Elaborating the Communication Theory of Identity

Elaborating the
Communication Theory of Identity

            Communication Theory of Identity
focuses on how effectively one can identify with an issue through communication.
Writing is one of the ways that is used to pass the required information to a
reader who is the intended audience. A good author will always make efforts to
use a language that is easy to be understood by the reader and also present his
work in such a way that a reader is able to relate to the issues written. This
is when it can be said that the author has delivered his message to the reader
and lack of this would result to ineffective communication.

            When Foer says “ …… given that
eating animals is in absolutely no way necessary for my family- unlike some in
the world, we have easy access to a wide variety of other foods- should we eat
animals?” Here Foer is acknowledging the fact that he is reaching to a reader
who eats meat. The author here is quite categorical when he asks the reader “…
should we eat animals?” This question can most probably be applied to a reader
who eats meat as a source of some of the nutrients that a human body requires
for normal functioning.  It is quite
definite that for effective communication one should choose the words to use
appropriately. If for instance such a question of whether we should continue
eating animals is asked to reader who does not eat meat, it could appear vague
and irrelevant in that context.

            Foer has continuously shown that he
is making a deliberate and conscious effort to relate to the reader. When he
says “…we have easy access to a wide variety of other foods”, the author is
trying to have the reader feel as being part of the issue that is being
communicated. The use of “we” plays a major role in showing that the author is
no just talking about himself, but incorporating ideas from others as well.

            The
kind of “constant personal decision making” that Foer is referring to is the ability
to of a vegetarian to decide not to be eating animals. He mentions that “ there
are even circumstances that I would be forced to east a dog.” The author uses a
dog just as an example of the many animals that might be used a source of meat.
Eating a dog requires one to make a strong decision on whether it is
appropriate to do so. Since Foer has said that “being a vegetarian is a
flexible framework,” it implies that in a situation where the reader may be a
vegetarian, one should be wise to make a decision of avoiding animal meat.

            Foer suggests that constantly being
caught in making a personal decision is taxing and hard to keep up. This is
clear when he says “I couldn’t honestly argue, as many vegetarians try to, that
it is as rich as a diet that includes meat.” Many vegetarians find it quite
difficult to keep to their decisions of avoiding meat and those who stick to
their principles justify their state by alleging that a vegetarian diet could
be containing the same level nutrients as meat. Foer finds it taxing to check
the limits of the meats that are available for him. He says, “I love sushi, I
love fried chicken, I love a good steak. But there is a limit to my love.” The
ability to limit oneself especially when there are such a great variety of
meats is a challenging decision that might not be so easy to keep.

            Foer
states that “being a vegetarian is a flexible framework.” The sentences that
support this remark are, “I love sushi, I love fried chicken, I love fried
chicken, I love a good steak. But there is a limit to my love.” This clearly
indicates that Foer would not view the issue eating animals with a fixed
opinion. One may in a given circumstance evaluate or make a decision on whether
to be a vegetarian or not. In other words one cannot entirely say that being a
vegetarian is the best or that eating meat is the recommended option. Foer also
adds to say that “… of course there are circumstances I can conjure under which
I would eat meat.” This is again an indication that when one is a vegetarian,
it is not necessarily written on a stone but there should be a flexibility of
having to eat especially when it is the only alternative. It would be naïve to
die of hunger when meat is available in the pretence that that one is a strict
vegetarian. Likewise an individual who is not a vegetarian should eat
vegetables when of course the circumstances demand for that.

---

Elaborating the Communication Theory of Identity was first posted on August 21, 2019 at 5:38 pm.
©2019 “Custom Essay Writers“. Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at support@cheapcustomwriting.com