Intercultural Views With Appiah And Kimmel Cultural Studies Essay

Inter hea soish Views With Appiah And Kimmel Cultural Studies Essay give you ever agreed with two pieces that were the same scarcely so diametric? These are the type of feelings one may comport after construe the Piece Moral Disagreement by Kwame Anthony Appiah and the piece Gender Class, and terrorism by Michael S Kimmel. Appiahs article is very open minded and grounded. Appiah (2006) focuses on moral theory within tillage. Appiah argues that formative denotation of culture is last preceded by the intellectual interchange. Kimmels piece focuses on gender and culture. He looks at the sm some(prenominal) inside information in gender and terrorism that are similar. I believe that Both Kimmel and Appiah give valid points on intercultural ethnic chthonicstanding, cultural diversity and historical taboos to back up arguments on culture merely Appiahs doctrine is more useful on the aspect of attending culture than Kimmels.Both Kimmel and Appiah focus their piece on intercultura l arguments. Kimmel talks ab aside herds grass McVeigh, a racist white supremacist and the Taliban policy that he believes both have intercultural taboos. He said Their anger often fixes on others-women, members of minority groups, immigrants, aerial men and lesbian (p. 451). Kimmel believes theses terrorist want to re-masculinize men and feminize women. Appiah focuses on the universal view of diametrical cultures and societies. He talks about taboos within our cultures and our gender. Appiah is very realistic on his philosophy that cultures may never agree but we need to understand them.Appiah expects disagreements within intercultural communication for example, he says, and the intimately profound level of disagreement occurs when one party to a discussion invokes a innovation that the other simply doesnt have (p.380). Kimmel is bear witnessing to pinpoint evince, and he gives an example of intercultural tactics that could explain the motivation of terrorist acts. For exa mple, Kimmel links Timothy Mcviegh and the terrorists of family 11 in the same class. He says, Virtually all were under twenty-five, educated, lower middle class or middle class, downwardly supple (p. 451). Kimmel gives his reader intercultural resources and information to help pin point what to look for in a terrorist through culture. Appiah has a more open mind with culture. He uses the concepts thick and thin thick means detailed and thin represents universal. Appiah would most likely root on to Kimmel that we will never realize or understand all of the diametric taboos within culture.Kimmel and Appiah have a realistic judgment of cultural diversity. Appiah uses emphasis on cross-cultural conversation as a mean of promoting mutual understanding. Appiah uses a realistic example to apply the concept of rudeness, for example, you have to think of the act youre criticizing as a breach of upright manners or as lacking the appropriate degree of take for the felling of others. I s ay, thank you ironically, when you accidentally step on my foot, implying that you did it deliberately. Thats rude. Thanking a person, without irony, for something that hes make for you isnt (p. 380). Kimmel argues that cultural diversity that opposes globalization and the spread of western values back tooth lead to violence. He quotes, the resulting anger is naturally directed first against their rulers, and thusly against those whom they see as keeping those ruler in power for inconsiderate reasons (p. 452). Both authors could agree that we have a lot of differences within our human raceity.Appiah shows historic examples of taboos within his Ghanaian background, while Kimmel gives the reader valid sources of taboos within culture. For instance, Appiah shares the distinct family kinship in the Akan society in Ghana. He says, Consider the abusua, this is a group of people related by common ancestry (p.381). Appiah then explains that your membership in the abusua depends only o n who your mother is, your father is irrelevant. This is a great example of the many cultural differences that would be weird or un-moral to western culture however, I believe that Appiah would want his reader to try to understand at that place is no right or wrong way. Kimmel gives examples of the shun that is brought in by anti-globalization politics. He quotes Peter Mardsden, has observed that the Taliban is a dreadful attempt to keep out that other world, and protect Afghan women from influences that could reveal the society from within (p.452). Both Appiah and Kimmel show great examples of cultural differences. overall both authors have strong arguments, however I believe that Appiah philosophy is more useful for one to understand culture. Kimmel and Appiah both point out a lot of differences within cultures, but Kimmel focuses on small details within cultures to pinpoint or understand terrorist acts with globalization. Appiah shows the reader examples of the differences be tween cosmopolitans and Universalist. He says cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their dictionary of values to begin a conversation. But they dont suppose, like some Universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary (p. 387). Appiah then backs up his argument by showing an example of a journalist interview. He says a journalist interviews a foreign dictator, someone who is neckn for his abuses of human rights. (Journalist) She speaks differentially, frequently calling him your Excellency (p. 387). He then sums his point up by saying is this politeness or is it a craven stepping down of the journalist obligation to press for the trust? Can it be both? If it is politeness, is it appropriate, in these circumstances, to be polite? Appiah successfully uses strong examples to back up his argument stating that politeness, morals and taboos differ for us all while Kimmel uses a universal approach that Appiah would categorize as thin.Appiah has a stronger piece with stronger evidence that makes his piece more understandable for the reader, while Kimmel has some evidence that is weak. A Kimmel quote, (Mohammed Atta) was he gay? Was he a repressed homosexual, too disgraced of his sexuality to come out? Such innuendoes are based on no more than a few circumstantial tidbits about his life. He was slim, sweet-faced, neat, meticulous, a snazzy dresser (p.452). Such allegations are irrelevant because at that place is no strong evidence to prove any homosexuality. He besides brings an example of Adolf Hitler he quotes He argues that any of Hitlers policies-such as the killing of longtime(prenominal) colleague and avowed homosexual Ernst Rohm, or even the systematic persecution and achievement of gay men in concentration camps-were, in fact prompted by a desire to conceal his own homosexuality (p.453). Again there is no concrete evidence to prove any homosexuality with Hitler. Hitler was a sick disturbed te rrorist whom kill thousands that were not gay so how could we know any difference of his killings.Overall both authors brought different arguments from a different prospective on culture. Being that Appiah is a philosopher, he brings knowledge, values, and wisdom, within innate problems in his argument. Kimmel, a sociologist, he argued with the study of human behavior. I would recommend both pieces to any reader who would like to look at different theories, but I would highly recommend Appiahs piece because it is reasonable and take up on human intercultural civilization.