Matheus Louly Caixe

REL3308

Daniel Alvarez

04/22/2020

Globalization Question
 The relationship about globalization, cultural and religious difference is well

expressed in the article by Kwame Appiah’s, called “The case for Contamination”. It is

possible to note that Appiah makes an analysis where he believes that religion has two roles

within globalization. This is transmitted in a way where religion is placed with two sides, one

side in favor and one side against, through globalization. In fact, this is true, as these two

sides can be represented as something natural, where positive and negative impacts on society

can occur. It is positively possible to say that religion can have an impact in helping families

saving cultures from a change. However, it can also have negative impacts such as totally

changing a culture. To understand a little more, Appiah's analysis is culturally related, that is,

according to globalization, religious culture must change together like any other culture.

Some cultures have ways of dressing, of speaking that are included within a religion, and as

this cultural change, religious culture is also changed.

Appiah believes that change in culture as well as religion can be an accepted

alternative. However, the change of culture to one is totally unacceptable. In the article,

Appiah relates economic change, relationships, and he also relates that change to religion. "

To understand a little more, Appiah's analysis is culturally related, that is, according to

globalization, religious culture must change together like any other culture. Some cultures

have ways of dressing, of speaking that are included within a religion, and as this cultural

change, religious culture is also changed.” (Appiah,2006). This proves that culture does

change over time, and also makes certain things more flexible within religion, but some

things cannot be changed because it affects the principles of religion. According to the

article; “There are plenty of things that the heroes of radical Islam are happy to tolerate. They

don't care if you eat kebabs or meatballs or kung pao chicken, as long as the meat is halal;

your hijab can be silk or linen or viscose. At the same time, there are plenty of things that
cosmopolitans will not tolerate.” (Appiah, 2006). However, Appiah cites certain

controversies about the impact of religion on the culture of certain people. For example,

Appiah cites wars caused by differences in religion, even though they are people of the same

nationality. French War of Religions took place over four decades, which caused many

murders due to religion that could not be included within the same society. Not only this one,

but Appiah cites other conflicts in Europe due to religious differences between Protestants

and Catholics, such as princes from Austria and Sweden, and also the war called Bishops

‘War of 1639, in England. “All these conflicts involved issues beyond sectarian doctrine, of

course. Still, many Enlightenment liberals drew the conclusion that enforcing one vision of

universal truth could only lead the world back to the blood baths.” (Appiah, 2006). This type

of controversy can be called neo-fundamenlist or counter-cosmopolitans, who believe that

there is only one way to live, and that includes culture of religion. Another example that

Appiah cites on this difference is from Osama Bin Laden, where there is a radicalism in the

culture of which; you either follow in our footsteps, or you will be killed. With that, what we

know today of “Al-Qaeda” was created, which is a group founded by Osama Bin Laden,

where they believe that Christian and Jewish religions are conspiring to destroy Islam, and

the way to “resolve” this divergence is with the killing of people by Allah, where again the

idea that; you either follow in our footsteps or you will be killed. A great reason also for this

type of action taken by Osama, is also economically. Why did the 2001 attack in the United

States occur? It is possible to see that because the United States is a great power and defends

capitalism a lot, this shows that in a way the United States wants to dominate the world

economically, and thus also applying its culture and society. As stated, this affects extremely

radical cultures and religions, like Osama's.

Although, religion in today's world should be a little more cosmopolitan, as this

would bring the fact that people can choose how they want to live, and not be forced to live
something where they don't identify themselves. Appiah gives an example in his article on

homosexual people, where certain religions have long held back from this attitude and also

led to deaths in the past years, mainly in England during the first and second world wars.

“Consider another example: In much of Europe and North America, in places where a

generation ago homosexuals were social outcasts and homosexual acts were illegal, lesbian

and gay couples are increasingly being recognized by their families, by society and by the

law.” (Appiah, 2006). This proves that even though it was illegal and later condemned to

death, the homosexual population started to gain more respect for their choices within

society, even going against the principles of religion, and this can be considered

cosmopolitan, because it has a principle, but it makes room for acceptance. It is for this and

other reasons that the world today must live economically and religiously in the ways that

people believe they do them well. This does not mean acceptance within religions, but it

creates an ethics and that people must respect; “A tenable global ethics has to temper a

respect for difference with a respect for the freedom of current human beings to make their

own choices. That's why cosmopolitans don't insist that everyone become cosmopolitan.”

(Appiah, 2006).

To conclude, it is understood that Appiah's analysis is based on two important

religious roles in the world, the counter cosmopolitan and the cosmopolitan. Both have major

impacts on the world, both positively and negatively. However, the extreme for both sides

can be negative, but in some ways, it must be flexible in certain decisions. Religion greatly

affects the way in which certain people go about their lives, as they serve as a guide,

however, there are people who decide to live their lives differently from what religion

preaches, and if they were treated in the old way, they would be murders all the time , but as

the world evolves, religions must respect each other's decisions. That is why the
cosmopolitan idea is “better” for today's world, respecting each person and choice, protecting

their customs and beliefs without interfering in unquestionable principles.

 References

Appiah, K. A. (2006, January 1). The Case for Contamination. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/the-case-for-contamination.html