Ch. 6 Public Discourse Ethics

While I was reading this chapter, I found that this facet of communication ethics is very applicable to my life at this moment. "Public discourse ethics protects and promotes a place of conversation for diversity of ideas and persons" (pg. 100). The book then breaks down public discourse ethics into three metaphors: publics discourse, public decision making and differentiation of public and private space (pg. 100). Considering we are all college students at this time, learning to communicate ethically in a public arena is crucial. To have ethical public discourse, it is incredibly important to put the protection of the good of the public and the public space above the good of an individual. Public discourse cannot reach it's full efficiency if a person protects their personal good because then, diversity of ideas and people will suffer consequently. We also need to make sure that public and private space is differentiation without forcing the private and public to be exclusively separate. Overall, this chapter is very relatable and I can see examples of this in my life, but the chapter did seem to ramble and at times, seemed to somewhat confuse this rather simple ideas.

As I said above, I think that this idea of ethically upholding public discourse can be beneficial and easily related to our lives at this time. While I was reading this chapter, I couldn't help, but think of how this idea applies perfectly to our classroom. We have people of different genders and races and so, the public arena is most definitely filled with diversity of ideas and peoples. In our class, there are times were we have to discuss things that are controversial or difficult to talk about and if we don't use public discourse ethics in our dialogue, it could be problematic. The chapter describes the public arena as a "sacred space" and says "to nourish this space is to keep before us diversity of ideas and persons while keeping the private life differentiated and clean" (pg. 109). Instead of promoting our good and shutting down to diverse feelings of the good, we need to welcome the differences to help us form ideas. At times, I think that I know my particular good, but I love hearing other people's opinions and at times, hearing all the different feelings and opinions helps me rethink my own Good. "Public discourse ethics requires us to discern, decide withs one self-questioning, and change our minds when necessary" (pg. 104). In the class, I really do think we have a great handle of public discourse ethics and we have created a safe space where we have been promoting great conversation through different ideas, opinion and standpoints.

Chapter 6: Public Discourse Ethics

Overall, I felt that this may have been one of the most confusing chapters we have read thus far.  I feel like I understand what the authors are trying to say, however, it seems to get fairly repetitive and also rather lengthy.  I think that's the part that confuses me.  The concepts themselves do not seem that difficult to grasp, but the text overworks itself trying to explain, and then re-explain what they mean, and define the difference between "public" and "private" discourse.

A few interesting points that are made however, is the overlap between public and private discourse that modern technology allows.  The book states that "when the wrong communicative space (public or private) invades the other, a fundamental communication ethics violation occurs." (107).  How do other people feel about this?  Although this overlap may not be ideal, do any of  you guys think it's somewhat normal/necessary?  When technology keeps advancing, it becomes more difficult to limit "public" and "private" discourse.  My employer expects me to check my emails frequently, and sometimes I have to do this when I'm out with a friend.  I think this is happening more and more frequently in society, therefore, it becomes more and more accepted. Obviously there are times when this would be extremely rude, and I certainly think that when "private" discourse invades "public"(like checking twitter at work etc), it becomes more of a problem.

Also, the book claims that the reason we love to watch talk shows stems from our "finding entertainment in voyeurism, watching others make fools of themselves through violation of public and private communicative lives." (107).  I think this overstated.  We live in a culture that is increasingly becoming more open.  I feel that many people who watch such shows actually enjoy the fact that participants and interviewees are more open about their lives and what they choose to share.  I also feel that some people who watch these shows may be watching because they like the host, or they are curious about the topic which will be discussed because it may apply in some way to their own life.  I don't really think that these shows are watched for the sole purpose of making fun of others.  (Of course, I am assuming that by talk shows, the book is referring more to "Oprah" and "Dr. Phil" setups, not to "Jerry Springer").   Does anyone else find this to be a dramatic, overreaching claim?

