Community: A Refuge from Global Culture
Do you agree with Lysack's assertion that .. "Anxiety in contemporary society has not diminished. In fact, the pressures of global culture are increasing - arguably driving (and explaining) our search for or return to community..... the idea of community, envisioned in its traditional sense, functions to alleviate the anxiety and stress associated with the penetration of global culture in post-modern times.
28 Comments:
I agree with this assertion because I feel it is directly related to resurgence of religion around the world. Much of modern culture emphasizes the material, placing value on worldy possessions and disregarding the significance of living a simple, modest life. Individual advancement is placed above everything else, leaving little or no importance of living for others. Globalization is spreading around the world the rich and comfortable lifestyles that are possible through wealth while some people live on top of mountains of garbage because they are so poor. A major criticism of globalization is the race to the bottom to find the lowest wages possible in any part of the world. The process that many hope will level out the inequalitites of the world by giving everyone a chance, is often resulting in extremely low wages for poor workers to further line the pockets of the already fabulously wealthy - further concentrating the wealth of the world in the hands of fewer and fewer. There is such an amazing disconnect between the rich and the poor and amongst the values of these societies. Family/tribal connections are still extremely siginificant is many parts of the non-western world. Some of the basic needs of humans is to feel love, affection and belongingness. The wolrd may appear to be getting smaller with globalization, but people are feeling more isolated as a new intertwined global culture comes into fruition, resulting in disallusionment and need for the support of others. The further global culture penetrates different parts of the world, the more it will pressure current socieities to conform. Anxiety is the result of the uncertainty that globalization is producing.
Yes, I do agree with Lysack's assertion from her article "Community: A Refuge From Global Culture". There are so many aspects of global culture and globalization that leave so many people (besides the very rich) very skeptical and unsure about the future. Globalization is something new to the world, whereas community is not, community has always been there, it is an old tradition, which leads many people to feel very comfortable with it because it is something that they know and are sure of, whereas globalization is not. In her article, Lysack refers to community as " touchstone of hope", which is exactly what it is, it provides people with comfort and reassurance. Many people do not like what the world has and is becoming today, they miss the old more simple way of life, and "imagining a simpler 'community' time allows people a greater sense of control over their lives, and in time, a deeper optimism". People have to rely on something to satisfy their needs and to make them happy, and for many it is not what is occuring in the world right now. The world is moving along at such a fast pace that it is difficult for many to even begin to keep up with it, and by relying on their community, people have the oppurtunity to discuss their concerns with others. "Whenever societies become fearful about the future and lose confidence in their way of life, people will seek emotional solace and security in the safe certainty of the past".
Globalization has caused many people to heavily rely on their communities again in order to relieve their current stress and anxiety over the present state of the world.
Kandis Kovalsky
September 21, 2005
While I agree with several of the author's points, I have to disagree with the euphoric descriptions used to portray the traditional community. Surely, in the past, people lived much simpler and some people might have felt more connected and taken care of by their community. However, I am sure a substantial amount of people never felt this way about their community. Clearly, things could not stay this way forever. The author describes the new contemporary community existing solely "for the accomplishment of personal objectives and the satisfaction of individual desires". While this is true, I feel this is not completely representative of ALL of today's contemporary communites.
I agree with the author on the point made that "the pressures of global culture are increasing - arguably driving (and explaining) our search for or return to community". The "backlash" against globalization is currently driving people to hold on to their traditional values, languages, and most of all, cultural identities.
Marissa Brescia 9.21.05
While I agree with the author's assertion, his (I don't know the author's sex, so for simplification I will refer to author as a male) idyllic assumptions about "community" are simply that: idyllic.
The author demonizes individualism and asserts that retreating within our cultural borders is the only way to escape globalism.
The author voices the fears that with globalism comes a dissipation of individual culture in favor of a global culture.
I'm not exactly sure where this "global culture" idea comes from. I see evidence of spreading cultures, but I also see very, very strong evidence of cultural heritage being retained even in the United States, the epitome of the Western World. Look around major metropolitan areas. Little Italy, Chinatown, etc. All towns have these distinct sectors. Even my hometown of Altoona, Pa (pop around 46,000) has a "Little Italy," "Little Germany," and "Little Poland." The idea that indivdual cultures will magically disappear in the near future or even the distant future is, quite frankly, ridiculous. African and Latino culture is alive and well in America and cultural diversity coexists with global cohesion all over the planet.
