In Cosmopolitanism, Appiah seems to develop
a main idea that revolves around the need not for understanding, but for
dialogue. In other words, he believes that maintaining peace in a globalized
world depends not on the unification of cultures or on their subjugation to one
supreme culture, but actually on the simple existence of dialogue between
cultures. In theory, it should lead to understanding and peace. However,
history tells us a different story. In many cases, societies are molded by
ideologies that include warfare and the destruction of the enemies of this
ideology. Nowadays, this can obviously be linked to Islamic extremists that
seek the destruction of the USA. However, Western culture itself is also to
blame, perhaps more so than any other. Consider, for instance, laws considered almost
“evil” by most Westerners, such as the sharia law that was in place during Taliban
government in Afghanistan around the turn of the century. History gives us
examples that range the human sacrifice traditions of Pre-Colombian American
peoples to the massive military expansion process by Muslims in the beginnings
of Islam and the tradition of female genital mutilation in Africa. Dialogue, in
these cases, cannot suffice not because of the existence of such cultures and
their practices, but because in other part of the globe reigns the Western
Judeo-Christian tradition. While some Africans may not consider a woman a true
mother unless her genitals were mutilated, Europeans and Americans immediately
recognize the tradition as a most serious breach of human and women’s rights
that demands some sort of intervention. From our (Western) point of view, they
are being submitted to terrible atrocities, but they believe it is necessary.
Although at first, dialogue may lead to toleration of these differences; the
fact that Western culture considers those who fail to intervene against a crime
guilty themselves leads to the need to do something about it. As a result, NGOs
create campaigns with the sole purpose of “teaching those poor Africans what is
good for them.” Campaigns become national interest, national interest becomes
UN rules. UN rules makes those African families who practice female genital
mutilation criminals. And these so called criminals, most importantly, eventually want to fight
back. Perhaps not in the near future for most of them, but this is indeed another focus of hate
against the West waiting to explode. In the long run, however, Western culture
is likely to dominate all others, effectively destroying such issues forever. For now, different theories exist that try to predict which culture shall dominate in the 21st century and beyond.
In The Global Soul, Pico Iyer describes a
new global citizen that formed as a direct result of globalization, an
individual that will not cause conflict between cultures because he is used to
more than one of them. However, he fails to consider the fact that
globalization is more likely to create “global citizens” with Western values
than true “global souls” willing to accept even the darkest characteristics of
every society. Globalization, one must not forget, is a process dominated by
the West and its culture. It may even be considered the spread of Western
culture. Of course, if it suddenly changes due to the influence of non-Western
societies, the emergence of Iyer’s “global soul” would be more likely.
Unfortunately, as of today; globalization is not forming global souls that
respect all cultures, but in fact global citizens that were born in Asia,
studied in Europe, live in the USA and despise genital mutilation and sharia
law traditions that have shaped North African and Southeast Asian societies. Henry David
Thoreau, a great American philosopher from the 19th century, is known to oppose
the traditional Western way of life and its most important characteristics,
such as a culture of infinite consumption, mentioning that "A
stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the
games and amusements of mankind." He also mentions a certain
quest for happiness, wanting to "live so
sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life". In other
words, he defends those who wish to run away from society.
Unfortunately, the modern world has rendered such a lifestyle, although idealized
by the movie Lost in the Wild, in
fact outdated. In a world of interconnectedness leading to end of cultural
differences in favor of Western culture, escaping is the wrong choice, as one
has no chance of success. Eventually, despite all the disadvantages of modern
society, it manages to reach even the most remote locations, transforming such
adventurers into mere homeless people.
Globalization is not about this:
but really about this:
Meanwhile, Planetary Culture by Gary Snyder seems
to defend the idea that all cultures are “illuminated”, having a righteous
place in this world, and compares their qualities to the destiny that awaits
them due to the expansion of Western culture in the modern era. He goes as far
as saying he could “imagine further virtues in a world sponsoring societies
with matrilineal descent, free-form marriage, “natural credit” economics, far
less population, and much more wilderness.” Although I agree with him on the
population and wilderness issues, it is my belief that he is wrong to assume
such a world would be beneficial to humanity. The societies described by him
are about to become extinct for a reason, and that is the superiority of
Western societies. Now, I am not referring to the supposed superiority of
Western values, but to the actual military and economic superiority of the West
itself. The time period where such “natural societies” can exist is about to end.
Humanity should save the good values they have, while abandoning their
problems, instead of complaining about their end. It is inevitable.
