One of the main problems Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses in his essay “The Case for Contamination” is the perception of cosmopolitanism and globalization. Before analyzing the essay more deeply, I’ve decided to look up the definition of cosmopolitanism in the dictionary. According to Encyclopedia Britannica website, “it’s a school of thought in which the essence of international society is defined in terms of social bonds that link people, communities, and societies.” In other words, the followers of such concept tend to think of the world without borders and the citizens of each country as of the citizens of the world. The process that contributes to our world becoming a truly cosmopolitan place is known as globalization. Globalization explains why the lives of the people residing on different continents, as well as the cities, products, hobbies, and interests in any part of the globe are becoming more and more alike as the time passes by. However, there are many people who think that the ideas of preservation and purity should be the basis of existence in every culture. Kwane Appiah doesn’t seem to agree with them and proves his viewpoint with several arguments. I am of the same opinion on this issue as Appiah mainly due to the main arguments he provides. The three arguments I’m …show more content…
What if people want these changes? Why should some people from the West decide whether or not the culture should be changeless or something has to become different? I think that Appiah describes the idea of cosmopolitanism really clear, when he says, “cosmopolitans don't insist that everyone become cosmopolitan.” This means that everybody should be able to make their choices regarding everything in their lives, including culture, religion, and traditions. It’s up to each country, nation, a tribe, or an individual to choose if they want to change certain aspects in their lifestyle or