The term globalization has been interpreted and interrogates in various different ways. On political and economical perspective it opens spaces for trade and communication, whereas on the basis of culture it limits the concerns related to identity and recognition. In this paper the aspects of globalization has been discussed on the basis of the declarations made by Kwame Appiah's in his essay 'Moral Disagreement' (2006) and Franklin Foer's in 'How soccer Explains the world' (2004). The approach is to interpret the term on the thoughts as declared by these scholars in their write ups. The levels of understanding are distributed in terms of global, cultural and personalized point of views offered by them.
While understanding the conceptual; ideologies connected to globalization, Appiah adopted his thoughts on the basis of his experiences collected in Ghana. All kinds of religious and moral disagreements on global perspective, has been interpreted by Appiah as limited and lacks expansion. For him the concept of globalised reaches a community only when there is a motive of business and colonialism among the capitalist groups. On the other hand, Foer interprets the aspects of globalization under the persuasion of common interests and sports. His approach is towards the expansion of global perspective through events and sport activities. He considers the game of soccer as a kind of eye opener to all those people who are more engaged in political and economic developmental structure. Exploring globalization by Appiah is the cause to understand the worm’s eye view of political concerns, whereas Foer offered the bird’s eye view to look into the expansion of globalization through the grounds of soccer. In a way Appiah considers the distribution of power under globalization, but Foer discovers the unification of thoughts and spirits through globalization.
However, something that was very common in Appiah and Foer is related to their interpretation of American socio-political concerns. Both the authors dwell into the societal consideration of interpreting globalization as the base for development. There were contradictions in their attitude and managing the global aspects of globalizations, but more or less both considers the positive side of globalization as an effective toll in developing economical and political formulations (Greene, 2010).
Appiah was more attached to the culture that he collected in Ghana, whereas Foer was clear about modern perceptions in accepting something that is closer to universalism. When it comes to moral and religious aspects of globalization, Appiah is very rigid in declaring that the contexts of disagreement between cultures are actually overstated by the analysts. For him it is simple to notice culture from the root than to look into from any other perspective. As for instance, Appiah offers the cultural practice of Akan society; where a woman's eldest brother is assessed through the role of a father to her children. He is more or less responsible for taking the liabilities of his sisters’ children like their father. For other cultural entity this may be a weird practice but for Akan, it is all about being under the influence of getting respect like the father’s in the society. He also offers the context of eating red pepper Wednesdays, as a taboo in Akan society. However, for other global cultures this is something that has got no reason behind. In a way, for Appiah the concept of globalization under cultural beliefs gets limited and the variations are very much visible in context to the related discoursed ideologies. This has been wel established as-
‘everyone is entitled, where possible, to have their basic needs met, to exercise certain human capacities, and to be protected from certain harms…’ (p. 163).
Foer on the other hand takes a surprising and enthralling tour into the world of soccer. His approach is very universal. He offers a ride of cultural similarities from Brazil to Bosnia and then again from Italy to Iran. As the lovers of soccer are excited about the game, they mean no boundaries. They enjoy it under one roof and follow single regulation of ‘making goal’. The fault lines of culture and society, like anti-Semitism, poverty or radical Islamic thoughts; are very easily removed from the ground of soccer and there remains the unified trend of enjoying the game.
Personalized Point of Views
On personlaised grounds Appiah seemed to be more conservative in approach, whereas Foer was more or less liberal in understand the effects of globalization through sports like soccer. Appiah had a demand for human civilization to get recognized under cumulative and shared inheriting evaluations. He is more about the discriminations that are developed by diversified cultural values within globalization. His approach was totally encouraged for the purpose of gaining cultural values in the form of inspirational heritage and cosmopolitan commitments as-
‘cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge’ (p. xv).
Foer was little far from these discriminations and looked into the brighter side of understanding globalization. He is not only positive, but also very balanced in making declarations related to universalized formulations of one spirit under one roof. As he exclaims-
"to defend the virtues of old-fashioned nationalism", and as
"a way to blunt the return of tribalism" (p.6)
It is important to note here that the point of views of Appiah and Foer are very strong in understanding globalization as the root to modernity. It is closer to the declarations that have been made by Mohanty (2003). For Mohanty the activities related to colonization are actually a kind of corporate globalization. It was declared as business development strategy on universal ground with Eurocentric persuasions. On clear note capitalism was valued to achieve global support in modern world. For Appiah and Foer, it is under the reflection of modernity that the concepts of globalization has attained varied formulations and try to serve the population under economical expansions.