Toni Morrison on repression

Saw this on the A Mighty Girls Facebbok feed this morning-thought that I would share. It reminded me how Paulo Freire conveyed oppression. For more on A Mighty Girl see www.amightygirl.com

I'm not included: Dialogic influences of Identity reclamation throughnaming

I find myself continuing to contemplate yesterday's discussion concerning naming and identity. One of your peers, Dani, mentioned concerns about the exclusivity of naming as community members who are 'Othered' attempt to influence the image of themselves. The example of the BET network got me thinking about how naming of the Self (when struggling through oppression) influences our interactions with others considered dominant within certain social structures. For example, for a long time I've seen friends (male as well as people of color) feel in excluded from feminist conversations due to perceptions of the term 'feminism'. The 'femin' root may seem exclusive to women and the history of the movement and organizations with that name have been predominantly and sometimes exclusively white (Brown, 1989; Chehade, 2001).

When we name or identify or classify, we not only create 'in' groups, but also 'out' groups (Bowker and Stars, 1999; Burke, 1941). When people specifically communicate instances of oppression through how they name their identity, "a lack of white privilege can be experienced as oppression" (Nakamura, 2002, p. 78).

Here is a question that I have come to to (hopefully) further our dialogue: If though our identity reclamation others recognize their privilege/experience oppression, how might that recognition influence dialogue? 

I am not advocating for the invisibility of oppression or silencing identity reclamation (as Burke noted we cannot legislate language)-racial invisibility allows for a privileged group to “take their identity as the norm or stand by which other groups are measured” (Martin, Krizek, Nakayama, & Bradford, 1996) and facilitate privilege through silence. I am just wondering how the labels we choose influence the potential for dialogue.

refs:

Brown, E. B. (1989). Womanist Consciousness: Maggie Lena Walker and the Independent Order of Saint Luke. Signs, 14(3), 610-633.

Bowker, G.C., & Stars, S.L. (1999) Sorting things out classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Burke, K. (1941). The philosophy of literary form (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chehade C (2001) Big little white lies: Our attempt to white-out America. New Brunswick, NJ: Nehmarche Publishing.

Martin, J. N., Krizek, R. L., Nakayama, T. K., & Bradford, L. (1996). Exploring Whiteness: A study of self labels for white Americans. Communication Quarterly, 44(2): pp. 125-144.

Nakamura, L. (2002). Head-hunting on the internet: Identity tourism, avatars, and racial passing in the textual and graphic chat spaces. In L. Nakamura (Ed.), Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet (pp. 31-60). New York: Routledge.

providing a response to this post will count toward as a response post.

Chapter 6: Public Discourse Ethics

Because we live in an era of disagreement, public discourse has become something of a bloody battleground. With so many definitions of "good" or right versus wrong, almost everyone feels the need to voice their opinion and their beliefs. While there is certainly nothing wrong with this need (indeed, everyone is entitled to their own opinion), the idea of public discourse ethics has fallen through the gaping cracks of difference. Since difference is the energy that drives communication and dialogue, then dialogic ethics are key in the realm of public discourse.

We have to listen to be able to learn. How can you possibly hear what there is to be said when you refuse to listen or don't acknowledge the voices of others? Listen without demand. Take into consideration this specific and particular moment of time, this context. This moment is unlike any other in all the world, so it won't progress the same way nor will it be addressed or potentially solved in the same way. Beyond listening, we have to be actively attentive. How are you, individually, being influenced or influencing this particular situation? The other person in the conversation? You have to negotiate the moment. There are emergent answers to be found, but we must acknowledge that not all questions or debates have immediate answers. We have to be satisfied with the success of simple ethical public discourse. Listen and learn.

