<p>This is an essay I wrote way back and is not very good, but I’m curious as to what this would get because I’m not sure what qualifies as a 3, 4, 5, or 6. </p>
<p>The prompt: Since we live in a global society, surely we should view ourselves as citizens of the whole world. But instead, people choose to identify and associate with smaller and more familiar groups. People think of themselves as belonging to families, nations, cultures, and generations—or as belonging to smaller groups whose members share ideas, views, or common experiences. All of these kinds of groups may offer people a feeling of security but also prevent them from learning or experiencing anything new. </p>
<p>Is there any value for people to belong only to a group or groups with which they have something in common? </p>
<p>No matter how provincial the group, there is always something valuable to be obtained in belonging to only one group of common aspirations or likenesses. The sole purpose of interaction is to gather comfort, companionship, and above all else, a sense of belonging or normalcy in a society disparate with anomalies and idiosyncrasies. That desire is quenched by a submersion of oneself into a familiar community, or rather, one they have in common with.</p>
<p>Take into consideration interaction and community on a global scale. Reaching across the world for a sense of community or comfort is impractical, nearly insensible, when those comforts await in the proximity of own’s own familiarities. The only benefit one could possibly reap by interacting with outsiders is discovery and knowledge, yet even that is provided within the confines of own’s own society. When the United States was following a policy of isolationism during its early years, the country actually saw growth and discovery of self-identity comparable to every other era in American history. The United States people - intermixed with slaves, whites, and Natives - were all common in one way or another, and all lived under the umbrella of democracy. The interactions that took place between this seemingly provincial, small group of homogenous goals and likings propelled the United States to a world power by the end of the 19th Century. The sheer potential in mingling only with one group the shares much in common is as foreseeable and fruitful as that of mingling with foreigners and outsiders. </p>
<p>The likelihood of one finding a sense of community outside of their convictions and predilections is highly impeded and therefore unlikely. In a sense, the small groups we intertwine with can be considered a home, and to venture outside that home would be an abandonment of that so-called establishment. Therefore, not only does minimizing affairs and limiting it to a certain group provide benefits, but to do otherwise could be detrimental. To commune with the group you are most accustomed to is by no means totally deleterious or useless. Much value can be attained only by simply organizing with one’s own comforts. The prospect of companionship and better understanding of one’s own self is by no means valueless or inconsequential.</p>