This chapter intrigued me because it distinguished itself away from the other forms of communication ethics. I felt like we were discussing communication topics in a broad, public entity, and now we are transitioning into communication ethics in a more private setting. Interpersonal communication is a great example of communication ethics in a more private format.
I was caught off guard by this chapter when it stated, "when the interaction no longer nourishes the relationship, interpersonal communication moves into another form of communicative interaction" (p.119). Really? How so? I feel that I've had several relationships that weren't healthy, but they still were interpersonal because me and that other person were aware of the logistics at hand. I'm looking forward to discussing this point tomorrow in class.
There were 3 metaphors of interpersonal communication ethics that are practiced: Interpersonal communication, distance, and interpersonal responsibility. If I had to summarize what interpersonal communication is, I'd say that it's only interested in maintaining or building good between a small set of people. I realized that the interpersonal communication dynamic of a relationship can "range from the close to the intimate" (121). I'd agree with that, because we all know that there are different dynamics between you and your loved ones, compared to you and your boss (close/intimate).
I'd summarize distance as an essential need for space between 2 or more people to ensure that a relationship is healthy. "Distance is interpersonal space that nourishes the very thing that keeps persons together interpersonally" (125). I'd add to this, and say that there is a need to observe and keep track of the amount of distance in a relationship. For example, within a relationship between a boyfriend and girlfriend, it's important to have a sense when your partner needs their space and individualization, but it's also important to promote a feeling between the two that they are one, aggregate whole.
Interpersonal responsibility, to be concluded, is the amount of commitment each person has within a relationship to ensure that the relationship is healthy, growing, and not falling off. It's important that each person has the same amount of commitment, so each doesn't feel vulnerable or putting in all of the work. This metaphor derives from Levinas, where it abandons "the expectation of reciprocity of attentiveness to a call to responsibility with or without the approval of the Other" (121). I don't know if I agree with that statement... after all, most people create a relationship with another person to create a positive, happy vibe. Both want to reciprocate off of what each person is bringing to the table. I don't know if I have any meaningful relationships in my life where there is not a give and take. I'm sure we will discuss this tomorrow!
Devin
I owe you some thanks, Devin. Your mention of how interpersonal communication becomes something else when the nurturing of that relationship breaks down inspired me to carefully examine situations of breakdown in my own life to figure out what other kinds of communication ethics are created. In my blog post, I narrowed the field down to three--business and professional communication ethics with a codes, standards, and procedures approach, organizational communication ethics, and narrative communication ethics--but many more exist. You're correct that, physically speaking, two communicators still exist and interact when that nurturing stops, but in your examples and others, the positions they occupy change.
ReplyDeletePer your example, in a relationship that is no longer healthy (let's say, myself and an ex-girlfriend), we may break up and thus the relationship is no longer being nurtured. Arnett and the authors would claim that this is no longer interpersonal communication--that a different form of communication ethics has been introduced. In this example, one possibility is dialogic ethics. If my ex-girlfriend and I still communicate after the breakup, which is likely, the subject would probably be how to divide the stuff we've accrued together, objects that were left at each other's houses, who keeps the dog, and so forth. In these aftermath interactions, the conversation bounces between information exchange and decision-making, two of three key areas in dialogic ethics. There might even be some dialogue-ing, as one side or the other refuses to give the other a chance to speak and instead resorts to "telling" how things are going to be.
Attempting to re-imagine the nature of speaker and listener as two communicators with fundamentally altered roles, not just two physical people in close proximity to one another, has helped me deduce some of the ways interpersonal communication can transform if mistreated.