Is the commonplace a good place?

Jamie’s Question 3

On page 169, a definition of a commonplace is given: “a commonplace serves everyone as a touchstone, an instrument of recognition. It is rarely quoted, but it is constantly present; it is behind thought and speech; it is behind conversation. It is the common standard that enables people to understand one another.” (Jacques Ellul). Commonplaces are links that connect people of a common cultural group and are important when identifying an audience. If commonplaces are the basis of audience identification, is it troublesome that they often remain unspoken? Does the fact that commonplaces are “constantly present” yet “behind thought and speech,” make it more likely that audience values will be incorrectly generalized? Should we engage more in conversation about what our true beliefs are to avoid possible mistakes?

Response:

The internal struggle of what to share and what not to is ever present in our quotidian. We fear that we might be burdening others with too much information, or leaving them underwhelmed with too little. We try not to bore, offend or harm while still wary of the need to input our own thoughts, ideas and feedback. In such a process that often occurs over a time span of mere seconds, messages are bound to get lost or neglected in the process. We often admire those who speak their minds without restraint, emitting a sense of confidence in their words as well as a disregard for how the listeners might react. But what allows them to feel this way? Is it a sense of belonging to a commonplace? How might this attitude be received in an environment they are unfamiliar with where the audience cannot be clearly identified? For this reason, “locating the right commonplaces is vital.” (W & D 169).

The commonplace seems to fit in the same category as the set of unwritten rules common in a large number of social setting, communities, groups, etc. The assumption that those we are communicating with have a similar general knowledge base facilitates interaction and often makes room for more fruitful and insightful conversation. I might even use the word efficient to describe this sort of interaction. It is so because in a commonplace, we do not need to present lots of background information about certain subjects, assuming those we are interacting with already have the same knowledge base. For example, in talking about health care in the United Sates today (amongst adults principally), it can be assumed that most people are aware of the general debate around this heated issue and some of the basic information about it, and this way the speakers can spend more time discussing the issue’s current standing and their thoughts about it instead of explaining its background.

However, Jamie’s concern here is certainly legitimate as it can be troublesome that commonplaces remain unspoken. Continuing with the example of the discussion around health care in the US, it is rather likely that some people don’t know where the senate stands on passing the latest bill or how the bill is actually going to affect citizens, whether it will fix the fundamental problem of the system that causes the bankruptcy of many and the confusion around insurance plans. The list of things to be ignorant about is long. Not everyone is wiling to admit their ignorance and this can often lead to discomfort within this so-believed commonplace and to a stunted exchange of ideas.

The presence of a commonplace is natural in any society because living in a similar environment inevitably leads to common behaviors, ideas, customs, etc. so it is often assumed that people are aware of the community’s on goings. This incites people to stay updated on the news, significant government issues, cultural events and so on. It is also what allows for rather superficial connections if you will; “commonplaces are useful…precisely because they are so unremarkable…” (W & D 170). For this reason, I think that engaging more in conversation about what our true beliefs are as to avoid possible mistakes about audience values should occur amongst smaller groups, or more specified commonplaces. The commonplace described in the textbook makes reference to general groups mostly where conversations are not in depth and where core values are not addressed. But it is this main commonplace that allows for a general understanding of people we share national and cultural customs with.

“Some social theorists have noted hat we are less a ‘melting pot’ that blends variations than a culture that more or less accommodates differences” (W & D 165). This is perhaps what best describes the American commonplace and explains the difficulty of reaching a common understanding that allows for correct (or closest to) generalization and time to listen to evaluate everybody’s differences.