#6
Published by Korean Cherry Blossem under on 3:25 PM
What should we do when confronted with other cultures?This is a issue that everyone faces and that I connect to as a TCK. The answer to this question is fairly simple, one should respect the other culture and take advantage of the opportunity to learn about/from the culture and at the same time keep their own culture. Where does one draw the line between keeping and staying true to ones culture and respecting another's culture? In order to answer this question the word "respect" needs to be defined. Respect has several definitions, but when dealing with culture, a definition from Dictionary.com captures the spirit of respect that I believe should be used in relation to the question. It states that respect is "to show regard or consideration for". There is another definition that many referenced unto in their other posts which states "to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with". Through this post, I hope to explain my reasoning for the first definition.
In a world quickly globalizing, the second definition of respect is neither practical nor beneficial. It is inevitable that cultures will be meshed and intruded upon. The growth in "international culture" or the coalesce of cultures that have made a refuge for those who do not align themselves with a culture. The globalization movement has mostly been met with acceptance 
and enthusiasm in the past decades, but the irony lies within the fact that the same people who cry for globalization often protest against the infringement of cultures when in essence that is the primary goal of globalization. Although it may not claim that goal, it is the product. Some may disagree with my view, however, I would question the reason for its fallacy. This appears to be a very arrogant statement, but I am not accrediting it to myself, but rather to others whom have educated me regarding globalization and mere common sense. Take South Korea, for example, it is a very modern monocultural society, yet all the clothes are of Western style and originally Western technology has now manifested itself in a somewhat Korean version(cell phones, computers, cars, etc). This is due to several factors, one of which is, undeniably, globalization. South Korea needed to change in order to compete with the international community and the world, however, was their culture "respected"? According to the definition that many used in other blogposts, no, but according to the definition put forth in this post, yes. Yes, there may have been times where some were not respectful when dealing with the culture, but there are still many instances where there have been people who have respected the cultures. The reason why I strongly object to the definition of respect put forth by some others is that it does not allow for innovation and the changing times. In order for changes to occur, there must be some interference, some intrusion. The US primarily interfered with South Korea and through the "interference" South Korea gained much of the technology needed to progress to its current state. It is still South Korea, people still eat kim-chee and celebrate traditional holidays such as chu-sok. According to the definition of respect used within this post, the culture still stands and will be allowed to evolve with time.
and enthusiasm in the past decades, but the irony lies within the fact that the same people who cry for globalization often protest against the infringement of cultures when in essence that is the primary goal of globalization. Although it may not claim that goal, it is the product. Some may disagree with my view, however, I would question the reason for its fallacy. This appears to be a very arrogant statement, but I am not accrediting it to myself, but rather to others whom have educated me regarding globalization and mere common sense. Take South Korea, for example, it is a very modern monocultural society, yet all the clothes are of Western style and originally Western technology has now manifested itself in a somewhat Korean version(cell phones, computers, cars, etc). This is due to several factors, one of which is, undeniably, globalization. South Korea needed to change in order to compete with the international community and the world, however, was their culture "respected"? According to the definition that many used in other blogposts, no, but according to the definition put forth in this post, yes. Yes, there may have been times where some were not respectful when dealing with the culture, but there are still many instances where there have been people who have respected the cultures. The reason why I strongly object to the definition of respect put forth by some others is that it does not allow for innovation and the changing times. In order for changes to occur, there must be some interference, some intrusion. The US primarily interfered with South Korea and through the "interference" South Korea gained much of the technology needed to progress to its current state. It is still South Korea, people still eat kim-chee and celebrate traditional holidays such as chu-sok. According to the definition of respect used within this post, the culture still stands and will be allowed to evolve with time. 
1 comments:
You do an excellent job of stating your point. Your eloquence and thought make your posts superior. Your idea of respect and the definition of respect, clearly shows maturity and deep galvanising of issues on your part. Mrs.Mc.
Post a Comment