Diversity and Freedom

In “The Case for Contamination”, Kwame Appiah, talks about the ways in which cultural transformation (or more appropriately, the ways in which assimilation to the Western culture) is influenced and occurs in the world. As a Cosmopolitan, he comes from the perspective in which “all humans belong to a single community, based on a shared morality…and a strong culture of tolerance” (Wikipedia). This is a globalized view of the world, and while that seems to be the intent, he points out some of the contradictions and conflicts that exist. He uses UNESCO to show an example of their struggle in trying to promote and protect cultural diversity, out of concerns over the “ risks of imbalances between rich and poor countries” from the “processes of globalization” (3). The threat of Westernization is likened to “an invasive weed” that could challenge and suppress true cultural pluralism. He points to the contradiction by focusing on Women’s Rights. He demonstrates to us that in seeking “equal dignity and respect for all,” when we are focused on preserving the culture, rather than changing it, we do not “enhance the status and role of women in society” (13).

I believe he is saying to us that we must have flexibility, rather than rigidity, in maintaining both cultural diversity and liberty: that there should be a balance between them, and that “if we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions, because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives” then we also “cannot enforce diversity by trapping people within differences they long to escape” (5). He encourages us toward seeing “individuals — not nations, tribes or ‘peoples’ — as the proper object of moral concern” (3).

Here (again), we are confronted with the idea of our humanity, and the importance of seeing others as fellow human beings, which speaks to the concept and problem of “otherness” in society. If true globalization is to occur, it lies in the deeper values of humanity and seeing each other as individuals, versus the superficial ways in which we intersect globally now: through cell phones, social media, trendy sneakers, or Coca-Cola! Appiah’s ending line says it best: “A tenable global ethics has to temper a respect for difference, with a respect for the freedom of actual human beings to make their own choices” (18).

The theme that Cosmopolitanism invokes in me, with regard to my work at Parent Services Project (PSP) in the Canal, is the concept of the collective responsibility that we have toward one another within the larger San Rafael community. There is the sense that no matter what our cultural differences are, we still come together as one, in terms of our humanity, and more specifically the universal goals we share in life. As well, we must consider both the privilege and marginalization of all people, and the structures that contribute to these conditions in our society. All people want to feel (and know) that everyone belongs in a community (whether local or global) — equally. The parents and families in the community I work with have uprooted themselves and their children, leaving behind their own native culture by coming to the United States. The process is one of growing, learning, and adapting to new ways. They do this by embracing the struggle that is inherent in trying to belong to a new and different community of people, within a different cultural context than what they have known. They do so willingly, in hopes of a better life with better opportunities. Most importantly, they are preparing their children for the next steps of their lives, especially in terms of educational opportunities, which they hope (and know in their hearts) will make a difference. Cultural sensitivity, and a sense of empathy toward the vulnerabilities they feel and experience, along with a willingness to make human connections and see them as the individuals that they are, is what is most needed in my work with PSP.