Voice Vs Nurture On Voice
The incredible ability to converse with individuals on all parts of the planet changes how humans understand voice. The voice is the portion of a person’s identity which they express to those around them. Nurture, or the sociopolitical and cultural environments surrounding a person, affects a person’s voice. Additionally, some people use a double voice, or multiple voices a person uses as forms of expression varying due to their environment. Although marginalized groups often present themselves as all having one voice, nurture shapes a person’s voice, which allows for bettering oneself and others throughout the world. The effect of nurture on a person’s voice is clear when a person abandons their original voice for a new voice. When people
…show more content…
Despite Smith’s suggested commonality of having one voice, individuals living in locations and households that include multiple identities often learn to develop multiple voices so that they are able to communicate with the diverse people surrounding them. Smith explains this dynamic by saying, “You have no choice but to cross borders and speak in tongues (Smith p. 6),” and then again by explaining, “The voice… finds itself trapped between two poles, two competing belief systems (Smith p. 14).” Not only is nurture refusing to yield to nature’s expectation of a unified voice, but also nurture creates additional voices for individuals who need to have mastery over more than one voice to adequately communicate their identity and the identities of their neighbors and peers. William Shakespeare is one of the best-known multi-vocal individuals. In Smith’s words, “Shakespeare’s art, the very medium of it, allowed him to do what civic officers and politicians can’t seem to do: speak simultaneous truths… In his plays he is woman, man, black, white, believer, heretic, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim (Smith p. 11).” Because of the multiple factions but sociopolitical limitations in Elizabethan England, Shakespeare learned to express the diversity of ideology he experienced through his art. Supporters of the natural voice argue that because a multi-voiced person is born into multiple identities or diversity, their possession of numerous voices is their natural voice. However, not only does Smith express the challenge and unnaturalness of maintaining a double voice, she also argues that, “Flexibility is a choice, always open to all of us (Smith p. 15),” not just the marginalized or diverse. The uniqueness of individuals who choose to create and maintain multiple voices speaks to the fight required against the singular voice. Because
Despite Smith’s suggested commonality of having one voice, individuals living in locations and households that include multiple identities often learn to develop multiple voices so that they are able to communicate with the diverse people surrounding them. Smith explains this dynamic by saying, “You have no choice but to cross borders and speak in tongues (Smith p. 6),” and then again by explaining, “The voice… finds itself trapped between two poles, two competing belief systems (Smith p. 14).” Not only is nurture refusing to yield to nature’s expectation of a unified voice, but also nurture creates additional voices for individuals who need to have mastery over more than one voice to adequately communicate their identity and the identities of their neighbors and peers. William Shakespeare is one of the best-known multi-vocal individuals. In Smith’s words, “Shakespeare’s art, the very medium of it, allowed him to do what civic officers and politicians can’t seem to do: speak simultaneous truths… In his plays he is woman, man, black, white, believer, heretic, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim (Smith p. 11).” Because of the multiple factions but sociopolitical limitations in Elizabethan England, Shakespeare learned to express the diversity of ideology he experienced through his art. Supporters of the natural voice argue that because a multi-voiced person is born into multiple identities or diversity, their possession of numerous voices is their natural voice. However, not only does Smith express the challenge and unnaturalness of maintaining a double voice, she also argues that, “Flexibility is a choice, always open to all of us (Smith p. 15),” not just the marginalized or diverse. The uniqueness of individuals who choose to create and maintain multiple voices speaks to the fight required against the singular voice. Because