The issue of globalization is a never ending back and forth argument whose debate never seems to fade away easily. Aside from the economic factors, the social and cultural elements have also come into sharp focus especially in the recent times. Some may argue that globalization has destroyed the cultural fabric of most societies while another camp may argue on the advantage that this has brought to the whole world. Kwame Anthony Appiah falls in the second category. A self-proclaimed advocate of cosmopolitanism, Appiah argues in his essay that globalization is indeed very helpful and contrary to what opposition believes, it has not eroded culture at all. He cites a great example in the introduction phase of his article “The Case of Cosmopolitanism” whereby he and the rest of the village are engaged in a traditional meeting with the king, while Western influence is still present. In fact, the king is a proud Catholic and an alumnus of Oxford University (Appiah)His case on religion is somewhat deep and incisive and he argues on religion from two perspectives. Using a few examples in his essay, Appiah treats religion from two fronts, arguing both on its favor towards and against globalization – and in particular cosmopolitanism.
The first, and obviously favorable way, is the treatment of religion as any other cultural artifice. This means that when it comes into contact with other factors, through globalization, it is bound to change even for a little bit. According to Appiah, religion will often undergo through some changes which may lead to some people agreeing on the matter or merely shrugging their heads in dismay. As such, he refers to it the same way he does with the rest of the cultural changes. For example, globalization has brought people from different religions together. As such, it is not uncommon to see some shifting from one to the other, or even creating new religions altogether. This is not negative in any way since most of the cultural aspects of the traditional religion are still maintained. He even goes on to argue that Christianity was not the main religion before colonization but after that interaction with the missionaries, most people shifted to it (Appiah). This does not mean that they left their own traditions and some are still practiced. Using this perception, religion is just another culture and therefore merely affects change.
Appiah is of the opinion that all this is acceptable since it doesn’t change the ingrained culture of the society. People will not suddenly stop behaving as they were earlier just because they learnt of a new practice from another religion. In fact, it seems that Appiah’s whole point is on the importance of diversity. He argues for diversity all the time and while he supports culture change, he does not favor an extent where it will lead to homogeneity of cultures and cites it as unacceptable. Culture change that leads to a homogenous society is dangerous because it doesn’t materialize to growth. Therefore, if the whole world was to practice only one religion, then this would lead to dormancy which is highly unacceptable.
The second perspective that Appiah focuses on is that held by neo-fundamentalists. This is a dangerous role. Adherents to this idea argue on the formation of a global utopia which will definitely pose a huge problem to everyone. Citing examples from Karl Marx and Pol Pot who sought the so called universal humanity, Appiah is able to show clearly how dangerous it would be. Past cases where there has been a search for a global utopia on the basis of religion have indeed gone awry. This is primarily because of religious intolerance. “The period of religious conflict in the British Isles, from the first Bishops' War of 1639 to the end of the English Civil War in 1651, which pitted Protestant armies against the forces of a Catholic king, resulted in the deaths of perhaps 10 percent of the population.” (Appiah). This is not forgetting the Thirty Years’ War whereby many people most their lives. Therefore, as much as religion can be used advantageously during culture change, it also poses a danger which can lead to massive bloodshed and acrimony between societies – something that history teaches only so well.
My take/Approach
There is no denying the authenticity and strength of some of the points that Appiah drives across, but I feel that there are some traits of bias from his part. For one, it is imperative to remember that he is a proponent of cosmopolitanism and thus most of his arguments might be biased. The way he portrays the role of religion is definitely driven to how he would like everyone to be a citizen of the globe. He leans more towards Christian fundamentalism and is somehow defensive on the matter. Personally, I believe that the simultaneous participation of the state and religion may actually be the main cause of all the religious acrimony amongst societies. If the state was to actually let things be and leave religion to thrive on its own, it is unlikely that any two sides would bear arms and walk straight into a bloody war.
It is thus clear to see why cosmopolitanism is a mirage that is only too good to believe but yet too far from actualization. It is due to this reason that there have been so many cultural changes but not as many on the religion front. Religious intolerance is actually the biggest of all problems and this is why the dream may never be realized. Adherents like Appiah may be genuine in their call for tolerance but this might be a case in futility. As it remains, the world will continue to be divided along institutional religion boundaries and any attempt to do away with this might not really work out well – history has already proven that.
Conclusively, Appiah does a good job in describing what all other cosmopolitanism advocates want – non-restriction of cultural freedom. It doesn’t do any harm if religion is used positively to bring people together as Appiah and his group would like. In fact, it is healthy to each and every society since it doesn’t imply that it (the society) has failed in maintaining its culture. However, we may still be a long way from such a level. As long as the state is continually seeking involvement with religion, then the two will always be inseparable. In the past, deep-seated religious intolerance has led to some of the bloodiest wars that mankind has seen. Cosmopolitanism may be the best route for the whole world to take, but it might just take some time before such ethical universality is achieved.
References
Appiah, K. Anthony. The Case for Contamination. 2006. The New York Times. Internet source. www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01cosmopolitan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
