Interesting book. I looked at the rest of Chapter 1 and feared that after reading further I might get fatigued with the word, "voice".

By inference, what you may both be getting at is that the "voice" metaphor is getting worn in a way that obscures the potential for other sensory metaphors to inform current crises in political, economic, and cultural domains. I have no doubt that "finding one's voice" is an important part of growing as a human being, both literally in terms of vocal development and in terms of who has the power to communicate in society. But perhaps what we have is more an aural crisis of listening. I've been looking at a lot of studies this week claiming that listening continues to be one of the least addressed skills in our entire education system--despite being the activity we engage in the most in our lives. The voice can be enhanced when it has trained and willing ears to hear its messages, after all. I also see "touch" or contact as being a critical bodily metaphor for addressing the problems Couldry is raising. Admittedly, I'm thinking about this concept via a recent move from LA to New York, where I've noticed how difficult it is for any person to avoid contact with others whom they might not normally encounter. The car economy in LA can be problematic to the extent that it allows so many people to bypass the political issues going on around them. One can choose to avoid the poverty of the streets more easily than a subway ride allows. (I don't mean to invoke the LA vs. NY war here, but just sayin' :) ). Meet the Press had a special today on "Five Years After Hurricane Katrina," and much of the discussion targeted a similar issue about the political and social distance those in New Orleans have felt from the rest of their country since the event. All in all, the embodied metaphors we're choosing in these matters seem to be important filters for addressing the crises of our times.

Good to "hear" from you, Don. What I had in mind is not nearly that good. I was only saying that the word, "voice", appears too often. (My sensitivity to such things probably means I have no business commenting, but what I love about this blog is all of its scholarly thinking and nearly no scholarly writing.)
I agree with everything you said, with the caveat that getting the poverty experience in Southern California is not terribly difficult even for the relatively privileged. Try walking all around Santa Barbara.
The crisis of voice reminded me of one of Richard Sennett's favorite crises: the crisis of Bildung, or the crisis of life stories. Sennett complains that capitalism is making it harder for everyone to understand who they are and to tell, both to themselves and others, the nice, neat and easy stories that enable an easily understood identity. Thinking pragmatically, though -- and I don't mean to get all Bjorn Lomborgy on a serious problem -- I must say I don't know how much difference it would make if we managed to address these sorts of crises in a serious way. The biggest emergencies have to do with problems like climate change and the consolidation of extreme wealth. To my eyes the crisis of voice looks rather pale by comparison. Even so, I should add (lest I be misunderstood) that I would never discourage anyone from discussing it.

Hi Don and Jonathan,

You guys are both right that "voice" can be overblown as important in policy domains. I do find it curious that this whole "tea party" hoo-haw is an example of a group of people that seem to have little trouble "finding a voice" and having that voice heard. If a group of Latinos or Black activists held rallies the way the tea party has, I'd be skeptical that they'd be able to have "their voice heard" the same way. Of course I agree that listening is as important as emoting/expressing (if not more), but there are big disparities in who gets heard. But of course I might be preaching to the choir :-)