The author's definition of postmodernism is also demonizing of today's culture. While I see increased individualism, I also see increased aid to countries, increased knowledge of other culture's affairs, and an outpouring of emotion during times of crisis. I'm not saying that it's all roses all the time, but we are living in an age of unprecedented global acceptance and understanding. Does that apply to all situiations? No, of course not. There are exceptions to every rule. However, one would be hardpressed to convince me that information technology and increased globalization in today's time has been, overall, bad rather than good. I simply don't understand the author's argument that forcing ourselves back into cultural niches and literally giving up individualism is healthy or helpful. Honestly, it makes no sense.
Postmodern society is completely and utterly self-centered? We are all focused on our own needs at the expense of everyone else? Please, have a care. While I agree that there is anxiety in the face of globalization and the idea of a "Global Community," I also believe that it is an unfounded fear and that trying to find a "refuge" from it will only be detrimental in the long run.
Mitch Masucci 9/21
I agree with the statement that this process of globalization will move forward, but it will not bring together a global society. Too many of these groups have a narrow view of the world and only see what they want to accomplish. There are people who see the world as a whole and realize that there are many causes worth fighting for, and situations that need to be resolved, yet they are vastly outnumbered by these tunnel-vision groups. Also, globalization has helped divide the growing global community. Telecommunications is the major factor in globalization because it is what allows us to cross borders and time zones from our seats to share ideas with people we may have never met. But it also allowed the 9-11 terrorists to e-mail eachother and plan the massive attack on New York and Washington D.C.. This triggered war, the last thing to bring together a global community.
We all live in the same world, and that world is becoming smaller and smaller due to globalization, that is a fact. But another fact is that people all view this world we live in differently. Some views may be similar but other are also very different. This may cause many cultural communities, but never a global one.
Sean Guidera - posted 9-21
I think the author is half right. The anxiety in contemporary society has not diminished and the pressures of glogabl culture are increasing. However, I do not think we are reverting back to the ways of traditional communities. Rather, I believe we are folding under the pressure and giving in to the foward advances of globalization.
In essence, this notion sounds ideal...that traditional communities will alleviate the stress of modernity. In traditional communities people are connected, geographically and emotionally. They have a sense of kinship in which people care about others in the community as opposed to just themselves and their own personal goals as in contemporary communities. However, despite this way out from the all-consuming global culture, people are not taking it. Instead they are disconnecting from traditional communities, or what is left of them and are blending and adapting the new global culture.
Christine Madurski 9/21
I agree with Lysack's idea that anxiety in contemporary society has not diminished because although "community" has taken on new meaning, and evolved as a concept over the years, it is still very influential in our modern lives. While taking into account the argument that humans have become selfish in their engagement and commitment to communities; one might see such interactions in a positive light by arguing that any group, no matter how unreliable or free they may appear, is in fact a good thing because it is brining people together. Bauman states “the reason community is quested today is because it represents a way out of the indeterminate present. Community is a counterpoint to the normlessness and selfishness engendered by post-modern times”. I think this assertion is true because although many people don’t necessarily value the traditional community anymore; they do find comfort in the more informal communities. With the help of these groups they can form relationships with those who are like themselves and share similar interests. As Lysack said, such bonds help “alleviate anxiety and stress” in everyday life and I think with the increasing amount of “communities” forming it is helping with the spread of global culture.
Michael Donahue 9/21
I agree with Marissa Brescia's post that the author's view of traditional society is idealistic. Like many views of the past, traditional communities have become idealized with people forgetting what was really happening. In the past, people had to rely on each other or else they died. It was not loyalty and placing the community above self. It was the realization that the community was the only thing that could help you. If there was only one farmer in a town, you had to work with him or else you wouldn’t get food. In the current world of globalization, people have more choices. I don’t have to worry about being nice to my local grocer because there are five other grocery store chains in my town willing to sell me food. The best evidence of there being no community loyalty in the past is to look at the leadership. In most cases, leaders, rulers, or dynasties were toppled, not by outside forces but from inside the community. The American founding fathers were part of the English community. Caesars in Rome were overthrown by other Romans. The Shang dynasty in China was overthrown by the Zhou, another Chinese family. No matter how far back in history you go, people have only supported a community for as long as it benefited them. The only difference is that now people have more choices readily available to them and as globalization continues the choices will only become greater.
