Strangechord

We discussed an interesting point in Sociology class today. We’re on the subject of globalization, and specifically this week, the homogeneity it promotes. Dr. Wolf proposed that most human beings bear in mind the goal of world peace and unity. Those on the pro-globalization side strive to peace and unity through homogenization and assimilation. In other words, diversity = conflict and the more same we can make the people of the earth, the more harmony we can all enjoy. Those in the opposite camp, usually anti- globalization-as-we-know-it, see world peace and unity as something to be achieved through acceptance and of people’s differences. In other words, we of varying cultures coexisting with honor and respect for each other.

Trying on this distinction brings up some fascinating questions… Firstly, with the assimilation method, there is an underlying assumption of a superior culture; the one the rest of the world needs to conform to. This is obviously dangerous territory that completely flies in the face of moral and cultural relativism. In my opinion, this method is ethnocentric and possibly racist in essence. Secondly, it seems to me that the assimilation method implies the attitude of “the rest of you should change your ways to be like me, so then we can all live in peace and unity with each other”. However, the acceptance method seems to say, “I see that I can transform my attitude toward you who is different and by respecting your difference, we can live in peace and unity”. The first looks to others to change and conform, the other to transform oneself. Can you guess which I deem the noblest?

What is growing plainer and plainer is that assimilation, homogeneity, and conformity do not work to bring about peace anyway. Rather, the idea enacts a constant cycle of passing on the responsibility to others through subtle coercion and/or brute force and never shifting one’s own being instead.

More on this another time…