Ch. 6

The biggest and most important concept that I took from this chapter is the integration of the public and private space and their dynamics together.  The chapter states that they support and enhance one another by maintaining separate identities.  I think this is really applicable to every day life because ourselves and our opinions are constantly being shaped, altered, strengthened or weakened by the opinions and ideas of those around us, and those of our peers.  Thus, our private opinions in our private space not only affect what public spaces we involve ourselves in, but vise versa, our public spaces affect our private space.  Although, during the reading I found myself wondering if our public space that we choose to involve ourselves in is reflective of our private opinions and private space.  I wonder this because there is a certain bias that occurs when looking for information regarding our opinions.  It is natural human instinct to look for and more easily accept information that supports and strengthens your personal opinions, even though the information may not be completely factual.  Thus, this could be quite a large critique of how the dynamics of these public and private spaces may be controlled, subconsciously.  I am curious to find out if any other classmates could come up with any other critiques or factors that could affect these spaces and the perceptions of both.

Chapter 5 Blog Post

Before reading this chapter, I was a little confused at what separated dialogic communication ethics from some of the of the other forms like contextual. However, I think Buber's definition really helped. He defined dialogue as "a meeting of respectful difference--one's own bias meets that of another text or person, encountering Otherness, not similarity" (82). To me this makes a lot more sense, and I feel like I am more confident with the subject. It also goes against my former notion of dialogue. Maybe I'm the only one, but I always thought dialogue was just any conversation between two people. For example, when we read plays back in high school, didn't the teachers and others refer to all of the conversations as dialogues? But then I guess this is what we meant in class when we talked about dialogic ethics being emergent. So then if dialogue emerges from differences, this is something we engage in on a daily basis living in our postmodern society where we are constantly met with different beliefs, motives, reactions, norms, etc.

I think the example that I found most relevant was the one regarding Madison and Terrell who were working on a class project together. Because they didn't know each other, most of their interactions involved technical dialogue, but once Terrell opened up about his life a little bit, new insights were revealed through the dialogue and the questions that arose between the two. As the text states, "the process of dialogue often begins in monologue and technical dialogue, only to surprise us with its emergence when least expected," (86) and that is exactly what was depicted in the example. I have also experienced this, especially at work. Often times I work with one other person, and so as we are working our conversations will usually center on the task at hand. However, that isn't always the case. I remember one time my coworker asked what I did on Monday. I listed everything that I did, and when he heard that I led a Bible study, dialogue instantly began. His beliefs were different than mine, yet he was interested in hearing what I believed and why. We were able to have a great conversation for 45 minutes, and even though we believed different things it never turned argumentative. I think that was the case because we put content and learning foremost as suggested on page 80. Through the process we were both able to provide insight into our own narratives and learn about what led us to the point of believing what we did at the current time.

Blog 5 chapter 5

Chapter 5 Blog 5


Chapter 5 was a reading that I would have to say I was not interested in at all. The ideas set forth and the ability to keep an audience was just not there. I get that not every chapter will be as moving as the next but this one latterly kept putting me to sleep. I understand that Dialogue is an important part of every day life and we must practice it for real world application but I am unsure of how this chapter connected to anything that I go through or may go through. I think the authors tried to convey a point that was almost hard for them to address.

Some things that bothered me were how they just continue with such dry language. In addition, why couldn’t this chapter be summed up in a few short ideas. It dragged on for so long. Buber seemed like the six dimensions were the last words he ever spoke. It seemed to me that his ideas were their but he know that the concept lacked imagination as well as a strong backing. Maybe they are setting up for a better chapter after.

I did like one thing about this chapter. They talked about different views on the theory, which makes some sense. We cannot always look at things by one sphere. The world is now like a kaleidoscope and we must begin to think like this for any type of change or we will never have a good dialogical sphere. I do believe one thing. Paulo Freire refers to saving face. People in different advantage levels in life may be subject to different forums of communication. This is very important to realize because it is something that we like to look-over or underestimate. I feel as if this was the only positive thing I pulled out of this chapter.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 says about dialogic ethics which emphasizes learning and understanding differences. I think Dialogic ethics are really needed to communicate well with people. I totally agree with the idea that difference is key to learning. Among people having differences, learning enables people to open to others and new ideas. I like the idea that dialogic ethics possible without demands. 