posted 9/22
I totally agree with the author on this. On a personal level, I know exactly what he is talking about. If you asked what my heritage was, I could rattle off 6 different countries that my family technically originates from. However, I don't feel like I can really identify with any of my heritage. I have always been jealous of my friends who would go to Chinese School or Greek Dance or Puerto Rican Day Parades. They constantly celebrated their culture and traditions even though they were distinctly American as well. I always felt like there was no place for me to belong and that I had no heritage. My mom always feels hurt when I say this because she can strongly identify as an Italian American having grown up in an Italian community in Brooklyn NY. It is not my intention to make her feel sad by not embracing my heritage more, but I grew up in the suburbs and I never felt the sense of community that she had. Recently my brother attended a National Italian American Leadership convention in DC for seniors in high school and I made fun of him a bit for going. He is a blonde, blue-eyed, fair skinned kid who speaks no Italian and knows no real Italian heritage. A quarter of his blood is Italian but to me that hardly qualifies. It was a great experience for him to go and try to reconnect to a culture forgotten through generations but at the same time it seemed ridiculous. I deeply wish that I was more culturally immersed; however, unless someone specifically asks my lineage, I simply say only that I am American because that's the only thing that I can identify with. This makes me feel like a part of me is missing sometimes but it's just a price to pay for globalization. In the long run, I don't think that it's a bad thing because I'm sure that new communities will form to take the place of the ones gone by (or at least I hope!)
woops...i always do that...i posted 9/22. sorry!
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
I agree, to an extent, to the main ideas of Lysack’s argument. Lysack’s initial argument of the community becoming less “traditional” and more selfish is obvious from by personal experience. The other arguments that the function of the community is to facilitating the individual to make an increasingly global society seem smaller and manageable is also something I agree with plus its function for emotional support. But the writing does not bring into the argument the function of the family. Can’t family members give this emotional support, and a sense of individualism that relieves the anxiety from a globalize world. I also don’t agree that communities are trying to reinforce the “traditional” image more than they have in the past. Personally, I don’t see a resurgence of community oriented focus or lack of. Finally, I disagree on how the community helps create a sense of stability from an unknown future. I understand the writer’s argument that the community can offer financial or emotional support, but church organizations, government programs (e.i. welfare, social services), community centers, etc. can offer these services at the present. So the community’s function in satisfying fear of an unknown future is not needed and is not an issue due to other organizations.
I agree to an extent with the authors claim that the anxiety caused by globalization in contemporary society has caused a drive towards a "traditional community". However my own take on a traditional community is much broader than that of the author. The idea that people can only feel totally secure is within their own cultural boundaries is absurd. The "traditional community" as held by the author will not survive in today’s global culture nor is it needed. People have learned to cope with increasing anxiety of globalization by utilizing aspects of globalization to their advantage. A willing person can now form “traditional community” like relationships with people hundreds miles away. For example with the aid of the internet one can find groups with similar interests all around the world.
above comment was posted on 9/26
The Post Modern Era
Frances Meres 9.26.05
I happen to agree completely with the author's belief that there has been an increase in the desire for community due to the increased influence of globalization. There seems to be a collective value placed on money and materialism throughout the world in recent times, which in my belief is a direct result of globalization. As it becomes more clear to people that these values are not satisfying, I believe there is a return to the desire for community. I do not think that this sense of community necessarily helps to alleviate the stress of the global culture however. The rising global culture is so pervasive that everyone is effected in some way or another, and I think that the sense of community is neither large enough nor strong enough to resist the pressures of globalization due to the rise in individualism. The community that has arisen is a community of individuals, and due to the lack of cohesion, I feel it is impossible for a community of individuals to resist such and intense and unified global culture.
- Kristen Monteodorisio
Kristin, I am curious as to your brother's response to your teasing and his own narration about his experience. If he felt that he belonged with this group that went to DC, if they welcomed him as one of their own, and as a result of the trip he now has a group of people with whom he can connect on a new level that makes him feel at home, then he has found home.
Consider the otherside of the coin; I sometimes feel very uncomfortable with things in America and American culture and now when I visit India I am very uncomfortable with many things. I am fortunate that I have three homes, the Muslim World, the US and India, but I am also uncomfortable in all these places.
