Youthful optimism & the eradication of order as defensive boundary maker. Maybe?

It is very rare for a statement, however general, to apply to all humanity. Any attempt to do so is usually met with harsh criticism, a quick rebuttal or an irrefutable objection. Despite the vast difficulties, philosophers have struggled for centuries to discern those undeniable truths applicable to all. Many intellectuals have proposed a universal truth of love, of justice, of beauty, but are quickly confronted with the subjectivity of their claims. Consequently, philosophy has acquired an air of whimsical futility from critics of this relativism. An inarguable truth, however, is often ignored; that is the truth of classification, or the inherent desire of humanity to classify.

Human beings are, by nature, social creatures. They are born into and shaped by communities dependent upon communication. As John Durham Peters describes in Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication, “To understand communication is to understand much more. An apparent answer to the painful divisions between self and other, private and public, and inner thought and outer word... it is a sink into which most of our hopes and fears seem to be poured.” (1) Peters argues understanding communication provides us a unique window into which humanity may be examined. If one’s “hopes and fears” are understood, a person’s unique perspective is discernible. The way one processes information and classifies objects becomes apparent through their communication, which Peters contends is the fundamental avenue to understand human beings. Communication also provides a valuable means to understand our collective longing for structure and order. What happens, though, when these self-imposed boundaries dissolve? 

When presented with a blurring of the lines, where is one to proceed? As history demonstrates, uncertainty leads easily to fear. This, in turn, leads to violence and the propagation of difference as a decisive boundary-maker. Typically, this comes at the expense of the less-powerful group, often with disastrous consequences. Perhaps with a greater awareness of each other’s communicative means, these boundaries need not be erected and need not propagate violence. But then again, maybe this is just wishful thinking. 

References

(1) John Durham Peters, Speaking into the Air: a History of the Idea of Communication, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 2.