Hearing the Variety of Voices in Climate Change Discourse
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 16 Dec 2019
Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens – TRANSCEND Media Service
Recognizing the Challenge of Soundscape Comprehension in Controversy and Emergency
Introduction
16 Dec 2019 – Current discourse on any theme is readily recognized as characterized by distinctive “voices” and their associated “tones”. This could be recognized as the primary characteristic of discourse between political parties — between the right and the left — now variously held to be “poisonous” and “toxic”.
In a world increasingly preoccupied by tragic loss of biodiversity, less evident is recognition of the range of voices as a requisite variety. So framed the issue has further implications with the loss of song birds and their contribution to the experiential quality of the environment. There is considerable irony to the parallel explosion of engagement in Twitter — readily recognized as an experiential surrogate. What of the variety of voices on Twitter?
Arguably there is a case for exploring the nature of the soundscape of discourse implied by “voice”. How are types of “voice” and “tone” distinguished — by whom and for what purpose? Who cultivates what kind of “voice” and for what effect?
Most obvious is the characterization of singing voice. A number of systems are used for that purpose, each with particular distinctions of subtypes. Any consensus relates primarily to classical singing and to modes cultivated “in the West”. How are the singing voices of other cultures distinguished and appreciated? Do some cultures distinguish voices in highly surprising ways in contrast to those of “the West”?
“Voice” tends to be recognized quite differently in drama where the characterization of singers is relatively irrelevant. This is indicative of the distinctions recognized in discourse and debate — in parliamentary assemblies, conferences and via the broadcast media. To what varieties of “voice” and “tone” are audiences exposed? How is this variety recognized and valued in the rhetorical arts? When and why is “gravitas” held to be of such value — or deprecated as a cynical pretence to authenticity? What voices are evoked by disasters and emergencies — such as climate change?
What “voices” are typically excluded from such contexts? Do these include voices which are more evident in popular protest and demonstrations? What of the voices of the needy and of beggars?
Other voices are to be heard in more tragic contexts — associated with suffering, bereavement, and loss. These are the voices of agony — however they may be simulated by actors in dramatic representations. They may well be heard only in constrained contexts and in private — as with those evoked by abuse or confined to institutions.
Written text may be recognized as expressing a variety of voices. Authors and others may choose to read such texts, possibly using particular voices and tones as deemed appropriate. Much value may be attached to such a reading by the original author, especially in the case of poetry. Story tellers may well be much appreciated for their capacity in this respect. How varied is the narrative voice?
The following exploration has been provoked by the account of the philosopher François Noudelmann. with regard to the need for “thinking with the ear” — in a manner capable of hearing beyond what is otherwise conventionally heard (Penser avec les Oreilles, 2019). This follows from earlier evocation of that possibility (Theodor Reik, Listening With the Third Ear, 1948). Are there indeed lessons from the extensively researched duets of birds which might be of relevance to the “duets” between government and opposition, and between right and left?
To continue reading Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org
Tags: Climate Change, Global warming
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.