The conclusion is obvious enough: the points of the entry to cross-cultural conversations are things that are shared by those who are in the conversation. They do not need to be universal; all they need to be is what these particular people have in common. Once we have found enough to share, there is the further possibility that we will be able to enjoy discovering things we do not yet share. (Cosmopolitan p. 97)
Of the prompts below, please respond to your choice of 1 or 2 below.
- What do you feel we can do as individuals to promote cosmopolitanism (set aside our differences and start conversation)?
- How do you know you enter into meaningful conversation instead of purposeless debates?
- Do you feel that you yourself interacting with different cultures and ethnicities has helped you understand the concepts of acceptance and toleration?
- As seen in past presidential elections and now the debates, both democrats and republicans, can you distinguish if America has done away with compromise? Is it a me against you attitude? Can this ever change?
- Though the two party system has been the United States way of political democracy, do you believe the differing attitudes is indicative of the divisiveness in today’s society?
- How do you feel about political correctness in the world today? Is this attitude counterproductive to our pursuit of cosmopolitanism?
- How do you feel about the current attempts to pass “Religious Freedom Bills”, which will allow businesses and religious organizations the right to deny services to some based on sexual orientation and religious background? Do you feel this is unconstitutional?
I’m having trouble making sense myself here because I disagree so strongly with your post, Michael. Discrimination against legal (constitutionally protected) behavior by a business that is set up to serve the general public is still discrimination. It makes no meaningful difference to me if the owner claims some kind of higher morality based on his or her religion. Laws in the US may well be “legislated morality,” but that morality cannot – or at least should not – be based and reliant upon any set of religious beliefs. In part on moral grounds, I would support legislation outlawing capital punishment in this country, but not because it says in the Bible that thou shalt not kill.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between hating the sin and hating the sinner gets hopelessly blurred as a rationale for public discrimination. The separation of church and state is a much clearer and more workable distinction or at least one that has a foundation in the US constitution.
Wayne, your comment on "hating the sin, but not hating the dinner" calls into question the counter-cosmpolitans, which, according to Kwame Appiah, creates a counterproductive environment since they "think there is one right way for all human beings to live; that the differences must be in the details" (Cosmopolitanism 144). This would not be an issue, however, these individuals want the entire world to share their vision, which imposes their views without consideration for the welfare of the public. Now, it is true that we abide by laws in our society for the sake of the general welfare and morals could have, at one point, influenced these laws, but you are right in saying it is unfair for laws to reflect one particular group. We contend that you should reserve the right to practice religion. Now, this supposes that your religion will not validate the use of violence against separate groups of people. We, like Appiah, never advocate violence. Indeed, there was a separation of church and state from our very constitution to extend natural rights, a conception of the law from the perspective of John Locke. Based on this premise, laws fall outside religion (which could involve moral codes).
DeleteMichael, I myself am a practicing Catholic and was reading your response. I think there is a balance between our natural rights and our spiritual lives. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by privately owned places with public accomodations on the basis of race, color, religions, or ethnicities. At the same time, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities.You are correct in asserting that there is no protection under the law, at the moment, against discrimination based on sexual orientation. You are more than entitled to your opinions, but Kwame Anthony Appiah contends that, in the end, we "share a human social life" and we have to "make sense of each other in the end" (Cosmopolitanism 99). I would also like to challenge your point on discrimination based on behaviors instead of groups of people. In our society today, we are still facing the consequences of the slave trade, authoritarian governments established durig World War II, and wage disparities based on gender. Discrimination, then, undermines the cosmopolitan approach to reaching an understanding, even if we continue to disagree. We are wanting to engage in conversation. I admire your approach here, however, there is discrimination against specific groups of people in the world today.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from the language of United States Constitution, are these laws unconstitutional?
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the conclusion derived from the first paragraph, although I have to say that we have to be very cautious in our approach to differentiating between behaviors and lifestyles. I am not sure we are ever able to conclude that there are behaviors worth discriminating against as that impedes our freedoms. That also calls into question codes of ethics, which we would like to call universal for select values, but which are subject to change from person to person.
DeleteTo further comment on, I work at St. Elizabeth Hospital as Nursing Assistant. I do all the dirty work like bathing and toileting patients. I come across many different people from all walks of life. I cannot refused to take care of a patient because they are gay, lesbian, or transgender. Everyone is treated the same way and I cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, even though my faith is against their life style. With regards to the wedding cake scenario, I don't think the woman should have refused to make the cake. It is simply her job to make cakes and what the couple does with the cake is their business.
