There is simply a kind of paradox that begs to search logic in their content, specified apparent contradictions. According to the reflection of philosopher Ryszard Legutko, the planet of tradition has unleashed artistic diversity far greater than the planet of expected artistic freedom.
The second normalized deconstruction, bored with provocation, tamed with apparent full courage expressed in the aesthetic devastation of what is conventional and sacral, accustomed to one-way protest, opposed the black and white imagination of the planet by operating the most utmost shades of black. The analogy to the effects of globalisation is justified by the fact that, by spreading the slogans about the diversity of its brewers, they actually contributed to the unification of planet metropolises to a historically unprecedented extent.
We know from the past various forms of territorial and cultural expansion. Of course, this classical was imperialism, which, however, over time underwent transformations, expressed in attempts to build imperial forms, but without traditionally understood empire. The German concepts “Weltpolitik” or “Mitteleuropa” (it was meant to be a form of federation under German leadership), but besides “Grossraum” Carla Schmitt. The second described the German sphere of influence, which consists of formally independent states – in fact it meant that costs were passed on to them. Thoughts about economical expansion had a crucial influence Rudolf Kjellén (creator of the word ‘geopolitics’) or Karl Haushofer – they assumed the usage of seemingly neutral private companies.
What distinguishes globalisation from the known forms of territorial and cultural expansion of the past is the change of implementing entities – competitions for countries are no longer just another countries, but besides (or, above all, large global corporations), and key functions from the position of the planet order began to be performed by people as transparent as the windows of skyscrapers, which are their headquarters.
Under the coat of emotion
Underneath the surface frequently held in emotional speech and shallow discussions about various social phenomena are the dimensions abandoned in the debate not due to the fact that anyone considers them irrelevant, but due to the fact that they ignite students' heads alternatively than social emotions.
I read a conversation erstwhile with a cultural anthropologist who researched tribes surviving in the jungle. A fascinating cultural difference from the planet of civilization, he presented an argument to supporters of the thought of equality in diversity and diversity: after bringing members of the tribe to a large European city, they were most eager to have dinner at McDonald's. 1 could draw the conclusion from this: we are inspired by cultures different from ours and we get to know them, but erstwhile it comes to making a choice, we decide without hesitation what is western. This is simply a proposal that would surely appeal to globalisation.
Similar arguments, referring – which is worth noting – to the most actual events and data, but besides affecting emotions and resulting in filtering cognition through the tense strategy fall from the mouth of opponents of globalisation.
On the right, concerns are formulated about the fact that the “global village” leads to the absence of identity, the failure of what is local and, in view of the real deficiency of an alternate identity proposal, leaves its residents in the void. Traditionally, concerns about safety caused by mass migration are besides raised. On the left, however, there is an increase in social stratification due to globalisation, which is, in short, a situation where the rich are becoming richer and the mediocre are becoming poorer.
At the same time, crossing national borders and mixing cultures are linked to the left with the hope of breaking the homogeneity of conventional societies and their cultural enrichment. This is not only wishful thinking, but besides – in my opinion – referring to emotion: in this case, aversion to a traditionally understood nation as a collective, whose very existence generates conflicts and violence.
Krzysztof Wednesday, husband philosopher Magdalene Wednesdays He spoke to “Newsweek” a fewer years ago about the hard beginnings of his relation with an immigrant: “I knew my Chechen for 5 days erstwhile I thought I could let him in. I met his smile, his eyes. And yet I decided that I would sleep on the mezzanine due to the fact that it was easier to defend myself in advance, which was so naive, due to the fact that from Chechen who survived the war in the mountains, I would not defend myself even if I slept on the Eiffel Tower. I thought I trusted him, but just in case, I took the knife with me. I have a second-war monument, a knife from German parachutists, 1 to kill people. A fewer months later, I tell my Chechen: “Remember how you slept at my home the first night? I had a knife under my pillow at the time.” He smiled and said, “Me too.”