The book gives five coordinates to invite dialogue that makes me strongly agree while reading. First, the book encourages you to be a listener. I think listening to others is as important as learning to live well in a postmodern culture at the same time. The book also says ceasing demand to avoid making dialogue to monologue. More than that it mentions that acknowledge bias which is inevitable and not all communication provide possibility for dialogue. Last, it says keeping content and learning foremost. I think dialogic ethics encourages us to learn and aware of differences that exist around us. As the guidelines offered, listening without demand, attentiveness, dialogic negotiation that emerge the answers and temporal dialogic ethical competence are needed to listen and learn difference like what dialogue is. 

Chapter 5: Dialogic

What we have discussed in class a few times and have read about in the text book is committing to learning through experiencing the something similar to someone else, which is in a way putting dialogic communication. In a post that I previously posted about process. It's a process to learn from others. Like it was saying in the chapter that there is the monologue, technical, and then the genuine ways of communicating.

I like the way they put it in the text book. Professors or teachers usually do the monologuing for a class to get students to understand. When its one on one where the teacher is interacting with small group or even just the individual there is the interaction that is face to face, it lets the student(s) ask questions and talk to the teacher. Then genuine communication seems to be when students talk to the teacher where there is mutual learning environment. 

Differing narratives also help in learning. When you see something different it usually stands out (hopefully). Hopefully I think because if we see something different and value different and the Other then we may have a seed planted and the networking in our brains may change.

Chapter 5

There were some interesting points in this chapter.  The theories of Hans Gadamer (stating that bias is a big part of human understanding stood out.  It is interesting that Gadamer says that we should not try to do away with bias when it has such a negative connotation in our society.  The book states that “[b]iases guide our unique insights and contributions to everyday life” and if we approach difference from Gadamer’s perspective, we will recognize our own biases and how they shape our views, and also recognize that the Other has biases as well.  The idea of learning from each other in order to deepen our understanding is something that resonated with me in this chapter.

Another part of Chapter 5 that stood out was the idea of “imposing dialogue on settings that do not authentically call forth dialogue” “forc[ing] a false sense of openness and attentiveness to another.”  The example that the book gives about the organization that prided itself on its familial attitude toward its employees which later laid many of these employees off is something that I have thought about at work.  A couple of years ago there were quite a few people laid off from the company that I work for.  When I found out about these layoffs, I thought about how this company stated numerous times that our organization was a close knit group, even describing us all as a “family.”  This is like what the book describes as “trying to make communicative structures intimate and friendly that live genuinely in the public sphere and are enriched by communicative distance.”  Organizations try to bring everyone together and create a sense of family but when people are laid off, the affected employees become disillusioned by how they were treated in contrast to how they were led to believe they were valued by the company.

 

Chapter 5

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.

Chapter 5 - Dialogic Ethics

In this chapter on dialogic ethics, many theories of how dialogue can occur are discussed. I'm starting to see a pattern on how learning is such a key component of communication ethics. It is brought up in nearly all the chapters of the book so far.

I found it interesting when the chapter starts discussing on how dialogic ethics can be compared to as a form of moral jujitsu (p. 91). It is described that when we are faced with a view point that may not be our own, instead of getting defensive, attacking, or ignoring the Other, we should see it is a door opening and giving us the opportunity to learn from the Other. First, we must acknowledge that there will be bias on both sides and differences. Difference is what helps to create dialogue and promotes learning, but you cannot demand dialogue to occur. By accepting the differences, you can allow for open discussion, which doesn't mean that you agree with the viewpoint, but that you see it as another legitimate view which the Other had created through narratives and dialogues. Another key point that the book mentioned is that dialogue can occur on topics whether we like it or not, so the best way to go about it is to be attentive and again, see it is a key learning experience. This reminds me of how dialogue with my mom may occur. I don't necessarily agree with her and she acknowledges that, but my willingness to respect her views, listen to her, and maybe try to gain insight or learn from her narrative. I don't like what she has to say, but going about it ethically or reasonably, helps open up dialogue for future conversations more easily. We can both learn from each other this way. 

