I look around and see unfamiliar people. These people will be my classmates for the next two years. They are all very different and very similar. In terms of differences they come from different countries, have different accents, are younger or older, with or without work experience. They are also very similar. They are all friendly, open-minded, eager to learn from the teachers and from each other. They share core values, are polite and cautious. Many of them expect to build not only a network but also a friendship. They are all individuals mixing differences and similarities related to their cultural background. You get the immediate notion that this is how it should be in every classroom, in every community, everywhere. No one seems to struggle to overcome fear, mutual distrust, or self-limitations. Everyone smiles. I feel safe among my classmates. I felt so confident that I immediately had the wrong feeling that what we had seen in the video was totally obsolete. That such conflicts are no longer relevant to the intellectual environment. That some imagined that Charlie can't say go back to your country if you don't agree with our system. Or imagine that Katia can't blame everyone for being wrong or useless. And I was sure that if I met Marico and Ming today, they would both feel completely at ease or at least receive some very thoughtful assistants. I firmly believed that the global integration of recent decades has an impact on how people of different cultures perceive each other. Not everywhere, of course, but among educated people. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay However, no one in my class agreed with me that this video from the early 1980s had lost its relevance. So, it is a very wrong idea that there is something in our modern world that has become better and is no longer valid. Especially in terms of globalization and identity. Ted Cantle would probably support this view. In his article “Interculturalism as a new narrative for the era of globalization and super-diversity” (2013), he highlights that “although it is clear that most people are now exposed to diversity in all aspects of their lives daily - whether in our local communities, schools and workplaces, or indirectly through television, social networks and other media, there seems to be a kind of "diversity paradox". the more people have exposed themselves to difference, the more they appear to retreat into their own identity, embrace identity politics and support separatist ideologies (Cantle, 2011, 2013). appears more prone to ethnic and religious conflicts, with over 70% of conflicts having an ethnic or religious dimension" (Baldwin et al., 2007). The author highlights that "there are indications of an increasing number of divisions and more ardent separatist movements, where people no longer even feel capable of sharing the same land or the same government." According to his calculations, around 20 nations have been born in recent years and in Europe alone there are around twenty secessionist movements, of which Scotland and Catalonia are the most notable. The author concluded that, where we might have expected greater collaboration across borders and for the separate identities of regions and states to give way to common or globalized identities, the opposite appears to be true. This particular part of your article gave me a lot to think about and I conclude thatif anyone is deluded about our diversified world I can point out these terrifying data linked to xenophobia and intolerance. Go back to pre-World War II history and remember how different nationalities mixed within, for example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. What was happening is that the Czechs hated the Romanians, and the Romanians did not tolerate the Poles, and the Austrians hated them all together and how from this side of the Austrians came out those who considered themselves Germans, and others who considered themselves Austrians hated the Germans and so on. We know what happened in the end. We know a specific person who had grown up in such an environment and how he could easily ignite a flame of mutual hatred. Nationally based conflicts had to disappear in the past out of respect for the millions who died during the Second World War, but they exist and prevail over all other conflicts. It's very difficult to understand. : Ted Cantle, “Interculturalism as a new narrative for the age of globalization and super-diversity,” 2013. But back to the reading. The sequences of the globalization process suggested by Manuel Castells are interesting. It states that the involvement of nation-states in a globalized world is not possible without liberalization, deregulation and the elimination of borders that can only be created by the state itself. To some extent, all states have been major agents of liberalization and globalization; and in doing so, they have somehow distanced themselves from what was their historical basis of representation and political legitimation" (Manuel Castells, 2006). The author disagrees that multinational corporations are the "globalizers" and argues that "the globalizers were the nation-states, who liberalized and deregulated, while the technological framework existed to develop that globalization." And they did it because they wanted to be part of this global network because beyond this global network there is no development and growth, and there is no