In this basic view, the problem becomes a breach of fear of the alien. This perspective, which is besides socially appealing – it seems, in most people there is simply a certain tension between the desire for stableness and sustainability and the discovery of the unknown – prompts further reflection on the reality and the inevitability of cultural differences. She besides identifies the knowing of accepting people "in her home" with knowing of differentness – and the second frequently leads not so much to, identified with "phobia", the conclusion that individual should be feared, but to the conclusion of cultural differences, so deep and so multifaceted that impossible to overcome.
On little emotional tracks, as usual, it redirects the broadening of the horizon – not only metaphorical, but besides geographical. This will only extract the discussion from the spelled maze of fear and fascination, fear and delight. Yes, the left is right to know and effort to understand. No, the left is incorrect to argue that the conclusion of learning and trying to realize is to build a multicultural society.
In a challenging environmental dogma about “poor people looking for their place on Earth” text entitled “Family with Children, educated Afghan, pregnant female – people like Holland in the movie are on the border with exceptions” Margaret Tomczak She wrote: “Activists, and so based solely on their relationship, are reluctant to talk about it. "Migrant", peculiarly "economic", functions in discourse as a form of right-wing insult. In order to balance it, the humanitarian communicative calls all “refugees” and the argument “there is no war in Egypt”, he replies, “here we have circumstantial individuals persecuted politically and here due to sexual orientation.” These could besides be “refugees”, we have examples, the discussion closed. And that these are exceptions to the regulation due to the fact that most people migrate from specified countries for economical reasons? Unfortunately, this is besides akin to right-wing propaganda, not to swallow for the mainstream audience, so we just skip it."
I call on this passage as a valuable example of the message of the individual with leftist convictions, full of concern for the destiny of migrants, and yet, due to cognition and observation, powerfully skeptical of their uncontrolled movement to European countries. Let us add that people from another cultures are described in the text superficially and with the aid of generalizations – an insight into the cultures from which they come would most likely greatly reduce the author's thesis. Importantly, this is not standard arguments presented in specified a context, namely the origin of "rape cultures" or the many times higher European standards of criminality of migrants – even at the level of reasoning and perception of the world, differences are enormous.
Man is not a glass tower
British philosopher Roger Scruton, arguing with the ideas of multiculturalism, he opposed the concepts of aggregation and aggregation, describing ways of integrating immigrants into society.
Aggregation involves creating respective parallel communities, whose cultures function on equal terms, their foundations are included in the curriculum in schools. The culture of the country to which immigrants have arrived is forced to retreat from the dominant role. The inhabitants of the country in which aggregation took place match the participants of the world, which, so far, has only been the object of observing cultural anthropologists exploring different areas of the Earth. specified a cultural integration program leads, of course, to cultural fragmentation and conflicts – after aggregation reality resembles the road occupied by drivers, each of whom learned different traffic regulations. Reality after aggregation is, like a building erected utilizing 10 different materials – seemingly interesting, in fact threatening to collapse.
The difference between an anthropologist of culture and a man functioning in the planet of coexistence of cultures with rather conflicting values is about the same as between the stadium reporter describing match bindings prepared by members of the cheer group and the individual who changes the club all fewer days to whom he cheers.
Culture is an effort to adapt people who have come to a fresh cultural circle. This does not mean an invasive targeting of visitors to something completely unbecoming to their customs, but alternatively to work on the creation of a genesis in the tradition of the host country of a set of principles which would be subject to the functioning of the full society - it should not, of course, be straight identified with the applicable laws.
I callback Scruton's breakdown to make a comparative background for changes caused by the globalisation process. As a consequence of the second – on the 1 hand – there was a kind of synthesis of both concepts, but besides – on the another hand – its effects propose describing the 3rd concept, completely different from the another two.
The marketplace will not work out everything – the marketplace will work out what pays for it. Sharing dinners at McDonald's or communicating with Facebook make a reduced to a fewer of the unlimited “global man” dimensions – neither 1 who has assimilated the culture of the country he has come to, nor 1 who is trying to impose his own culture. The life forms of a “global man” do not bridge the differences, hiding them behind the screen of certain forms and conventions. Unfortunately, a man is not a glass tower. Actually, it's good luck.
Jacek Tomczak
Think Poland, No. 37-38 (13-20.09.2026)