DeleteTrue, but we consider discrimination to be the unfair treatment of people (or a group of people) based on the context of civil rights laws. There should be consequences for actions and I am in no way disputing that. Indeed, that is the purpose of our laws. To continue this discussion, I would encourage that you respond to the questions regarding race.
DeleteJared & Michael, good thread here, good perspectives & ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe wedding-cake example has always seemed tricky to me, a way to slide discrimination into the “acceptable behavior” mix because . . . well, it’s just a cake. And there’s probably another baker somewhere in town. And even if you end up not getting a cake for your same-sex wedding, well, that’s not really such a big deal, is it?
If you’re a member of that same-sex couple, and if you face this kind of micro-aggressive discrimination over & over in public venues, seems to me it’s rendering that distinction – between hating the sin but loving the sinner – infuriatingly irrelevant. And we’re also on a slippery-icing slope now towards more serious consequences for other acts of discrimination.
Short version: the Religious Freedom Bills that I’m familiar with (including recent legislation in my adopted state of North Carolina) are, to my mind, both unconstitutional and immoral. People need to figure out how to practice their religion without using that religion as their sole basis for discriminating against other people.
In our opinion, discrimination against any group of people is wrong and contradicts the premise of cosmopolitanism. I would agree with you that this is a complex issue, but I would contend that religions, as a whole, are developed for our spirits, and are not used for the purposes of discrimination against others.
DeleteI agree that religions are developed for our spirits, as I am an non-denominational Christian. However, I would argue that in our society today, religions are used to discriminate and attack others. It is not supposed to be that way, but as of yet, people are trying to attack others by attacking a fundamental aspect of many people's lives.
DeleteGiven this discussion, please address the question above on political correctness.
ReplyDeleteBeing politically correct is like having a dress code for conversations. It's something that we do because we're professionals. And sometimes it's annoying, or overbearing, but we know that the idea of the dress code exists for professional reasons,and most of us aren't butt-naked or in a fullbody suit most of the time, anyways.
DeleteRight, that is how I have always thought of it. Sure, it can be cumbersome, but it is necessary in having conversations. By the way, I love that, "like having a dress code for presentations." Very well done.
DeleteJust to be a devils advocate, do you guys feel that being restricted into being professional etiquette (political correctness) draws away from meaningful conversation? Even though I feel Trump is overbearing and a dangerous individual, he brings up things that many former politicians would never have brought up. Thus creating conversation and a media frenzy. It is something that can cause much turbulence, but also dialogue between cross parties and people alike. What do you guys think?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it has the capacity to take away from meaningful conversations. The trick is, for me, to be conscientious in our responses that we do not offend our neighbors. It is true that Donald Trump opens conversation, but I do not think that it is productive. Sure, he is a great businessman, but at times, his comments could be considered to be divisive, which impedes conversation. So, I think that political correctness has a time and a place to mediate our conversation in spite of differences.
DeleteI think that is a person considers the idea of having to respect others "restrictive" then perhaps their opinions should be refined before being spoken. Having a filter is not a bad things. Neither is forcing people to actually think before they speak. Having to think about political correctness does not take away from meaningful conversation: it makes people think about other's stances.
DeleteAnd has Trump really started any meaningful conversation? Has he? Really? Because all of the dialogue he has "created" across parties and people seems to be hateful and not constructive.
Regarding the prompt about what we can do to be more cosmopolitanism, I am going to increase my usage of the phrase "Inshallah" which means roughly, "Allah (God) willing." My family lived in Iran, where my father learned this phrase; he and I use it a lot, but I really didn't appreciate the nuance until reading this article. Enjoy! I'm curious to know if you will use it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/inshallah-is-good-for-everyone.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
I feel as if there is a fine line in this situation that I am cautious to approach. Although I like the idea of the phrase, I feel like people will use it but not respect where it came from. That phrase means a lot to Muslims who believe in Allah and I would hate to see this phrase being used inappropriately.
DeleteI feel that there is a big undertone in America that shouts out that we are not educated. America needs to be more educated on Arabic culture and their language. Just as I may pray before I eat, before I play a sport, or step on a plane, why can't someone of a different language do the same.
DeleteI understand the fear that comes from this article. Ever since 9/11 it is very hard to overcome the look of a person while they are speaking arabic. But this is not very cosmopolitan.
I agree with you Nick. I think education about not only the Arabic culture, but also other foreign culture, will help us understand and lessen our fear. Right now, we see them all as a threat when they are simply doing what we do (pray before meal, sports, etc) just in another language.
DeleteI have always been good at talking to people, always looked up to those who had an easy manner with others; my biggest problem though, is finding a way to open conversations with strangers.
