As this chapter goes in depth regarding six metaphors of communication ethics praxis I became confused. The way in which these six metaphors were described and then described again in a longer context didn't save me from getting anymore lost. The Les Mis example that is on pages 59-60 was ultimately my saving grace in distinguishing these terms from one another. The examples given throughout the explanation of the six metaphors wasn't consistent so effortlessly relating them to each other in order to distinguish their specific characteristics was somewhat tough.
In the vaguest sense I understand these metaphors of communication ethics but what I couldn't help but think as I read was why do they even exist? What is their significance? What brought me to this question, or even conclusion, was the examples that were given in the lengthy explanations of the metaphors. They didn't seem like they were applicable to real life unless you were or knew some sort of 'do-gooder' or 'brown noser'. For me, I think that was why a few of these examples were hard to follow, they made the terms seem irrelevant to real life situations. Especially today. That's why I found the Les Mis connection at the end of the chapter a savior. The example has a consistent scenario that fits all six metaphors of communication ethics in it so it is easy to distinguish a situation where these would be applicable. It made the metaphors seem more relevant instead of just terms that we have that aren't actually ever applied or used.
I totally understand where your coming from. Some of the examples do come off as a little cheesy, but you can make them relate to other situations, some that are much more realistic. Im not sure if you remember the example about the employee and her coworker/friend( i think, might have added the friend part), but this is what happened. An employee knows that a friend/coworker is doing something bad in the company( lets say stealing sales) and the boss comes to the employee and asks if she knows about this issue. The dilemma would be does the employee do the correct thing which is tell the truth, or does she do the "correct" thing by lying for her friend/coworker. I feel that this chapter focused on the six theoretical ways of understanding communication ethics, but I feel like all six of these categories can be broken down to an individuals choice.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your confusion, and I agree that the Les Mis example was infinitely helpful. I also noticed that a lot of my confusion came from how much each of the six approaches overlapped. I think that there couldn't possibly be just one of them because they all seem to 'lean upon' one another as well as build on one another. I think that the Contextual Approach seems to me at least, the most 'overarching' of the approaches and could possibly take multiple of the other approaches under its wing/definition. Sometimes I wonder if the researchers and theorists who come up with these sorts of categorizations and definitions for things like this are simply 'thinking too much into it'. I'm not completely convinced that (1) these approaches are completely necessary and advantageous to the field of Communication Studies to be studied, examined and explained, also (2) like in many English classes throughout High School and earlier, I wonder if we are pulling meaning and symbolism out of things that are simply not there? Just my thoughts, I think you wrote a great journal entry!
ReplyDelete