Shared
texts can be the basis of a community dedicated to social betterment, while
restrictions to unbiased information can form propagandizing machines of
hegemonic totality. In Socrates’ era there were Homeric texts to fill this role, in the 19th/20th
century in certain contexts there were Biblical translations, and in class we
wondered whether a similar shared text existed in our new globalized modernity.
This was in response to the implication (ideological model) that shared texts
are an integral piece of societal order.
Given the aporetic
effects of Plato’s dialogues, however, access to
education/information/intellectual charity appears the more important component
of fellowship. Socrates achieves conversation despite the homogenizing effect of counter-critical Greek culture,
rather than neccessarily because of it. This is muddied by his constant use of
examples and acceptable comprimise. Where is the utility of shared value for an elenctic model located? Does it provide dialectic hospitality? Is it more
helpful in achieving rhetorical give-and-take? Or is it an obstacle to critical
thinking when over-applied/over-amplified in such a way as to become collectively
accessible?
In an information society, our level of mechanization makes it basically impossible to work from a shared literary text (besides the fact that nobody reads, language itself fails to describe mechanized experience).
ReplyDeleteHowever, we can all basically quote from movies at will. Though it gives me a shiver to think of Hollywood (or a video game studio) as producing our common texts, combining traditional literary with visual-image literacy (and, now, digital-spatial literacy from video games and the internet) will be the new criteria for a truly common cultural experience.
I think a wide range of things would serve well as common texts, provided we all know them well, and provided we treat them not as gospel, but as sources for critical analysis and further questioning...
ReplyDelete