- It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are generated and preserved.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.________________________________________
Noting that it is primarily in cities that a nation’s cultural traditions are generated and preserved, the speaker claims that the best way to understand the true essence of a society is to examine its large cities. True, by observing the everyday lives of large metropolitan areas, we can conveniently draw a big picture about the society. In many ways, however, I believe most modern cities across the world have little to do with truly essential histories of their home countries; we cannot taste the historical uniqueness of a society merely by traveling several cities which have been transformed for modern homogenizing efficiency and by influences of globalization. …….
Stating that a nation’s cultural traditions are generated and preserved mainly in cities, the speaker asserts that several major cities of a country are the most reliable locus to understand the important characteristics of the society. In some sense, it is true that large metropolitan areas can effectively reveal several important features of a society. From my perspective, however, most modern cities have little to do with the idiosyncratic features of a culture or a society.
Of course, it is hard to deny that we can find several important traits of a society by observing its main cities. When it comes to the material impulses and desires of the society, cities seem to be the perfect place to know the society. The simple fact that cities are the places to which venturous young people are attracted says that there is no place better than cities to understand the passions of people who dream of their successes, successes that are defined in the society.
Aside from people’s present passions, large urban areas are also the places where we can predict the direction toward which the society is oriented. In fact, large cities in almost all countries tend to be the space in which the most innovative ideals and futuristic visions are designed and experimented on a daily basis. Thus, in predicting the future trajectory of the societies’ cultural development, we cannot snub the cities.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that cities are, in all aspects, the best place where we can figure out the uniqueness of a culture. Considering the ever-increasing trends of globalization, we need to accede to the claim that cities actually mislead our eyes in understanding a society. By being a door to import diverse foreign cultures, large cities in most countries can no longer serve as museums exhibiting the pure essences of their culture’s traditional forms. Instead of preserving unique histories of their cultures, most modern cities over the world have enthusiastically adopted common, global standards; in fact, as long as we do not travel to small towns outside of metropolitan areas, we may not be embarrassed by unfamiliar cultural differences whether we are in Beijing or in Paris. --------------------------------------
The speaker asserts that major cities can preserve and generate a nation’s core cultural traditions, thus any government should support its major cities. In many respects, it is true that cultural values of a society can be reflected on its major cities. However, I think that large cities are usually unique rather than representative place for our cultural understanding, thus the speaker’s assertion is a bit misleading.
First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of government. Admittedly, certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large dries and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture--by which I chiefly mean the fine arts--has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls----including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primary breeding ground and sanctuaries for a nation's cultural traditions. Today a nation's distinct cultural traditions--its folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and ceremonies—urge on instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for "high art"; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world's preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do any- more with one nation's distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots; accordingly, by assisting large cities a government is actually helping to create a global culture as well to subsidize the traditions of other nations' cultures.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation's cultural traditions; nor is government assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.