wealth. This could mean that by encouraging globalization, a nation-state would have to be prepared for not only economic, but also social and political consequences of global integration. Of course, no country wants to be marginal, unless we are talking about North Korea or Turkmenistan, but by opening its borders to international financial flows the country should expect an influx of diversity. identity, governments' responses have been ambivalent." They sought to strengthen their attitudes towards national identity through "teaching national history and promoting citizenship and national identity". But according to Costells this only reinforces the fear of “others” by maintaining the claim of the integrity of borders and national governance and attempting to deny the interdependence brought by globalization. It also reinforces the concept of multiculturalism, which has positioned identity as static and limited and is now deemed obsolete. What we see around is that for many people identity is "transient and in many cases acquired" (Costells). The growth of mixed race or intermarriage across national, religious and other boundaries means that “you can't put me in a box” (Fanshawe and Sriskandarajah, 2011) is a reality for many people. We have entered an era of super diversity where people no longer easily identify with a particular identity. Appealing to generally accepted categories such as "single mother", "black", "gay", "disabled" and so on no longer gives us answers to the questions of who they are, what they need, who they identify with, what services they need from the State. This approach isn't working well for a growing numberof people who stay beyond or exceed these standard classifications. However, society and the state continue to treat ethnic identities as if they were completely static and meaningful (Fanshawe and Sriskandarajah, 2010 p11). From Costells' article we also learned the point of view of the American political scientist Robert Putnam who argues that in the short term immigration and ethnic diversity "challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital" but in the long term "immigrant societies successful people create new forms of sociality". solidarity and mitigate the negative effects of diversity, build new and more all-encompassing identities. Do these successful immigrant societies exist? Examples provided only for “failed” countries. It is still unclear to me why Canadian multiculturalism is not considered a success. Or, if successful, why is multiculturalism so obsolete and needs to be replaced with interculturalism? Or, if the Canadian approach called “progressive multiculturalism” is recognized as a success, then why is interculturalism better and where is the concrete example of it? Which country deals best with diversity? Who will become an example for this conflict-filled world? Back to my lesson. Today we had our first cultural disagreement that I want to share because it might contribute to the lesson plan. A classmate of mine is preparing for her first meeting with her advisor. He suggested we meet at Costa Coffee, a popular coffee shop right across the school. Now I start mentioning my classmates without their names: Bangladeshi woman: Please don't laugh. So where will you meet your advisors? “Professor W” is my advisor and he said he would meet me in Costa, which is great, but I was wondering what the decorum is here. Do I pay? Do I offer to pay? I know it sounds very stupid, but in Asia things are very different. So ask in advance. Brazilian man: I don't know the protocol. Romanian man: I don't think he'll want you to pay. Pakistani man: Maybe offer to pay but don't insist. Romanian: Most likely and I'm just giving my opinion, you will pay the bills separately... but in my opinion, the professor will pay. Because he's a good guy. And you too are a student and he is a professor. It's easy to figure out who has more money. Brazilian man: It makes sense. Bangladeshi woman: Literally anything is fine with me, I just don't want to offend him in any way. in Asia offering to pay in front of a teacher would be bad manners. It is always the elderly who pay. Brazilian man: Let him make the move first. If he only pays for his, you pay for yours. If he pays for everything, even better Georgian: I'm sure he won't consider your offer as bad manners, but it will be more polite and kinder for you to offer to pay the bill. But he'll pay the bill anyway, Hungarian: I understand your conundrum perfectly, there's one thing that definitely won't happen, you won't pay for his coffee. It might happen that he tells you to put your wallet away when you take it to pay yourself (that's what always happens with me, both at university and in the European Parliament when I meet older/more important people) or he might leave you pay for yourself, but surely not for him. Bangladeshi woman: Great, that was helpful. I will offer to pay out of pocket, I will act on his reaction. Hungarian: Oh and yes, you know, this is a safe space, it's also fine to ask what the etiquette is. I'm pretty sure you know that there are cultural differences in the world, Russian woman: I arrived a little early and ordered take-away coffee, paid immediately and then occupied a table. When it arrives he just has to figure it out on his own. Hungarian man: (maybe other Europeans will not agree but I would consider what the "Russian woman" says almost rude,.