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.