes place at some distance from rules and rulers, in the conversations that occur across cultural boundaries. Such conversations are not so much about arguments and values as about the exchange of perspectives. I don’t say that we can’t change minds, but the reasons we offer in our conversation will seldom do much to persuade others who do not share our fundamental evaluative judgments already. When we make judgments, after all, it’s rarely because we have applied well-thought-out principles to a set of facts and deduced an answer. Our efforts to justify what we have done – or what we plan to do – are typically made up after the event, rationalizations of what we have decided intuitively to do”. At last, “cultural Contamination” supporters takes as the argument globalization’s ability to cause homogeneity. Doctor Appiah opposes to this idea with the claim that cosmopolitism can have the effect of homogeneity threat. In this order, he provides the example when folks of Africa are allowed to enjoy achievements of industrial and progressive society, without significant changes in their way of live and values.
To sum up, the read article presented us advanced view to the issues, which are placed in the center of many conflicts today. It enables everyone to evaluate all pros and cons towards globalization processes. The conclusion here is pretty clear – changes are needful for every society to keep it alive! It was also interesting to learn, what makes proper (tolerant) universalism different from dangerous displays of globalization intentions, such as neofundametalism. Pluralism and the concept of selective choice are considered those. In regard to made conclusions, all mindful readers are able to learn that cultural identity experience no danger from outside incomes. Everything depends on people, who are enabled to take the best and to reject bad.