Stephanie Velona on Fragmentation

McKee presents again the modern view and the post-modern view of fragmentation and again I find myself lying somewhere in the middle. I would agree with the statement that “There’s not enough common culture where all of the inhabitants of a country can come together to discuss the issues that affect everybody” (141). I think that it is important for all of us to embrace our differences, but that having been said I also think we need to find some commonalities so that society as a whole can run a little more smoothly. So this may be a modern perspective on my part. I also think that Habermas missed the mark a bit when he says that society was better off when it was basically run by educated white males. Because as McKee also states everyone comes to the board with their own set of perceptions, principles and ideas that may not be the best for the society as a whole.

I do think that Nicholas Garnham has a good point when he says that “national issues must take place at a national level and is undercut by a multiplication of simultaneous viewing and listening options” (148). I think this is true because I feel that this can lead to confusion on some very important issues. It is another subject that I feel there is no true ideal but that we need to find some commonalities. McKee points out that even academicians cannot communicate across different paradigms, that it becomes too confusing and difficult. So I guess what I would like to see is what I have already stated, that everyone embrace their differences yet find some commonalities only then can society function as a whole. But is this just an ideal or a utopia like Habermas puts forth, I truly hope not.