Presentation on Global Culture
The group made an excellent presentation. I was pleased with the way they were able to enagage the class and elicted so many questions. I thought thatthey could have done more in terms of conveying their message through use of pictures and graphics, but they did have a systematic approach to the subject. Several of you could not ask questions or make comments in class. This is your opportunity to make your point either on the presentation itself or on the topic of global culture. Also I am curious, how many of you agree with the presenters observation that we are perhaps 100 years away from realizing global citizenship?
25 Comments:
I had a question for the group which due to lack of time was not able to ask? They said that we are in the process of "DEVELOPIN" a globalized world? Does the group believe that if globalized in 100 years from now, THis whole distinction of FIRST WORLD/ THIRD WORLD will diminish, and will the future "global citizens" have a common politics, economy, etc or not?
MUSTAFA ZIA, SEPTEMBER 28/2005
I agree that we are still quite far from having a global culture. Society has merely begun to open up to different cultures and religions. I think that cultures around the world are still very distinct and the idea of one global culture seems like a far reach to me. In my personal opinion, I embrace the fact that our world is so diverse and would be disappointed if our world was composed of only one culture.
In the end, what one culture would this "global culture" be? Maybe the idea of global culture is so popular and desirable to Americans because they believe that their culture may someday be THE global culture.
I felt the group was saying that in order for there to be a global society, citizens of the world would all have to embrace the same culture and the same values. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that in order for an individual to be a global citizen, he or she has to share the culture and values and beliefs, especially considering the diversity within the United States alone.
With that being said, if what the group said holds true, and a global culture will require some kind of uniformity, I think we're more than one hundred years away from establishing this global culture. People are just so diverse within their individual countries/states/cities/towns alone. I don't think it is possible in the foreseeable future, for the whole world to adopt one value set, one set of beliefs, one culture.
100 years? I would be surprised if it occurred even then. Globalization is a very, very, very slow process. Yes, it has been speeded up slightly by advances in information technology, but I see no indications of a true global society (as, an example oft repeated during the presentation, the homogenous/heterogenous relation of the U.S.A. and the states that make it up) forming any time this century. Of course, it is hard to say because no one can see into the future, but maybe if I can see at least a photo-op of President Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hugging or at least shaking hands (heck, I'd settle for a sign that North Korea isn't going to blow everyone around it to smithereens at any given moment) I will not believe we are heading towards a global society in 100 years. It will take much longer than that.
If you look at it another way, it's taken us thousands of years to reach this point. Is it crazy to assume that we won't be a global society in another 1000 years as opposed to 100?
mitch masucci 9/28
A global culture in the sense that everyone shares the same values, religions, etc. seems nearly impossible to me. I more see a global culture as one that embraces and accepts the diversity among global citizens. In the US, while we do share a common culture, we clearly do not all have the same values. However we are generally able to accept that. The different values is what allows us to be constantly changing and bettering our own society. On the international level, it seems that this concept is much more conceivable to be reached in the next 100 years than a global culture in which there is very little diversity and everyone believes the same things.
Katie Ruiz, September 28, 2005
I agree with Katie. The idea raised by an article in our Global Reader, the idea of a global ethic as opposed to a global culture, seems infinately more likely to happen in the next century or two. However, a single homogenous global culture is not likely to ever occur.
masucci 9/28
I agree with Katie and Mitch--there are traces of a global ethic already. For example, virtually every society of the world preaches a set of principles similar to that of the "Golden Rule." Additionally, it also appears that in many cases there is a little need to enforce these principles--people are conditioned to follow them from the childhood.
Juris Pupcenoks, 9/28
I will have to agree with Katie and Mitch as well, for it seems quite difficult to imagine a global culture even further down the line than 100 years. I believe there is too much diversity and too many opposing ideas for there to be a global culture, however I believe this benefits us because the differences are what makes us learn. I have spent a lot of time travelling, and the reason I enjoy it as much as I do is completely because of the differences in other cultures from my own. (This is agreeing with Katie's statement regarding a global culture with the same values and beliefs.) I agree however with Mitch's point regarding the possibility of a global ethic.
