Problems And Promise In Pluralism Analysis
In “Problems and Promise in Pluralism,” Annalee R. Ward argues for academic freedom amongst communication scholars, and questions the separation of faith and life (1). Ward seeks to determine whether various denominations can have an “engagement of differences in creative ways” that allow for coexistence in scholarship (Eck 9). Does tolerance, hold the key to coexistence amongst various denominations? The author questions whether faith serves as a universal guideline for scholars’ lives and communication practices (2). Can a scholar maintain personal integrity and still taste the fruit of pluralism? Ward realizes the answers to these questions will face obstacles and roadblocks along the way. The first obstacle centers on the fact that most
…show more content…
Ward acknowledges every denomination has defining guidelines followers must embrace; therefore, the roots of academic freedom do not lie in freedom of speech. Every communication scholar realizes the end result must reflect the guidelines of academy, individual faith and other believers. As Martin Marty states, academic freedom anchors in community and ethos (4). Ward focuses on the need to know the internal workings of other faiths in order to appeal to a moral order versus personal preference. The author uses Charles Taylor’s The Ethics of Authenticity to illustrate how we define identity through dialogue with or against others (72-73). Taylor suggests that authenticity appeals to a higher order outside of our personal preferences. Richard Mouw states communication scholars must speak out of “convicted civility (110).” Ward advocates Horace Kallen’s concept of commonality, whereby shared ideas appeal to broad ranges (4). Ward asserts one can learn much about other religions through a willingness to listen and learn through dialogue thereby tolerating the existence of others. When a group facilitates a dialog discussion, participants learn what “commonalities and differences” each perspective religion shares
Ward acknowledges every denomination has defining guidelines followers must embrace; therefore, the roots of academic freedom do not lie in freedom of speech. Every communication scholar realizes the end result must reflect the guidelines of academy, individual faith and other believers. As Martin Marty states, academic freedom anchors in community and ethos (4). Ward focuses on the need to know the internal workings of other faiths in order to appeal to a moral order versus personal preference. The author uses Charles Taylor’s The Ethics of Authenticity to illustrate how we define identity through dialogue with or against others (72-73). Taylor suggests that authenticity appeals to a higher order outside of our personal preferences. Richard Mouw states communication scholars must speak out of “convicted civility (110).” Ward advocates Horace Kallen’s concept of commonality, whereby shared ideas appeal to broad ranges (4). Ward asserts one can learn much about other religions through a willingness to listen and learn through dialogue thereby tolerating the existence of others. When a group facilitates a dialog discussion, participants learn what “commonalities and differences” each perspective religion shares