The Communication Person: A New World Voice For the People by the People

In the "new epoch" we are living, Afrocentric communicationist and theorist Molefi Asante states that "The communication person repudiates cryptic views of humanity." Communication is the "gluon," or basic fundamental particle of society. The "communication person" is the "new world voice", the "holistic" conveyer of a new model, a new formula for postulating a true, all-inclusive view of the "abstract" society. This harkening of an holistic view is an open perspective defined as "characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable (able to be accounted for or understood) by reference to the whole." The "whole" of humanity is the focal point of consideration of Asante's article on Afrocentric communication theory. Not only is Asante postulating a theory of inclusiveness of one more genre of society into European consideration, but he asserts for academia that all the sciences must to do away with analogue, and the inadequate models of analysis of society. Afrocentric communication is comparable to various and certain postulations of feminist theory and queer theory that doubt the validity of the foundational concepts of analysis, questioning the core view of human perspective. Asante and Hooks propose a "new" ethnocentrism that is related to post-colonial theory because the old views, perspectives, postulations, theories, models, formulas, analyzation, assumptions are all outdated, incoherent, inadequate, insufficient, not relative to the new communication person in this new epoch. Asante, among others, is a modern Sophist, recognizing the foundational qualities and conditions of communication, i.e. language, which is the beginning and the end of all thought, production, recognition, consideration, and desire. Asante echos the concepts, ideas, and postulations of modern day theorists Derrida and Foucault. Asante is not an idealist, he comprehends the history of understanding humanity; however, his point now is the assertion of the questioning of "Our conceptualization of humanity" within theoretical communication and formulations. Basically Asante abhors "myopic" considerations of humanity, a view defined by a "lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight." He calls for a new view, a fresh consideration, presenting the facts that support this concept as necessary and vital for communication people that make up our diverse society; ideas for the people, by the people. Asante proposes that communication theory "needs to break away from the boundary of specific social or political systems and reach for universal assumptions which can then be tested by those interested in applying them to particular situations." What must be called into question under the new perspective is "Any society that distorts, hinders or damages the human personality." First and foremost is a contemporary questioning and re-analyzation of the definitions of "society" and even "human," that is basic to Asante's theorization here, which is an immediate connection with post-colonial theory, and a forerunner for the critique of digital rhetoric. An issue leading the race for understanding and critiquing digital rhetoric, as Jenkins clearly exemplifies in Convergence Culture, is the recognition and in-depth analyzation of the communication person and what the communication personal develops, effects, is affected by, and the data and results within.

The Spirit of Free Play

In his article on rhetoric, William A. Covino presents the same sentiments on "play" outlined by Jenkins in Convergence Culture. Covino's article was reminiscent of Jenkins recognition and appraisal of "collective intelligence." Citing modern critic Derrida, Covino quotes, "All play begins with 'the means at hand'...(and) all play cannot escape 'the culture of reference.'" Covino's point is to recognize the ever-evolving nature of rhetoric and the observation and understanding and analyzation of rhetoric. Gone are the days of structuralism and putting everything in a box to be understand in and only in that box, under certain contexts. The constant evolution of language, ideas, manners of discourse, and cause, effects, and situations that demand rhetoric should be centrally understood and taken advantage of as a mantra. Specifically, Covino is postulating "An emergent, interdisciplinary critical theory, fundamentally a theory of discourse that devalues certainty and closure while it celebrates the generative power of the imagination." In observing culture in rhetorical terms, every element should be considered, every bit of evidence, every possible argument and conclusion. Convergence Culture is a witness to Covino's idea that "The spirit of free play informs the ethnographic process." Ethnography, defined via Wikipedia, is "the genre of writing that presents varying degrees of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of human social phenomena, based on field work." Jenkins said himself in his conclusion that his personal experience as a user of media outlets informed and inspired his interest and research. How is it that such a notion as "play" can manifest into a project that produces such evidence, insight, and conclusion as Convergence Culture? Covino quotes Feyerabend: "'Anything goes'....even the most 'unreasonable, nonsensical, unmethodical' play will tend toward a resolution because each of us cannot tolerate a suspended conclusion for very long. Wondering does lead to a determination....'It is possible to retain what one might call the freedom of artistic creation and to use it to the full, not just as a road of escape, but as a necessary means for discovering and perhaps even changing the properties of the world we live in'." As a blogging, collective intelligence community, we fall under the auspices of this idea of considering fully, intelligently, and artistically all the avenues and means of exploring, questioning, observing and deciphering the ever-evolving spirit of free play that is digital rhetoric.

One last note, I resent the fact that Covino quotes Christopher Lasch and Arthur Levine's conclusions that college students today are completely narcissistic, only out to get what they want, and only seek creativity as a 'success formula.' I abhor this point of view as a generalization, even as a I recognize that the current trend of out culture is a fame-oriented one. But a critic must consider and question, just as Covino is postulating, the influence of the "texts of heritage," as Derrida put it wisely. We must consider the repetition of patterns of narcissism in the greater psyche of the history of culture. Seeking fame and fortune did not just come from nowhere! Out of the blue!?

Starving Artists

First, a review of termonology via Wikipedia:

*Matthew Arnold 1822-1888 -English poet, cultural critic

*phenomenology- an approach to philosophy that begins with an exploration of phenomena--what presents itself to us in conscious experience.
"The reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view" -Edmund Husserl

*structuralism- (humanities/social sciences) theories that share the assumption that structural relationships between concepts vary between different cultures/languages and these relationships can be usefully exposed and explored
--approach in academic disciplines in general that explores the relationships between fundamental principle elements in language, literature, and other fields upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social or cultural "structures" and "social networks" are built
--through these networks meaning is produced with in a particular person, system, or culture--meaning then frames and motivates the actions of individuals and groups

"Liberal humanism has dwindled to the impotent conscience of bourgeois society, gentle, sensitive and inneffectual; structuralism has already more or less vanished into the literary museum" -Terry Eagleton

*Cultural critics, philosophers, thinkers, barbs WRITE. Thinking goes on paper, becomes literature, writing is the medium.
Eagleton says literature is unstable, an illusion...the problem, the issue is in defining literature at one place and time, because language is ever changing, evolving along with the culture it produces.

*Because one element cannot exist without the other, capitalism is a user, the system only works for investment. This is why we have the concept of "starving artist," and see an impotence of the arts in poor society.

"Capitalism's reverential hat-tipping to the arts is obvious hypocrisy, except when it can hang them on its walls as a sound investment....Departments of literature in higher education, then are part of the idealogical apparatus of the modern capitalist state. They are not wholly reliable apparatuses of the modern capitalist state." -Eagleton