In Smith and Hyde’s article entitled, “Rethinking, “The Public,” the discussion of what a public is and how said public functions arises. At the conclusion of this article, the idea that stuck out the most was the notion suggested by McGee and Martin which challenges the entire concept of a “public”. I will further illustrate their beliefs using the example of America, the great melting pot.
The article begins by quoting Aristotle’s definition of a public. This definition asserts that as individuals people may not have good intentions, but together as a society people will band together for the greater good. Next, the article cites Lloyd Bitzer’s idea of a public.
Community shares “inherited knowledge” that functions as “source or corner of truths” arising from tradition and that enables a public to be competent when accrediting “new truth and values” authorizing “decision and action”.
This idea adds onto Aristotle’s definition of a public to assert that society or a public will band together for the greater good as well as use its combined knowledge to make decisions regarding the establishment of more accepted truths. However, this cannot be.
The American public is said to have an American dream. This dream is chased by all American citizens and immigrants alike. As a result, America is the melting pot of the world full of different ethnicities, customs, and ideologies. All of these differences are set side on a regular basis, but when an incident arises where an individual’s personal beliefs are infringed the individuals of society disembark from the public in effort to have their personal agenda triumph over all others.
Consider the ground zero Mosque controversy. Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants felt discriminated against because the common truth in America says everyone has a right to practice freedom of religion, so they should be able to practice their beliefs anywhere within America. Many Christian Americans believed that building a Mosque next to ground zero after the 9/11 incident was disrespectful to 9/11 victims and their families. Tensions arose.
Similarly, the KKK a White extremist group has been known for their acts of racism towards minority groups in America. Though Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics all have the same rights under the inherited knowledge that the American public shares, this group of individuals banded together to ensure what they believed to be true prevailed.
The question is, “Why does this happen?” McGee and Martin provide a sufficient answer.
Competency is actually the product of a deception: ‘instead of knowledge, the people possess ideology, the sham and semblance of truth.’ Individuals must be seduced into abandoning their individuality, convinced of their sociality, not only when their mothers attempt to housebreak them, but also later in life when governors ask them to obey a law or die in a war for God and country.
This answer means that no matter what type of “public” exists, there will always be someone who disagrees with the competency of society. If that person is then able to persuade others to take their side, then the said “public” will be ever changing. If that is the case, then there can never be an inherited knowledge based from traditions because the traditions of society will be ever changing.
I don’t disagree with the concept of a “public”, however I fail to believe that the public keeps the greater good in mind, especially in a society like America where different groups, people, and ideologies are constantly competing for the spotlight.
No comments:
Post a Comment