Ideally, this seems very simple to do. We all have our own bias and narratives and that if we shared, we would gain new narratives to share with others. But unfortunately, this is actually harder to achieve in reality. It can be very difficult when you perceive that your is narrative is threatened by the Other. That's why it is so important to emphasize how learning and accepting that there will be differences will allow for more effective and open dialogue. It can be seen easily now that people all around the world are connected and coming into contact with different narratives. For so long, people of the same general area had a consensus of what their narratives were so when that particular narrative seems to be threatened by the Other, many people may not know how to go about the decision. It'd be nice if everyone who are going to use the Internet had to take this course. I feel like it may create a better platform for open dialogue if everyone had the same core concepts of learning from differences and accepting the differences, but not necessarily agreeing to those differences or changing their views. 
 

Dialogic ethics in the anthropology of our lives

Chapter 5's content--discussion of the dialogic, and how historical situatedness and recognition of the Other guide three main types of dialogue--was especially relatable for me. An elective course I took two years ago, Understanding Cultures, offered a view of the human experience in discovery through an anthropological lens. Many of the concepts discussed in this chapter, especially those cited from Gadamer on page 82, reflect the anthropologist's understanding of interaction between persons and applies them to oral communication. Specifically, anthropologists traditionally rely on concepts of "In-betweenness" and "Otherness" to describe states of existence along a spectrum that connects our perception of reality--how we see the world--with the holistic human experience of another person. Actually, I claim some ownership of the idea of In-betweenness and Otherness along a linear spectrum (with "Sameness" as the opposite end we usually occupy). Gadamer's framing of dialogue as an encounter with Otherness, "a meeting of respectful difference--one's own bias [meeting] that of another text or person," calls to mind this linear depiction. I'm reminded that Otherness is a space we can never truly occupy, only seek to understand by pushing the boundaries of In-betweenness with more intense immersion, greater learning, and, as Communication Ethics Literacy claims, alertness to the ethics of the historical moment.

In fact, I see one's "communication ethic" as just a single piece of true Otherness, whether applied across geographic distance, religious conflict, economic class, or even across the classroom, where I often look up to see Lee. I imagine Lee and I could find several similarities in our worldview and perceptions of the world--similarities between our individual Sameness. But for the infinite parallels, both grandiose and imperceptibly minor, there are infinite differences that create spaces of Otherness which neither of us will ever truly occupy, no matter how much time we spend together and how much insight we might derive from the book's "genuine dialogue." But my anthropological background has allowed me to better understand dialogic communication, especially as it involves negotiation, attentiveness, and temporal competence (page 96). All of these are necessary pursuits for the anthropologist conducting field research in a different culture than his or her own. I can visualize communication ethics, a concept we struggle to encompass even after weeks of class, as just one part of the learning and development (the anthropology) of our lives.

Chapter 5 Post 5

   Dialogue Ethics is as the chapter states, more and more important as we continue to advance, yet I kind of am unsure about which theory is correct.  However Paulo Freire's theory is the one that I really disagree with.  He argues that a true dialogue cannot be reached if there is a difference in power among the two.  I think that this is where some of the most important dialogues take place. Whether it is between a coach and a player, or boss and employee.  There is ALWAYS going to be a power difference when engaging in a dialogue, and it is a persons ability to navigate these differences that allow for useful and meaning full dialogue to take place.  Even if one person has, "enough power to be heard without listening" a lot can be learned from both sides (p. 87).
  As a player on the football team, I face these differences all of the time, a coach allows has the ability to not only disregard what I say, but to keep me until he is sure I know what he is saying.  Yet these are some of the most productive conversations during my day.  If I operate under the guide that he knows what he is talking about, the power difference actually benefits me as I gain from his expertise, but also if he so choses my input can help him figure out the best way to reach a player, or teach a play.  So I would say that Freire is right in that power dynamics impact the way a dialogue is structured and that may hinder the productivity of it; but I would also argue that once a person figures out these rules (using the common sense gained by experience) these dialogues can be very useful, meaningful, and benefical to both parties.

