I think these authors have overthought this idea of
communication ethics just so that they can write a book about it. At the very
least, they do not have their heads in the real world…
For example, lets take the section where they talk about The Lord of the Rings. The authors
write, “The story of a given community makes manifest goods that the community
protects and promotes. Such is the reason that stories like The Lord of the Rings (Tolkien, 2004)
capture the attention of both young and old. What makes these works interesting
is the power of narrative that guides the characters. We find characters within
the novels who attend to stories that propel their action.” I have never heard
anyone say that the reason why The Lord
of the Rings is so interesting is the power of narrative that guides the
characters. I’m not even sure what that means… For me personally, I think the
books are interesting because it’s hard for me to imagine how the author
thought up all of the characters and created such a detailed plot.
Another section of the book is as follows: “June should
reason as follows when considering whether to tell the truth or lie: “If
everyone lied, the very idea of languages representing reality would make no
logical sense – it would be meaningless. Therefore, I cannot believe that
everyone should lie; therefore, I have a duty to tell the truth.” Are these
just fancy sounding words that the authors threw together to sound smart or is
there actual meaning to them? Can someone simplify the reasoning?
One last thing, why did the authors define dialogue as the
following? “The communicative exchange of agents embedded in a particular
historical moment, a particular sociocultural standpoint, and a particular set
of experiences, requires us to stand on our own ground while being open to the
Other’s standpoint.” For real, could you make it sound any more confusing?! I
like Google’s definition much better. “A discussion between two or more people
or groups, especially one directed toward exploration of a particular subject
or resolution of a problem.” At least I can understand this definition.
I agree. I feel the book tends to use a lot of extra verbiage, instead of just stating things more simply.
ReplyDeleteAs far as The Lord of The Rings reference, I think the book is basically saying that a reason many people can identify with the movie/books (even though it takes place in a totally fictitious place), is that there is something in the story for everyone, that everyone can identify with. Whether it's Frodo and the personal struggle he endures being uprooted from his home, and battling the power of the ring, or Sam, whose fierce loyalty helps them reach Mordor and destroy the ring. (Sorry to go all nerdy on you). Basically, there are different stories/characters within the larger story for people to identify with.
As far as the whole June scenario: to tell a lie or not, I think what may be potentially confusing is that the book is using this example to illustrate a specific approach to communication ethics. So basically, if you use this approach to communication ethics, that is when you would apply the whole June scenario, but this is not the logic behind other approaches. I would think of the universal-humanitarian approach as how we see Javert played out. He applies the same moral code to everyone, regardless of circumstance, including himself. It's a black and white view. Sorry if that was confusing, hope that helps a little?