Maria Sordoni 9-28-05
I thought that the arguement raised in class that people from NYC and Alabama have different cultures, yet are still members of the same society and culture because they are members of the US raises a very good point. One addition I wanted to make was the topic of citizenship in general. Citizenship entails certain rights, responsibilities, and protections from and by the State. But there is still more to it than that, citizenship lies in loyalty more than any of the cultural ties, embracing similar values as the group stated, formalities, or territorial boundaries they lie within. Loyalty, above all else, makes you a citizen. You may be loyal to your country, but until you are loyal to the World, recognizing its struggles as a whole economically, politically, or environmentally, no one will be willing to call themself a 'Global Citizen.' I see a 'Global Society' forming eventually (more than 100 years I think) like that of the US today, not one homogenous nation but the old "melting pot" or "salad bowl" analogy. Think, here, of the TV show "Futurama"-they have a president of the world and a global society...and that's in the year 3000!
-Jacque DiMattia September 28, 2005
I also found some holes in the global culture explanation. I believe that global culture does not depend on mutating the intricate and diverse cultures, which make each country so individualized. But a global should include some common ideals, for example the protection of human rights. Yet, this also creates problems because there are many varying definitions of what can be included in a human's innate rights. This is why I believe that a common global census is a goal of the distant future.
But, as a question for other bloggers, is a global culture a goal we should strive for or just global awareness and/or a global consensus?
I am curious to know how war factors into the quest for global citizenship. It seems to me that every war in the world puts us one step back in the advance to one big global society. In the fact that war is innevitable, the idea of global citizenship seems impossible because nation states will stand strong and independent, and will not mix with the country that they are fighting; and in the time it takes them to reach a treaty with one another, two completely different countries with bad relations could begin another war, and so on. I think that war is holding back the efforts for global citizenship, and thus making it impossible.
This post has been removed by the author.
Overall, I felt that the group did an excellent job with their presentation on "Global Culture", especially since they had to go first! I agreed with a lot of what they had to say...however as many people have already stated, I think that it is going to be a lot longer than 100 years before we realize global citizenship...it is too long of a process, globalization that is, to be completed in that little of time. There are too many major issues in the world right now for there to be a global citizenship, as well as too many conflicting views, cultures, religions, etc. How can there be a global citizenship when we have to worry about terrorists and war all the time? It will be at least hundreds and hundreds of years before there is a global citizenship, if there ever is in fact one.
Kandis Kovalsky
September 28, 2005
This post has been removed by the author.
Haha ok so I think my group saying that in 100 years global culture might be more evident than it is today was a little bit of an understatement. Globalization is speeding up the world and bringing everyone closer together, but it is going to take a VERY long time before hints of a global culture are recognizable. I agree with Katie Ruiz when she says that it is important for everyone to accept and embrace the diversity of other cultures. If this is ever accomplished, I think that society will label this as a huge step towards a global culture. Right now it seems like an impossible occurence, but if at one point in the distant future cultures are able to accept rather than attack other cultures, maybe they will absorb some of the same values and allegiances. It won't be a loss of their diversity, but they will be accepting other dimenstions as well.
Marissa Brescia 9.28.05
Although the concept was thoroughly covered by the audience for this presentation, I will reiterate and elaborate on a couple of points. First, when defining the term global citizen, it is necessary to begin with the correct definition. The group that presented missed the mark with this concept because they believed that common citizenship required a common culture. It was pointed out that people in southern Arizona and northern Alaska and Brooklyn, New York probably have very little in common except their American citizenship. Using the nation-state as a commonality amongst diversified people is a microcosm for a potential global citizen. While there will never be a political entity that unites all the peoples of the world, the basic fact that people share entirely different values, religion, and life experiences yet have a common citizenship in nations today is an important concept. When defining global citizenship it would probably be more suitable to focus on fundamental agreements and guidelines for peaceful coexistence, similar to the reading about a global ethic, but more realistic. While the actual process of globalization has led to many previously distinct cultural aspects showing in unique places around the globe, it is also strengthening cultures. Globalization technology and communications have led to a massive space-time compression. Continuous contact is possible, leading to an increasing ability to stay in touch with one's cultural heritage and family, despite large geographic differences. The only limiting factor is actually possessing the technology with which this is possible. Consequently, just as a citizen of a nation-state, a true global citizen should be defined by responsibilities, which in order to be truly global should include, but not limited to the promotion of: a broad consensus on tolerance, respect for human rights and the environment, a just world economic system.
