One might think that diversity is a good thing, but not after one witnessed a chaotic massacre caused by diversity. After reading The Cosmopolitan Canopy by Elijah Anderson, a cosmopolitan canopy is said to facilitate interactions between various people with different backgrounds. A place like this would exist if only the inhabitants of the space are not intensely exchanging ideas and are not holding on to one’s root.
Notably, as illustrated in the history of the park, the park has not been inhabited by one group and the main aspect that is common in the park is based on sharing the resources and the land in general. Today, various groups visit the space, and their individual characteristics do not hamper their way of interaction with the other groups that visit the park. Based on the primary attributes of any cosmopolitan canopy, the aspect of interaction is always a core feature of a cosmopolitan canopy (Anderson 25). Due to the inexistence of natural conversation barriers, overhearing conversations which are used as the basis of conversations after people have left the space is a common feature (Anderson 21). Based on the assertion captured above, the same state is also existent in the park since people assume their individual spots on a random basis, and no criterion is used to accord a particular group space. This aspect establishes the park as a cosmopolitan canopy.
On the other hand, some challenges towards cosmopolitan canopy are captured in the picture. Notably, for groups that do not have any interest in parks, their contribution towards the aspect of the cosmopolitan canopy is not considered hence limiting the scope of the entire concept. A place can be seen as a cosmopolitan canopy because the inhabitants are not intensely interacting with each other and not defending one’s root. The image illustrates the aspects of interactions and thus depicts that for groupings that consider privacy, the park may tend to limit their consideration of the park and its features in general. In the image, residents seem to group in circles, where they are only comfortable having conversations with their friends whom they already knew. Some also appear to sit alone with his or her dog, avoiding new conversations that might allow confrontation due to different views. The aspect of cosmopolitan canopy focuses on diversity, and the existence of the park may tend to limit the issue of diversity. Irrespective of the aspect diversity, other factors may come into existence to limit the park’s representation of cosmopolitan canopy.
In conclusion, our population is working and improving to create the ideal function of a cosmopolitan canopy. But, the efforts of creating a cosmopolitan canopy might face some challenge when people refuse to tolerate and understand different views. The citizen of the world should prepare themselves by accepting others. When each group is stubborn and not opening their mind to diversity, the diversity would set our citizen apart through wars and conflicts. So, as long as barriers exist within the social spectrum, a cosmopolitan canopy is an ideal that is far from being achieved in our world.
“Dolores Park History”. Dolores Park Works, 2016, http://www.doloresparkworks.org/dolores-park-renovation/park-history/.
Smith, Heather. “Dolores Park: A Historical Landmark?”. Missionlocal, 2016, http://missionlocal.org/2011/09/wait-dolores-park-is-historical/.
Anderson, Elijah. “The Cosmopolitan Canopy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 595.1 (2004): 14–31. Print.