Since cosmopolitanism reflects world citizenship for an individual and respect to local cultural diversity (Ibid), students need to become familiar with various elements that make this an enriching life such as exposure and reflection to various cultures via trips or activities (White, 2007). Wright and Lee (2014) concur, while adding that it should be a precondition for students to learn later how to interact with other students of different social groups as well. Therefore, an education leaning favorably to social reconstruction and child-centered could generate an outcome of developing community values and instilling rational criticism to social issues
Sociology is unlike any other type of science because it can be looked at from many different points of view. Society and culture are two very complex things that heavily relate to one another. Sociologists have discovered three very distinct theories as to how we should view our society. After many years of observation, sociologists have put together three major perspectives, or ways of viewing our world: the functionalist perspective, the symbolic interaction perspective, and the conflict perspective. These perspectives hold very different and specific characteristics that make them all appropriate to understanding sociology (Cury, Jiobu, and Schwirian 12).
In Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, Martha Nussbaum argues for a cosmopolitan education, writing that patriotism is expendable in order to fulfill cosmopolitan goals. Nussbaum, however, later alters her views on cosmopolitan and patriotism arguing instead that patriotism should be a primary goal of education and discards a rootless cosmopolitanism. There is an inherent tension that arises between cosmopolitanism and patriotism. The implication is that cosmopolitanism must be in conflict with patriotism by definition. In this paper I will argue that cosmopolitanism and patriotism are more compatible rather than being binary opposites and that this inherent tension is resolvable.
To facilitate their endeavors, sociologists utilize sociological theories that study society on the micro- and macro level. In the following, I will use the conflict theory, which operates on the macro-level, as well as the symbolic interactionist theory, which focuses on the micro-scale of society, to explain the influence of globalization and the associated phenomena of inequality and conflict on the individual and society. The conflict theory approaches society on the macro-level. It was established by Karl Marx, who believed that social conflict stands at the center of sociocultural realities. His evolutionary theory came to be known as one of the most significant early contributions to sociology.
This theory of social constructionism is so relevant to the field of psychology because it directly deals with how people think. The driving factors into why individuals might make the decisions they do or why they conduct themselves in a certain manner. Psychology is the scientific study of the human mind and how it functions with regards to behavior. The basis on which social constructionism is informed by psychology because it is built upon the main focus of psychology, trying to determine how our minds work, what makes us do the things we do and how the outside world factors into these
This separation solidifies already existing gaps between cultures and people. Despite the issues that differences create when they exist among different groups, people keep their roots strongly in their communities and cultures. People immediately born into a group and grow up seeing existing differences among separate communities. Seeing patterns and differences is human nature making the required multicultural interactions very difficult. Calhoun identifies the individual’s role in cosmopolitanism: “the ideas of individuals abstract enough to be able to choose all their “identifications” is deeply misleading.
“No space disappears in the course of growth and development: the worldwide does not abolish the local.” - Henri Lefebvre In 1990s, the theory of cosmopolitan fell into the deadlock of different ideologies. There were endless debate on the ambitious dream of universal humanist world and the problems in achieving that. Traditional cosmopolitans brought the scenario of making " a borderless world " , thinking national and ethical solidarities are the reason for conflict and divisions. Diverting it, others argued that if one thinks to make global community then cannot ignore national and ethical solidarities and neither community can be homogenized to follow “universal
For this, cosmopolitanism is the idea of being free of national ideas, prejudices or attachments, being at home all over the world. This ideal is thought by many to be the future of a more globalized world, but it has many objections of if it is possible to happen in today’s world. First of all, the idea of cosmopolitanism is to create one state or federation among which all countries would get rid of their actual states and join this one global federation of them. We can find two major problems which are arguably impossible to look over as of today. On one hand, it seems almost impossible to change the current state system and join up such an
This period was known for posing critical sociological issues without the possibility of their resolutions. The afore-mentioned resolutions came about more distinctly in the nineteenth-century. According to Alan, the early nineteenth-century sociological thought sought to define the social both in terms of society as a complex structural whole and in its relation with specific institutions (Swingewood, 1991). The science of sociology began in the search for explanations for social change and this has resulted in mainly three schools of sociology. These include: Early sociological thought, Classical sociological thought and Modern sociological thought.
Universalism offered a core of ‘human-nature’ which threatened to homogenise diverse African societies (Zechenter, 1997). Universalism took decision making away from cultural groups shifting the defensibility of practices from within the framework of the community (internal judgements), to using international or external judgements (Donnelly, 1984). International standards are particularly criticised for an over focus on the individual rather than the group (Charters, 2003). In defence of universalism, Zechenter (1997), showed that universalism protests the group indirectly by attending to the needs of the individual. Feminists are in favour of universal standards of human rights as pre-colonial villages, Native American tribes and traditional Islamic social systems have disproportionate power balances between men and women (Donnelly,