ReplyDeleteI also love acting, dressing up, and generally behaving in a way contrary to those around me, and it lends itself to talking with people I don't know-- which is largely why I do it (I'm actually typing this in full 1730's pirate garb).
That said, I've long planned on building a cart called "The Conversation Stand." It would be small enough to pull on my bike, but garish and brightly painted, inviting all to have a conversation.
I've asked people about the idea, and my only real obstacle is getting a vendor's license (not difficult, just expensive).
I have often found that most people only need the opprotunity to speak without feeling they are breaking some unspoken societal rule-and sticking out accomplishes that.
Personally, I like that idea. I think that would be a great way to facilitate conversation.
DeleteA believe a key to cosmopolitan nature is the space in which one chooses to dwell. The American context is unique globally, with our preference for suburban living. America's suburbs are staid from nearly all perspectives—racially, economically, and ideologically. As a result, they tend to foster more homogenous perspectives that limit conversations from progressing toward cosmopolitan honesty.
ReplyDeleteI am by no means familiar with Appiah's perspective nor the man himself (although a quick Google search revealed that he has quite the diverse background), but I'd venture to say he would see the 'burbs as a roadblock to moving forward and that cities do best to foster this mentality. My wife and I chose over a decade ago to live in an urban center and that decision was one of the best we ever made to ensure our daughter develops a well-balanced perspective of the world around her. Here we are exposed to new ideas. Here we interact with people from different backgrounds who hold views different from our own. Here we have conversations that allow us to see a broader spectrum of our world.
I was surprised to read this, however, I think you make a great point. Communities that are considered to be suburban, I would think, would share comparable social and economic backgrounds, where, in cities, you have more exposure to diverse cultures. Given this, do you think living in an urban environment has helped you develop your art of conversation?
DeleteWith regard to religious freedom- Let's observe two different expectations. On the one hand, the expectation that members of a religious community that does advocate partaking in same sex practices nor recognize a civil same sex marriage as equivalent to their own community's understanding of marriage should not be compelled to practice homosexual behaviors nor sanction such a marriage within their community. On the other- the expectation that members of such a community attempt to use ordinary commerce or secular law to compel those outside their community to act or speak as those within that community do, with regards to sexual behavior, marriage or anything else. Are these two expectations the same? Since they plainly aren't, most of the comments I have heard made, here and elsewhere, about same-sex marriage, religious belief/freedom and the relation of both to baked goods seem off-target to me.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to "political correctness". Why is it presumed that this term has a unified meaning and is used as an equivalent by all who use it? I observe it to have at least two different usages.
Typically those who ascribe the term a positive meaning use it to mean something to the effect of not being intentionally insulting or derisive and attempting to engage in shared discourse with mutual respect. If this meaning or one like it is accepted this doesn't as such place any restriction on what terms may be used or opinions expressed- after all there is such a thing as unintended insult- rather it simply requires that if (or more likely) when a term or opinion is challenged as explicitly or implicitly insulting and/or wrongheaded that a more respectful communication is sought. Those who refuse to do so are not taking exception to political correctness, but to civility itself.
I would approximate the other usage of "politically correct" I am familiar with as an arbitrary convention assigned to prevent socially disapproved opinions. This a negative meaning, such that "not being political correct" is identified as a virtue. But this usage is typically loaded in such a way that it can be used to dismiss any opinion or observed data on the grounds of labeling it "politically correct". So this usage is, at least usually, dishonest, since it is itself an arbitrary convention used to silence or disavow an undesirable opinion.
Oddly while I have heard many times the negative meaning of political correctness used to dismiss an opinion or viewpoint, I haven't heard the positive one used in that way. In fact I can't think offhand of time other than above where I have heard the positive sense of political correctness used at all.
Since it's positive value as a term seems in doubt I think "political correctness" should mostly fade from use.
I very much appreciated your input. I believe there is a complex balance that has to be maintained with political correctness, however, I would challenge you to defend your stance that this phrase is outdated and, in particular, regarding religion and politics. We perceive political correctness to be advantageous in initiating conversation, however, we have to be conscientious to address complex social issues and not just feign ignorance. So while I would agree that there are positive and negative sides of political correctness, I believe it is imperative for the art of conversation.
DeleteI don't believe that anything that is tends to be misused should fade away just because it is misused, especially when it has positive uses. If our society got rid of every invention that could be seen in both a more negative light than a good light, well, we wouldn't have the resources to do this blog.
DeleteI believe that political correctness is used to silence certain people, but I don't think that's a reason to end it. We should instead work to make sure that it stays in its positive use because that use is imperative to civilized discourse.