I found this section to be pretty straight forward in its definition of dialogic ethics. Even though throughout this chapter there were multiple ideas of what is considered dialogue they all had pretty similar ideas. I like the fact that every chapter somewhat relates to the other chapters. For example a key factor in dialogue is "respect," which just so happens to be one of the main ideas behind communication ethics. Also learning is key in both communication ethics and dialogue. I found the most helpful part of the book being the guidelines to dialogue which were listening without demand, attentiveness, dialogic negotiation, and temporal dialogic ethical competence.
The book sort of hops around when it starts to talk about dialogic civility, which drew my attention from understanding the dialogic theory. Also there were a few inconstancies between authors. I feel like everything was smooth until I ran into Hans Gadamers ideas on dialogic engagement and his assumption that biases is central to human understanding. Based on his steps to dialogue I think he believes that communicators must not only listen but accept other peoples views and opinions, and as a whole come together and create one idea. This may be wrong, it was somewhat confusing.
After reading the chapter my understand of dialogue and its ethics is much better. When I compare it to the example given at the end of the section about Les Miserables and how the bishop and the dying revolutionary exchange viewpoints, and at the end of the conversation there is a sense of enlightenment. Both parties came in with their own views, and were open to hearing each other out, and at the end of the conversation they accepted each others points of view, and incorporated them into one idea.
I really liked that you brought up the Les Mis example at the end of the chapter because that is something that really helped me to better understand the concept too. There have been several references to Les Mis in this book and I really liked that we viewed the film at the beginning of the semester because I can really visualize these scenes and it makes it easy to apply the book concepts.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Gadamer's views on biases I also was slightly overwhelmed at first, but after reading more closely and trying to think of ways to apply his ideas (like Les Mis, for example) I think I better understood what he was trying to say. I took what he was saying about bias to be that they exist everywhere in our society today and everybody will have their own opinion and view and therefor bias, but our ability to work through them rather than try to ignore, avoid, or give up on them is important. I think this really ties into the idea of learning in the chapter. It is not only learning to recognize bias, but it is also learning how to communicate with their presence while still being open to learning from others. There is a sense of willingness required in this, a willingness to learn and a willingness to in turn teach others so they can learn. I don't know if I necessarily understand what you mean by "coming together to create one idea", but I took it as a willingness to meet in the middle and recognize that the unavoidable existence of bias is a challenge but is also an accomplishable learning experience. I think this idea of willingness and learning that relates to bias also connects to what you say early in your post about respect and its importance. I think part of dialogue ethics is a respect for other ideas (like the Les Mis example you mention) and that is what allows successful communication between people of different opinions or biases. But I do agree that the section on bias alone, while important, was a little bit dense or confusing until I put it in the context of the rest of the ideas and even trying to apply it to an outside example.