Chapter 5 - Dialogic Ethics

The caption to this chapter is "Meeting Differing Grounds of the Good," which is realized through dialogic ethics. There is a huge and necessary emphasis on our differences that creates learning and opens the door for dialogue with others. Not everyone has the same narrative. Therefore, first and foremost, you must understand your grounds and what makes up your understanding of the good, in order communicate effectively with dialogue.

There are a lot of suggestions when it comes to dialogic ethics. I agree with Hans Gadamer that our biases control our daily lives and the way we communicate. Our biases come from our narratives and the way we have grown to understand the world. This is also how we create our "common sense." There are three steps Gadamer suggests to effectively participate in dialogue:
1. Amit your biases.
2. Respect the bias of others.
3. You must be willing to permit the "fusion of horizons."
In which these three steps can help your learning process when communicating with others (pg. 86).
Engaging in dialogue with someone with different biases could affect your own views positively or negatively. It can reaffirm your current views or change them; for better or for worse.
For example, I used to be quite bias on the fact that people can get to where they want in life based on the hard work they put in. And the notion of who you know, and not what you know was a way for people to deceive their way up to the top. However, as I've discovered throughout college and through participating in dialogue with others, I've changed my own world-views and come to value the importance of networking. While still agreeing that merit will get you places, networking and using others as resource can be a merit within itself. This occurred when my current boss would go out of her way to do things for me or try to help me as much as she could. When I asked why she wanted to be such a resource to me, she responded that she believes everyone deserves an opportunity and some people just need to meet the right people to give them that opportunity. Her bias and mine both fused and reconstructed my way of thinking.

The concept by Paulo Freire was a little confusing for me. He talks about one having power and equity in order for there to be dialogue, as well as saving face for the oppressed/disadvantaged. Based on my own biases, I could not agree that someone must assimilate to the ways of the dominant culture in order to have dialogue. But after reading the paragraph over a few times, from what I can grasp, in order to have dialogue two people must have the same intentions and commitments, and must be of equal power/status. So unfortunately, some people will have to learn the ways and norms of the dominant culture in order to have genuine dialogue. However, how can we break that barrier? And I guess it comes to the question of, do we even want to break that barrier? Why do we want to be accepted by a particular group that won't accept our real self?

Chapter 5 Blog Post

Within the Dialogic Ethics chapter, there seemed to be emphasis on difference and the Other. On a daily basis, encountering difference occurs in nearly in every aspect of our lives. Whether it be on our commute to school, in a classroom, at work, etc., Difference can be our key to learning about things that we thought not possible before these encounters. This creates possibility within our personal lives. I interpret this further and more personally to be considered as looking at the person to whom you are in conversation with and imaging their view as a possibility. What they are saying is a reality to them – and this awareness makes us even more aware of difference that occurs and puts into perspective of how much more difference there is than we initially think. 

I appreciated our text book’s emphasis on learning as a part a foundation of difference. “Learning is the anchor in an era that rebels against universalistic foundations. Difference opens the door to learning (p. 81).” In addition to difference, dialogue adds other perspectives, ideas, and thoughts. I believe that through listening to the Other and their difference, learning takes place within ourselves and can become self-reflective to where our original ideas and thoughts have the potential to be transformed. For example, if I were to encounter someone of a different culture (the Other) and they perceived a situation differently than I did, I would look at their perception as valid and become aware of the difference of perception and possibly learn from that difference to alter my initial perception.