In Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay, the Case for Contamination, Appiah delivers his opinion on society’s growing culture and the effects that have occurred due to society’s growing influence, such influences include the globalization, both political and lifestyle, and cultural preservation aspects of society. Within his standpoint, Appiah offers many valid points on the positive aspects on the development of globalizations and its key role in society. However, despite Appiah’s lengthy essay, his argument lacks sources that support his claims, ultimately causing his views on the subject to stem from personally experiences. Due to this, the essay insufficiently discusses the depth of how damaging globalization is to a cultural, which essentially
In Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay, the Case for Contamination, Appiah delivers his opinion on society’s growing culture and the effects that have occurred due to society’s growing influence, such influences include the globalization, both political and lifestyle, and cultural preservation aspects of society. Within his standpoint, Appiah offers many valid points on the positive aspects of the development of globalizations and its key role in society. However, despite Appiah’s lengthy essay, his argument lacks sources that support his claims, ultimately causing his views on the subject to stem from personal experiences. Due to this, the essay insufficiently discusses the depth of how damaging globalization is to a cultural, which essentially encourages
Thomas McCormick’s essay titled The World-System, Hegemony, and Decline, presents some relevant questions that I am unable to answer by just reading his work. Firstly, alluding to economic freedom and freedom of the seas as main U.S. objectives with regards to foreign policy might not be entirely accurate. It is true that the United States have used and will continue to use its elements of national power to protect economic interests all around the world, but are these the only instances where the United States fight for other freedoms? Is Uncle Sam our capitalistic egomaniac above anything else? Additionally, McCormick seems to be disappointed when he writes about how labor compensation differs between core, semi periphery, and periphery countries (Merrill and Paterson, 2010, 4).
Bruyneel states that the MLK Jr memorial paints Dr. King in a light regarding him as a haloed figure and that “King stands as a figure of consensus deployed to ‘impersonate’ the idea that the U.S. is now a post-racial society in which collective and structural concerns about racial equality have been displaced” (Bruyneel 76). Bruyneel argues that Dr. King was much more radical and liberal than the way his conservative monument represents him by leaving out controversial economic views and beliefs. Furthermore, he says that Dr. King’s image has been distorted in order to fit the interests of the US government and corporate interests. This notion is partially true, because of the corporate funding of the memorial and radical views that Dr. King held; however this memorial’s true purpose is to represent the civil rights struggle in which MLK Jr engaged in and fought so hard for. Also, the statue of Dr. King portrays him as a is seen as a stiff and tense figure, but it captures him in a light which represents the civil rights movement which was a tense time for him and all minorities.
The second is the increasing levels of inequality between developed and developing countries this is mainly due to the conflict of interest that TNCs have (Morgan, 2006), to help address this problem it is necessary to evaluate the critical perspective that revolves around the ethics of managing cultures (Josserand et al, 2012). The final point of interest will be the need for sustainable development in order to prevent pollution (Gold et al, 2013), the practices of avoiding strong cultures will be applied with reference to Enron and the necessity to avoid groupthink will also be applied (Dimitroff, R.D, 2005). Without effective management of globalisation in the post-bureaucratic era organizations will undoubtedly abuse their power in the hopes of chasing
This control will allow them to discriminate between the contrasting applications and content. This opens the opportunity to extract new traces of revenues by accusing content providers for important rights. Keith Collins article in "Why Net Neutrality Was Repealed and How It Affects You" in the NY Times explains the impact of net neutrality if the rules are repealed. The biggest problem that can occur is that the internet will become pay-to-play technology with two categories; one that has a fast service and the other slow.
Meaning of such terms as "cooperation", globalization and "interdependence" can be even more misleading as far as it is often used by politicians in order to highlight general orientation on global peace and wealth in their views (Nye, 2001:210). Nye distinguishes the word "interdependence" in political and analytical discourses and defines it as a "situation in which actors or events in different part of a system affect each other" (Nye, 2001:210). To answer further questions about the difference between dependence and interdependence Nye appealing to the earlier works of Robert Keohane for whom dependence and interdependence are basically the same thing and can be defined through each other. Interdependence or mutual dependence is neutral analytical term which does not bring neither positive nor negative connotations and can be used as a tool for analysis of relations between two or more countries where interaction takes place (Nye, 2001:211).
“How does 21st century globalization differ from 20th century globalization?” Globalization heavily implies the opening of local and nationalistic perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected and interdependent world with free transfer of capital, goods, and services across national frontiers. It also occasionally discusses the less common dimensions of globalization, such as environmental globalization or military globalization . Those dimensions, however, receive much less attention the three described above, as academic literature commonly subdivides globalization into three major areas which are economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization. The evolution of globalization is still open for debate according to some scholar’s dates back to Ice Age when people used to travel in search of food, trade and security.
Huntington’s postulate references the future of civilization. It is important to note that he sees our current nation-state model as enduring, yet The United States of America appears to be on a collision course with“the rest” of the civilizations in the non-westernized world. Though there is some evidence to support the diminishing role of the U.S. in Carroll Quigley’s model, loss of power is certainly not an inevitability. Huntington calls for cooperation and coexistence between the major world civilizations as a way to stem future culturally based conflict. While the West must appreciate it’s own unique culture, Samuel calls an imposition of those values, “in the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western : belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous” (Huntington 1996: 21).
This debate reflects a wider, familiar issue in the research literature concerning whether children are active media savvy consumers, or vulnerable innocents. For example Buckingham’s (2007) main argument is that this polarisation is indeed constructed and that the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two. He contends that the growth of a consumer society is a complex social development which cannot be understood, explained or blamed solely on advertising and marketing. This polarisation of the debate is seen again in the gap between industry research on marketing, and sometimes highly critical blame-led academic research. It seems that the research field between the two should be explored more, as this would help construct a balanced debate and contribute towards consistency in the conceptualisation of the issue and measurement techniques (Sandberg 2011).
In the first chapter of Jonas Pontusson’s book Inequality and Prosperity: Social Europe vs Liberal America, he raises an important question regarding if we are caught in a situation in which governments can no longer do much to improve the economic prospect of low-income workers and their families. Although the answer to his question varies in different countries, it is clear that the U.S. government CAN improve the lives of low-income citizens, but it often neglects to do so. The United States is a capitalist driven country. However, its quest for economic prosperity has come at the expense of those unable to reach the standard income. As much as Ronald Reagan have proclaimed the U.S. as the poster-boy of democracy and economic prosperity, the reality today is that many people are still deprived from the “American dream.”
Globalization has many negative effects in our world. The first problem with globalization is that international trade is exacerbating income inequalities between industrialized and nonindustrialized nations. Secondly, Global commerce is dominating the corps that want to maximize profits without a regard for the development of the country. Lastly, the countries involved with globalization lower their environmental standards in order to attract foreign business investments. In order to reform globalization, the government should change the ‘rules’ because they are unequal.
While those who argue in favor of assimilation possibly argue from a position of National preservation, those who argue against it potentially argue from the perspective of immigrant preservation. However, in his essay “Assimilation & the persistence of culture”, James Bennett suggests that anti-assimilation sentiments can also originate from a place of Nationalism in that, “By global standards, the culture and social systems of the English-speaking nations are some of the most individualistic. Interactions with other cultures therefore inherently involve a challenge to those features of our culture and a challenge by our culture to the less individualistic, less free features of theirs” (Bennett). Further anti-assimilation arguments claim