Be sure to respond to at least three of your classmates' posts and explain how you agree/disagree with them. Each response should be at least 100 words and should demonstrate knowledge of the article as well as class readings and PowerPoints.
Student 1
In "The Case For Contamination," Kwame Anthony Appiah demonstrates how religions are modified over time through a variety of examples (including different forms of fundamentalism) and shows how religion provides a basis for demonstrating how cultures evolve rather than stay "pure." Fundamentalist interpretations of many religions represent an attempt to create one single interpretation of a religion -- an interpretation that will be universally applicable regardless of the cultural context in which that religion is practiced. Because these interpretations reject diversity and other ways of interpreting religious practices, they may result in social conflict. However, Appiah also presents an argument that religion -- like every other aspect of culture -- has always evolved as a result of being exposed to new ideas from outside. Therefore, attempting to preserve any particular culture (including religious beliefs) as static is a futile effort.
I am generally supportive of Appiah's views regarding the role of religion in society and the manner in which people should be able to develop their own views about what constitutes "correct" religious practice. I do, however, view religion as both personal and an element of an individual's sense of self-identity. As such, individuals may experience discomfort or fear when faced with change in their religious practice. While Appiah focused primarily on global views, I believe that the social/emotional aspects of religion are equally relevant.
Student 2
In "The Case for Contamination" by Kwame Anthony Appiah, he begins by detailing a religious ceremony in Ghana. There is a palace with an eloquent throne, a garden with exotic birds like peacocks, the kotokohene "Porcupine Chief", and a choir singing a welcoming song for the King of Asante. Appiah paints us this picture of the religious ceremony that feels ancient and old, it is steeped in tradition and culture. He then breaks the news that just before the king arrived people had cell phones out, the men there work for insurance agencies, and the king has a meeting with the World Bank coming up. Our preconceived notions of this African culture that we assumed remained ancient from the description of their ceremony is actually caught up with modern times. They retain their ceremonious traditions and religious anchor while adapting to the modern way of life. Appiah considers this leakage of modern life into the old tradition "contamination". He welcomes this form of contamination and flips the negative connotation others ascribe it to be a positive thing. In his essay he talks about how others fear modern western values creeping into the rich culture of other people. Some people worry that western culture is erasing these other cultures and creating a more homogenous world. Their concern is that these modern western values will erase the beautiful traditions held by others and slowly erode the cultural diversity in our world. This may be a fair concern, but Appiah argues that individual's rights are greater than cultures rights. If an individual person wants to move on from a traditional role in his culture they should be free to do so. He argues that the notion that the west is whitewashing all other cultures in a forcible way is too weak of an argument and it assumes other cultures to lack agency. Appiah argues for a cosmopolitan approach which highlights pluralism and fallibilism. He argues for pluralism that there is not one correct way to live and that different people find meaning in different ways. He argues for fallibilism that he does not have all the answers and he could be wrong about things. Carrying these two attitudes allows him to stay humble and respect all others. It allows him enough flexibility to adapt to new ideas, while also finding respect for his own beliefs. His approach to religion is much more malleable than most conservative or traditional religious thinkers. I like this line of thinking in a social and cultural context more than a religious context personally. I think his ending quote "If you're right, I'll do what you do. If you're wrong, I'll set you straight." is a balanced way to live. It offers humility and flexibility to properly adapt to new things while still maintaining enough backbone to stand for something. This resonates with me on social, psychological, and cultural levels for sure. The main issue I have in the religious context is the pluralistic perspective. I have mutual respect for different people who find meaning in different places, but I do not believe in a subjective truth. I do believe in absolute truth which directly opposes pluralism. I can only ascribe to pluralism in a respect for others type of way, not in a belief type of way. I don't believe there are multiple simultaneous truths. I find the juxtaposition of old tradition and modern living in religion an interesting concept to try and untangle. I myself am a Christian, and I can see this theme playing out even in the Bible itself. Paul has countless arguments in his letters with different churches about old traditions like circumcision or particular foods to eat. The Jews have age old traditions that they hold fast to, but Jesus comes in the New Testament to fulfill the law and set a new era. Paul explains to these churches that what is important is that people believe in Christ and live a life that radiates Christ's message of love, forgiveness, sacrifice, humility, and kindness. These things are more important than arguing over traditions of old. The idea is not to abolish all of the old tradition completely or to hold fast to it unflinchingly, the idea is to love others as God has loved us. If you can strive to love and live in this way, you can bring religion into any age, culture, or environment. This function of religion transcends the ceremonial traditions and can reach into modernity and the future. Student 3
Roles of Religion in Appiah’s Analysis
- Catalyst for Hybridity: Religion spreads by blending with local customs, creating new, "contaminated" cultural forms.
- Expression of Agency: Choosing a faith—even a global one like Christianity—is an exercise of individual autonomy by people in the developing world.
- Global Connector: It provides a shared moral vocabulary that links "cosmopolitan" individuals across different borders.
- Rejection of Authenticity: Appiah challenges the idea that a religion is only "authentic" if it remains unchanged by outside influence.
- Tool for Conversation: It serves as a framework for the "imaginative engagement" required for global coexistence.
Approach Comparison
Similarity: My approach aligns with Appiah’s view that religious "purity" is a myth. I agree that the most vibrant traditions are those that adapt to the modern world rather than retreating into isolation.
Difference: My approach differs regarding power dynamics. While Appiah sees "choice," I am more concerned with how dominant global religions can systematically overshadow and erase unique, indigenous spiritualities through economic and social pressure.