I like how Chapter 3 broke down different types or "approaches" of communication ethics. The contextual communication ethics section was very interesting. This section seems especially important to the main idea of our textbook since it focuses on the differences among cultures in communicative practices, such as eye contact. Physical proximity during conversation is another communicative practice that varies from culture to culture and is something that is important to understand when we are dealing with someone whom we would categorize as being in the category of "Other."
Of the different communication ethics perspectives described in this chapter, the universal-humanitarian approach stood out most for me. In the world we live in today, this perspective seems more like an ideal to strive towards than a stance that is popular among the majority of people. Maybe I am being cynical, but this approach seems to be about having goods (values) that put the needs of others first, and that is a perspective that does not seem to be very prevalent in our society. The narrative approach to communication ethics is a very important one to understand in our world. This approach illustrates the importance of recognizing difference in peoples' views.
The dialogic communication ethic is also significant. The example that the book gives about how a group of friends going through a dangerous experience together can lead to an increased understanding of the consequences of their actions can be very valuable in educating people about what to do in situations that can get out of control. This is something that can be applied not only to the drinking example in the textbook but to any situation that people go through together that can teach them all a valuable lesson through discussion of what happened.
I am actually really interested in your post and somewhat relieved to see your thoughts on the universal-humanitarian approach because I had the same sort of thought process when reading it. I agree that it seems to be one of the less prevalent or relevant approaches in society today. While I see how it would provoke one to see the needs of others, I do not feel that is is necessarily as easy or common as some of the other praxis the book mentions. I would also ask if it's as productive or beneficial as some of the other theories. Is it really always beneficial to think about the needs of others? Can our own values really centralize on what others want or value for themselves? And I suppose my main question would be whether or not it is always ethical for us to act based on others' values and desires rather than our own? I think this relates to the idea that was brought up in class about the importance of being yourself and how sometimes conforming to what others think is ethical is really causing us to not be ourselves which may not really be ethical. I can see where embracing the good and expectations of others can be helpful, but I am not sure it is always the appropriate or even preferred approach.
ReplyDeleteI also just wanted to point out that one thing I found interesting was that neither of the two approaches you mentioned are ones I mentioned. I think the fact that two people can see these approaches and what it means to be communicatively ethical and stress different things as more relevant or important really prove what these approaches are saying. What's ethical to one person or in one situation may not be to another, and people can see what it means to be ethical so differently and relate to different examples.
I really liked what you have to say in your blog post.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a good point when dealing with the universal-humanitarian approach because it seems to be approach that puts others first and is not very prevalent in our society. At least that’s the way it sounds most of the time in my head. So I don’t think you are being cynical.
I agree with you that the narrative approach to communication ethics is important to understanding our world. It’s one of the few ways that I understood how to communicate ethics from reading the book. From what I understand of it, it can be a very useful tool in recognizing and understanding different people’s views like you said in your post.
It’s interesting to me that you pointed out the drinking example for dialogic communication. I thought this was a bad example and believe that the authors could have come up with a better example. Maybe that is just me but from my experiences, that is not how those conversations usually go… Because I think it is such a bad example, I have a hard time applying it to other situations. So I am glad that you found it useful!