The main takeaway for me from this chapter is the idea of multiplicity. It's mentioned over and over again in several different contexts: multiplicity of oughts, multiplicity of goods, multiplicity of communication ethics, multiplicity of narratives, etc. As this is the topic for my in-class presentation, I've decided to focus on this theme of multiplicity within the field of communication ethics. Think about it - ethical questions are directly connected to questions of identity and no one person has the exact same identity as another person. Thus, multiplicity of identities leads to multiplicity of goods, things that people believe in and hold to (like right and wrong). Like the book says, with this many goods floating around there is bound to be competition for allegiance in the public sphere (p. 26).
The chain continues: Multiplicity of identities leads to multiplicity of goods. Multiplicity of goods leads to multiplicity of communication ethics. When talking specifically about the development of a communication ethic, the book states that communication ethics arise from understanding a good within a narrative structure (p. 26). With so many goods and communication ethics swirling around, it is important to consider that the key piece of ethical communication is respectfulness. There really are no universal goods or value neutrality because everyone holds different beliefs and values. Communication ethics revolves around the idea of multiplicity and, thus, the idea of respect. That's the ethical part. That's basically the definition I gleaned: communication ethics is the ability to recognize multiplicity of goods and to respect those different beliefs. It is the recognition that we take a given philosophy of communication, an understanding of the good, and apply it in interaction with others (p. 32).
With the exception of "respect" being a necessity in communication ethics, I think your understanding of the definition is right on the money--rather, it falls close to my own, which I recognize is a single understanding amidst a multiplicity of them. My interpretation of the book's definition doesn't extend to sympathetic regard for, or unwilling agreement with certain aspects of, an Other's ought. "Respect" conjures such images, but I believe that communication ethics is simply the recognition--while communicating with a person--that a multiplicity of oughts exist and altering your interaction on that basis. Knowing isn't quite enough; in application, we choose whether to allow the existence of other oughts to guide our interaction, and if we so choose, conversation transcends itself to become learning.
ReplyDeleteIn order to "respect" someone else's position, I believe that a certain acquiescence is required. I have to acknowledge, whether verbally or in my head, that some part of what you're saying fits with my own values, or that some part (or all) of your own values is more desirable than some part (or all) of mine. Even if I despise your position on an issue and refuse to give any quarter, my part of the conversation can still be guided by "communication ethics"-- simply acknowledging that your position EXISTS, and that no position is necessarily correct, is enough to instigate learning.
At least, for my personal ought. :)