David Whillock
Texas Christian University 

The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has four entries for the word "stump."  Most of these deal with an appendage of some sort, or the identification of political discourse.  One of the definitions I particularly like is "to travel over (a region) making political speeches or supporting a cause." (1987, p. 1178).  As we inaugurate a new online journal for the enhancement of learning and scholarship, I think we are in the business of "stumping."  We pontificate a position and an argument designed to influence and enlighten our readers on certain positions and methods that are usually ideologically driven.  Today we travel in the blink of an eye the distance that it used to take days and months to cover.   This new computer-mediated "immediacy" empowers us to pontificate beyond the sound of our voices and into the abyss of space.  After watching the very intelligent movie "Contact," I am more than aware of the communicative space trash we have created as some intelligent race of beings encounter the worst of Earth's culture as a sign of intelligent life in the cosmos.

There is another definition for the word stump that I would like to draw to your attention among this array of choices.  In the second construction of the word, Webster's defines it as "to walk heavily or noisily."   The idea of "stumping" around on an issue is what we as communication professionals do best.  Within our stoic academic life we are required to research and publish our findings on a variety of topics.  It is the melding of these two definitions that I would like to address in my essay; specifically as they, together, relate to ethics and communication.

STUMPING THE ISSUE

In the center of London is a corner reserved for the right of Free Speech: Hyde Park.  The rules there are very simple:  one must stand on a crate to keep the body off of sovereign ground, and one cannot speak ill of the Monarchy. The individual may address religion, the politics of other nations, the Parliament, and other institutions that may not fit your liking.  There are, of course, hecklers who will contend and challenge these issues and onlookers who seemed transfixed to the whole event.  I enjoy taking students there so that they can marvel at the lack of the Bill of Rights and the theoretical right of free speech on any street corner, on any subject imaginable.  It is of course, theoretical.

Freedom of expression and postmodern society collided on Saturday August 30, 1997.   The postmodern world evolved to a new level in the early morning as a young mother of two, and the world's Princess, lie dying in a Paris tunnel from a car accident; apparently, the result of a high speed race through Paris to allude the Paparazzi.  The issue of "price" comes to mind.  What price do we accord to an all out Freedom of Expression?  The present postmodern society promotes the notion that everything is image, and that most any price is worth the ride.  In his book Into the Image, Kevin Robbins states that "(t)he new reality--which is a new kind of reality--is imagined as one constituted by principles of mastery and empowerment." (p, 14).  Through the control of information and image, we are empowered to control what the world used to regard as Real and Rational.   This empowerment draws several questions from the realms of logic, questions such as: What principles move individuals to stalk and harass others for financial gain?  Should we permit the inquiry of the Paparazzi in a world that seems to starve for the life of celebrity, when it could be encourage each of us to create our own life?  Celebrity seems to superintend all other possibilities of being.  We are vampires in this culture.  We feed on human tragedies.  The blood drawn takes many forms, and the Paparazzi provide us the vehicles for nourishment.

Academics, too, are vampiric in a sense.  As critics of contemporary life, we seem to have a tendency to create reality to fit specific "-isms."  The discussions that I have with colleagues in every area of our discipline seem to continue to stress one ideology over another.  I am not talking about "debate."  What I am talking about is absolutes.  The social critics state that only through statistics will "truth" will out.  I am surprised that these academics are still looking for truth.  Anyone who has experienced the mediated world will tell you that truths are found only through point-of-view.   I hope that this new breed of communication association will allow for several points of view.  We need to test all theories and let go of the budget-driven concepts of discipline.  We need to realize that we are not in business.  We are more than that.  I am insulted by administrative
dicta on goals and assessments that reflect the image of a world conceived by and for the MBA.

We have, however, created our own business school hell.  We allowed the institution to create an existence where true learning is substandard to skills orientation.  As we enter a new century, we need to ask ourselves what we want for the institution of higher learning.  Do we want a place to hide, to do narcissistic research?  Or do we incorporate into our work a strong sense of community and learning?  I've always wondered whether Plato and Aristotle could have received tenure in today's "Research One" Universities.  But the better question may be: Would Plato and Aristotle care that Stanford didn't want them?  I think I know the answer.  Folks and fellow comrades, this is a call for rebellion.  Rethink what you are doing.  Don't allow your busy research agenda to keep you away from changing what counts as "academic rigor" in higher education.  Get away from counting publications when you could be developing your life of the mind to better yourself and your community.

The events of the last few weeks should reinvigorate our commitment to scholarly values and responsibility. Many seem to forget, all too frequently I might add, that academics have to teach, to instill, the values of research and teaching.   Events surrounding Diana's death seem to prove the concept of turbulence in Chaos theory.  As we accept complacency in life, and forget the importance of revolution as a social necessity, it takes a major source of turbulence, the death of Diana for instance, for the world to adjust itself.  As we go into the new century, organizations like ours will have to lead the way out of the "service-course mentality" with which many politicians and bureaucrats have burdened higher education. The life of the mind should be valued for itself in a vacuum, and accorded the respect that it deserves.

The clashing of the postmodern age with Freedom of Speech hopefully draws the Reagan legacy of "celebrity" to a close.  We all got sucked into it.  Andy Warhol's comment that everyone will be famous for 15 minutes seemed to have driven us to the desire for academic stardom that many times were reflected in the academic journals and conferences of our discipline.

I will get off of the stump now, and suggest that we focus on a value system that reflects a less "popular" line.  To find truth we need to go back into the darkness of Plato's cave, if only to reread the graffiti.  This journal is a clean slate.  The American Communication Association is a new opportunity to develop a community that does not have the baggage of  "the right names" and "the right citations."  Let us begin anew with a strong deliberate defense against what has occurred in other disciplinary journals and organizations.  I feel with a true quest for knowledge, that the American Communication Journal will be a leader in the new era of the academy.