The main takeaway from the preface and first chapter of Ronald C. Arnett’s Communication Ethics Literacy : Dialogue and Difference, is the concept of “postmodernity”; the name given to contemporary society’s ways of communication. A term that highlights the competitive nature of human interaction. Our era of communication is the most open in terms of willingness to learn from one another (Arnett, 13). While the point of emphasis must be the grand polarization stuffed in the face of anybody who wishes to communicate with another human, the hopeful message sent by Arnett is that people nowadays are more likely to sit down and listen to the opposing perspective of another person (Arnett, 13). In the era of postmodernity, the “universal sense of “good” is no longer normative” (Arnett, 16). While there has never been universal peace and unanimous agreements on all terms, society is at a point right now where it would be unwise to even assume that one’s neighbor has the same stances on global issues (Arnett, 16). In a world where everybody wants to prove the credibility of their personal moral compass, communication is essential.
My largest paper last year was about the immense polarization surrounding illegal immigration into the United States, and all the varying opinions it has sparked. I interviewed people of all different backgrounds, and the general consensus was that people should always be let into the country; that is how the United States was started anyway. While I agree with this point of view, it is important to highlight that it could not be further from the opposing view. The view that says nobody should be allowed into the country. “Keep America American.” I had multiple interviewees tell me they switched from a conservative to a liberal at the start of high school, when they started hearing more viewpoints than those of their parents. This generational cutoff in political beliefs begs the question, how will polarization progress during the era of postmodernity alone? How will polarization progress post-post-modernity? How can our communication skills advance humanity, and allow relationships to prosper? Will people learn to look past differences, or will people learn to conform?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like your take on postmodernity, the definition was very clear and easy to understand, although I was most intrigued by the last sentence in the first paragraph, “In a world where everybody wants to prove the credibility of their personal moral compass, communication is essential.” I would even argue that that statement answers the last question, “will people learn to look past differences, or will people learn to conform?” Communication works, especially if
ReplyDeletewe try to sympathize with those opposite of us. I think Arnett also expresses this as well. It makes me question, who are we, as individuals, to say that others' values and beliefs are utterly bad? Especially when there is no universal good. The only thing we can do is communicate more, educate and try to understand where people are coming from, hoping we can change their mind for what we believe to be better, exactly like how you stated “multiple interviews tell me that they switched from a conservative to a liberal at the start of high school, when they started hearing more viewpoints than those of their parents”.
I think one thing I can relate to your example is the roe v wade turning recently. I found myself in a difficult position because a family that has been close to me had opposite opinions on the matter. I had a long conversation with one of them and they completely changed their perspective because of what I had to say, and I learned the reasoning behind where they were coming from. With all of the differences in society today I think that we must learn to educate, examining how those differences impact us and heal the worst wounds from it. If we are all to immediately attack each other for our differences, without understanding the source of where they come from, that is plain logical fallacy and wouldn’t that only get us to divide more?