Analysis of Stuart Sim's Argument in Manifesto for Silence

The argument presented in Manifesto for Silence by Stuart Sim is to campaign for the warring conflict against noise and the preservation of silence. Stuart Sim writes that silence helps us keep our humanity and sense of self, explaining how noise pollution is responsible for the victimization of silence - our quality of life. Sim uses various methods to deliver this message to his readers in such a manner that makes it easy to understand and follow. He exposes his argument and provides support for credibility. He also allows the introduction of adverse points of views to retort to, thereby reinforcing his ideas. Additionally, he even goes as far to offer remedial actions to resolve the issue.

Sim introduces the topic of his argument by giving a background on the destructive nature of noise pollution. He believes that noise is directly correlated to technological advances of modern advertising. Providing evidentiary support that as techno-sciences continue to flourish, so does our ability to think and function wholly as we humanly ought to. This brings up the importance of Sim’s campaign to silence the threat to our sense of humanity… pun intended.

Sim refers to the root of the problem as technology. He goes on to support his claims that due to a combination of technological advances and corporate ambition, advertising has earned its spot as the “worst culprit” to the assault against silence. Not only that, the health of our physical, spiritual, and mental states is at stake due to the weaponization of sound. Sound bombs are deemed inhuman and ideologically intimidating. Sim’s “Shock and Awe” factor has proven itself a true problem.

Sim smartly develops his argument intellectually and methodically for the reader. He asks prying questions leaving it open-ended for self-evaluation; asking if it’s worth it to live in a noisy society while gaining corporate superiority. Are we willing to run that risk at the expense of ruining the “natural rhythms” of our human existence? Along with his questioning strategy, he introduces counter arguments and evidences. He notes that technology is a positive marker for evolutionary achievements in society and that even silence has its setbacks. This method allows Sim to rebuttal with reinforcing arguments, like discussing how these technological achievements have done more harm than help and deeming them “inhuman”. He retorts to silence’s setbacks with a study at a hospital, proving that silence has healing qualities.

Moreover, Sim’s action plans to alleviate the problem are apparent. On the issue of exterior silence, he cites a credible recommendation to apply the “60/60” rule to avoid pain. For a larger scope remedy of noise pollution, he refers to “Operation Silent Night” to police unnecessary noise and adds the legislative efforts by the Noise Abatement Act. As far as internal noise, he encourages to use silence for deeper thought and exploration of our personal identity.

The significance of Sim’s thesis proclaims that noise pollution is the adversary to silence. He hammers in the idea that silence is more of a need rather than a want for both a functional society and a solid sense of humanity. He claims that exterior and interior silence are in integral relationship for physical, mental, and spiritual prosperity. His campaign for the protection of the virtues of silence is very evident as the reader progresses through the Manifesto. He writes for a call of arms to look at the big picture: in the name of turning a profit, big time corporations have brainwashed our society to soak up noise like a sponge, all the while rotting away at our uniqueness and numbing us from our inner most thoughts. He wants us to stay vigilant and enlighten us on the effect that noise pollution has on our society’s culture. Silence is merely fragile prey among a den of predators. Sim wants us to protect the most profitable noise in this life… our own thoughts.