The Age of Dissonance

©Mark H. Pillsbury

Theo van Doesburg Dissonances (1925 image on canvas)


Assonance—vowels rhyming to have a semblance of the same sound, often used to represent partial agreement or correspondence.
(“He used the words penitent and reticence in the same sentence”)

Consonance—agreement of certain stressed syllables, often used to represent harmony or agreement among components.
(“It was a stroke of luck”)

Dissonance—musically inharmonious, or incompatible. Also represents disagreement, or a harsh variant.
(You think you are coming across one way but people see you in a totally different way)

Have you heard someone say on the street: “Doyouknowhadahmsayin?” or “Man, I know where you’re comin from.” Were these responses genuine or jargon? Continually bombarded with the ebb and flow of words, ideas, propositions, even sales pitches; how much sounds inharmonious or incompatible?

Unfortunately, even with various means of communication, so many channels to hear; are we really being heard? Dissonance keeps you from reaching people, and it keeps other people from reaching you.

I believe we live in the Age of Dissonance.

50% of all adults currently plug into social media, cell phone use increases yearly, and nearly 3 billion text messages are sent every day by US wireless companies. Communication creates the links necessary for relationships to flourish, nevertheless despite numerous channels and devices, dissonance regularly occurs.

"Why is modern communication so difficult?" says the typical adult.

On a closer level, humans strive constantly to know and be known. Incessantly communicating but failing to listen, communication varies in complexity and importance, the connections radiate out like a pebble striking a pond: close, constant, and outward into regular remote circles. But do we strike meaning with each chord? Is there agreement in the notes? The day flows like a musical score, the harmony naturally sought is played by the orchestra of our relationships; unfortunately we play from our own song sheet, not on the same page of our connections.

The three C’s of Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance—an emotional state wherein two simultaneously held attitudes or “cognitions” are inconsistent, or when there is a conflict between belief and overt behavior. Knowingly holding two competing ideals at the same time is like using a cell phone while driving, knowing that drivers using cell phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. The tobacco addict thinks, "Well, if smoking doesn’t kill me, something else will,” or, “Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer."

Drive down any busy highway and look around at drivers; tell me that inattention due to cell phone use is not a major epidemic; or ask yourself if you “text” (or smoke) while driving when you have school-age children in the car?!

Cultural dissonance—sometimes unavoidable, nevertheless usually prevents streamlined communications in global commerce, as different peoples, customs, and languages struggle to work together with mutual understanding.

Corporate dissonance—often through a “roll-out” or a special project, the corporation thinks its employees have the same passion or vision as management; but instead, employees see the presentation as not consistent or unethical and do nothing to assist execution of the plan. Known as “dead-on-arrival.”

Opinion polls show that American business people are losing their faith in their country even as ordinary Americans are losing their faith in business (Economist 08/13/2011 p. 66).

An example of corporate dissonance is government recognition and celebration of the tenth (10th) anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC. Passions caused by the tragedy have faded with ten years; however many patriotic citizens feel great pride in what we defend, the homeland security, and the safety engendered by fighting the war on terror.

The message from leadership is not harmonious with the grass-roots perception of the event, indeed the President is rejecting the resonant, visceral reaction to the tenth anniversary of 9/11 by attempting to craft his own rhetorical response.

The White House said, “A chief goal of our communications is to present a positive, forward-looking narrative,” despite the historical perspective of seeing 9/11 as a uniquely terrible event in time recognized ten years later and symbolized by a numeric calendar day.

Another government communications adviser said, “We need to make sure we’re speaking to a very broad set of audiences who will be affected by the anniversary.” Domestic 9/11 ceremonies will honor Americans killed in the Sept. 11 attacks but also “all victims of terrorism, including those who had been targeted by Al Qaeda and other groups around the globe.”

The government is communicating about 9/11 in a way which accentuates the broad idea of global peace and the wider struggle of all peoples against terrorists. By attempting to put a different spin on the event, the White House hopes to set the tone of the narrative as more global than personal, more positive than macabre.

This is incompatible with a precise focus on 9/11, which was one of the most violent and despicable days in United States history. In my opinion, this message is difficult to harmonize with the acts of the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, and even a positive, forward-looking narrative set out by the President rings dissonant to the reflective, thoughtful citizens who lived through that terrible day.

©Mark H. Pillsbury