posted on 9/28
I agree with the previous statements that global culture should not strive to be a homogenous culture and instead focus on accepting our differences and celebrating diversity. But, I think this concept of global culture is almost as impossible to reach as a culture that shares the same values, customs and beliefs. We may be taking some steps though globalization – spreading information, sharing ideas, bringing people from distant parts of the world closer together. But as long as we are human, there will be conflict and diversity, whether over religion, ethnicity, political ideology, etc, will ultimately be the cause of that conflict. I think it’s certainly important to strive for acceptance and to educate people on other cultures. But I think the idea that one day, whether it be 100 years or 1000 years from now, we will all live in harmony is a bit too “we are the world” and is sort of an unrealistic view to take. I would love to see it happen, but I think culture clash will always be inevitable.
Caitlin Ginley 9.28.05
In listening to their presentation, I did have one question. They mentioned that in order to have a global society that all countries would need to be industrialized. Just, could someone expand on that (from the group or not)? I imagine that would actually cause countries to become more separated unless each country had a specific article that they produced that no other country could produce.
Adria Andersen 9/28/05
The group presentation really enlightened me to what our own group needs to do when its our turn. I liked how they dressed up for the occasion and acted very professional. The only question I would have liked to ask was are there any common grounds that religions share currently, such as civil society groups or other NGO organizations, where people can come together and address this problem facing our future. Other than this, kudos from Ces.
Who said a global culture had to be homogenous? Never in a million years. But it could be heterogenous, something in the vein of 'unity in diversity.' I think we will soon be living with that ideal.
Perhaps its hard to believe that we would ever define ourselves as citizens of the globe when there is nothing to compare to. I can define myself as American because I am NOT French, NOT Aussie, NOT Russian. However, it would be rediculous to define myself a 'global citizen' because I'm quite obviously not Martian or Plutonian (I made that up.) To me its a very modern, binary aproach to looking at the world and its relativity.
-Liz Lycett 10/3/05
I disagree that we are 100 years from having a global citizenship. I think the idea of someone or groups of people having global citizenship is a tad bit uncanny. As of now, our goal shouldn't be spreading or creating global culture, and creating global citizens etc. Our goal for now should be to maintain a global ethic. That is respect for other citizens, there values, and there country. I would strain global ethic, because we are not the same. Our world is to diverse to predict that in the next 100 years we will all be global citizens. To be global citizens, we have to have global norms, global values, global traditions etc. and WE DONT.
My question in regards to global culture if there was one, will there be more than one global culture? There are so many diverse people, how could there only be one global culture?
Yea, we said 100 years because it just seemed like a good number. I have changed my mind. I think the next generation COULD be the first to have global citizens. I disagree with Micth's assertion that globalization is a "very slow process". I think it WAS a very slow process.
My understanding is that globalization started when Europeans went out in search of better stuff (spices and silk) in the late 15th century. It took the Spanish about a hundred years to establish the first global trade network (Spanish- American Silver to China, Chinese spices and silk to Spain, silk and spices to Europe). Now global trade networks are created daily. Some say the world has gotten "flatter" in the last twenty years than it did in the previous five-hundred. And what fueled Spanish globalization in the 16th century, fuels globalization now; money.
Globalization is very profitable for those who can participate in it. When trade barriers come down, profits go up.
Money may fuel globalization, but the internet has changed the world in the last decade, and it may change the rules for globalization. Most governements do at least give lip service to ideas like democracy and freedom of speech. Could democratization help hemoginize the world enough to creat a global citizenry? How's this for an analogy; democracy could be the salad dressing that unites the global tossed salad.
Jon Osborn
10/4/05
I believe that we as humans are much further from a "Global Culture." There is just so many differences between so many of the countries in the world. Many of them are small and can be overcome, but as long as people still feel the need to bomb buildings, or hijack airplanes, I just don't believe that the world can be defined as one culture. Also, it depends on how harsh the scrutiny is. As Professor Kahn said, if an alien were to view the world from space, it would appear to him that we are one culture because of our basic commonalities; our bodily makeup, our acceptance of a written language, and even our acceptance of our diffrences. If I were to ask someone on the street if they consider the world to be a unified global culture in today's society I am almost sure they would say no and we are not close. There are just too many differences to overcome.
Post a Comment
<< Home