Globalization

That is a really good question and also a very hard one to answer. I think that it is possible because of the internet and social media because that is mainly how the idea of culture and cultural values spread nowadays. But because of the dominating discourse on how the western democratic society is the most 'desirable', it becomes hard for other cultures to intervene and promote their cultural identities when it is largely considered as 'undesirable.' We can bring this idea to the example of how China, predominantly viewed by the west as authoritarian, corrupt, and lacking in the protection of human rights may find a harder time to advocate for their cultural ideologies. However, it is also important to not forget the importance of education. I believe that when a society becomes more educated, they will go out and seek the truth for themselves and at the same time consider other perspectives on an argument rather than blindly take in information. But then this also brings us to the argument of whether education can ever truly be objective in that it may forever remain as a political tool used to produce intellectuals that continue to support the domination and spread of the liberal democratic society.

I believe that at the root, western culture will always play a dominant role. But in regards to globalization, with the increase in mass media hopefully people can see that there are more ways to see the world and to understand it. We can see the negatives of the western culture in comparison to the others or we can see the benefits. I don't believe that any culture is fully bad, but how it is portrayed plays a large role. Now that we have graduated from just the use of newspapers, it's easier for other users around the world to be able to post their opinions and pieces online. I don't think we will ever be able to minimize the western power but we can garner a stronger voice in the smaller cultures.

I think what's interesting is how we chose to define "Western Culture". It is a bit monolithic, and I feel it can have a number of different meanings depending on the context. For examples, some discussions might be focused primarily on the United States' very prominent role in the world; others may talk about how many European countries are becoming more socially, economically, and environmentally progressive while the U.S. lags behind or is at least more conservative (particularly environmentally and in terms of societal values). In any case, I think it will be interesting to say where the conversation around America will head, especially in terms of cultural influence, with the election of Donald Trump, and the frankly scary rise in boldness of bigotry and white nationalism (that has already been gaining prominence in many European states).

Your point (Jessica) about education makes me think of Dewey and his emphasis on a democratic opportunity for education. If we apply Dewey's prescription to mankind of: education as a "conjoint communicated experience" where "each has to refer his own actions to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his own, is equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of class, race, and national territory" (125). When we think about textbooks that we use and the presence of dominant liberal democratic ideologies imbedded in the content, it's difficult to find objectivity. However, I believe that its not necessarily the objectivity that we are striving for but an equal (ie. democratic) playing field across the discourse that features and embraces different ideologies. And it is this variety that becomes available to professors, students, and academics alike. After all, culture and history is highly context dependent and subjective. Thus, it might be beyond mankind's capability to ever achieve full objectivity. How do you think we can practically go about to make the subjective ideologies in our world more respected and understood?