The human need for a definition of the self is very complex, and it is continously evolving and hence difficult to grasp.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
I do agree with Lyscak’s claims about anxiety driving our return to superficial community. Coming from a city that is very diverse, we have seen a resurgence of ethnic community groups in the past few years. It appears many people in the Pittsburgh area wish to “get back to their roots” in some way or another. I think this is due in part to repecting “our kind” of people just based on heritage alone. For example, if someone was looking for a mechanic and hears about a guy who can do the work and shares the same ethnic heritage, most likely the man will want to use that mechanic because he thinks “he’s one of my people”. A community thus built on heritage continues to affirm Lyscak’s point. “We share a common thread, therefore we must have similar values, I am scared about where the future is taking us, but perhaps we can figure it out together”. By working together this confusion and anxiety turns into pride (like Professor’s comment on the Italian Club), which keeps the group together and hopefully pushes them into the future.
To answer Dr. Khan's question, my brother was ok with my teasing (When I asked him he said he was used to it :) .) He knew that I wasn't trying to hurtfully tease him and he would often make fun of himself too! At first he was kind of nervous to attend the event just because he wasn't sure what to expect but after it was over he was really happy that he had gone. I called him up to ask him specifically and he said that at first the other kids at the convention didn't believe he was Italian. (He looks so German that it's ridiculous!) They all laughed about that but after he explained his lineage they totally accepted him without any reservations or teasing. He made a ton of friends from all over the country who had gathered together to bond over their one similarity of Italian heritage. He still keeps in contact with some of them because they got so close over the week that they lived together. My brother said that he actually learned a lot about the culture because he got to go to the Italian embassy and speak with Italian dignitaries. He said that it was really cool and even though nothing in his normal everyday life has changed, he feels more Italian as a result. He also loved the program because it gave him a chance to be exposed to politics and foreign relations. It really sparked an interest for him. He now would really like to explore his other heritages.
I feel like a lot of people are stuck in identity limbo because of assimilation. Being born in America, even though my brother and i have a hard time relating to our roots, we can at least identify with American culture. When you were saying about living here and in India and not feeling totally comfortable in either I thought of the book The Joy Luck Club. Through out the book the author lamented about being distinctly American when she went to China but feeling very Chinese while living in America. She always wrestled with her identity because she felt like she didn't belong in either realm. No one is ever alone in these feelings though. I think that maybe that might be why there is a rise in NGOs instead of nation states. People feel like they belong to many nation states as a result of immigration and better forms of communication and trade and so they can no longer just list their ethnicity or nationality as what identifies them. I think it'll be interesting to see what will happen and how people will define themselves in the future. I think it is overall leading to a more global citizenship.
--Kristin Uhlemeyer 9/28/2005
This article pin-pointed the purpose many current "communities". The author did a very good job of describing the current role communities play for the individual. I agree with her that people belong to communities based on fulfilling their needs, as opposed to the needs of others. It's not a purposely one-sided desire, but in the post modern world we are driven as individuals to fulfill our individual needs first. I've heard a lot of people say recently that the individualistic drive to put one's own needs before those of others is "innate" - as if this is an inborn quality. After learning about post-modernism and reading this article, I'd argue that the drive toward self fulfillment is a learned behavior from the current social trends. I'm curious what other people think ...
"Men and women are free to participate or not as they please, to come and go, withdraw entirely, or simply fade away into the peripheral distances." I believe that this is the general cause of the dwindling amount of American citizens choosing not to take part in our democratic system. Because participation is not mandatory, there is essentially a diffusion of responsibilty through out constituents, thus leaving only the voice of the elite voter to be heard. 60.7 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2004 presidential election. However, more than 78 million did not vote. This means President Bush won re-election by receiving votes from less than 31% of all eligible voters in the United States. Freedom is an ultimate necessity for democracy to function, but nothing will ever be accomplished if eligible citizens remain passive members of the American community. Democracy can not spread without active participants.
Lysack brings up an interseting point, evident in the 26 responses; I agree as well. It seems that the older I get the mre labels I assume. A republican, student, American, Italian, an employee, etc. Even when one claims to not associate with a particular group or organization, then that is the group or organization they belong to.
(I hit the wrong button and prematurely posted my blog). Anyway, Lysacks claim that "anxiety has not diminshed...explaining our search for a return to community." Is dead on. Take for example the student who goes off to college to live away from the traditional community, till after a period of time to find him/herself back home. Community no matter what organization, structure brings a sense comfort: "your safe here."
This fraternitae, and feeling that there are others behind you, whom one call fall back on remains a major part of one's life. Proof is in religions and traditional families, where no matter where one is or what happens, they're always a Muslim, Catholic, Jew, etc. first. I believe that as the world becomes smaller and global culture increases, people turn to familiarity and consolation more and more. The End.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home