Chapter 8 focuses on organizational communication and overall, I found the chapter interesting, but this topic has many different facets to it and can be somewhat confusing at times. The main points of organizational communication ethics are: 1) organizational communication, 2) dwelling place, 3) organization and institutions and 4) community of memory within organizations (139). Organizational communication ethics can be difficult because the many possibilities of 'the good'. "Organizations are hosts to a variety of persons with different understandings of the good; organizational communication ethics recognizes the need for a minimal common understanding of a given good in each organizational setting, requiring one to take responsibility for the dwelling that the communicative practices seek to construct" (138). In other words, the textbook provides a way to identify a common good for an organization through its dwelling place and then, ethical communication can be achieved.
While I was reading this chapter, I began to think of how this applied to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an institution, but the different chapters of the church are the organizations to the institute. Like the book said, the Catholic church and all the different churches that make it up are linked together and hold each other accountable (144). To be honest, I am not positive if a church would be considered an organization, but while reading the chapter, it seemed to fit well with what they were describing. In the situation of the Catholic Church, the church organizations rely on the Church to provide them with the 'good'. The Church provides the good of the institutions to the chapters of the church and expects them to protect and promote them accordingly.
When I was thinking about churches, I thought about the 'saying' and 'said' relationship. The book says that this relationship rests in the current historical moment and as things change, the way organizations protect and promote their good may have to change. Recently, the Pope has decided to be open and inviting to LGBT members of the church and a lot of this change has resulted from the changing historical moment. The church still is protecting and promoting their 'good' around homosexuality by continuing to express its sinful nature, but has decided to become more inviting to gay members regardless. Like the hazing example in the book, the Church has used the saying and said relationship to help change to the historical moment while still protecting their good.
I, too, found the idea of a single good for an organization to be problematic. If, as the book says, an organization is host to a variety of persons with different understandings of the good, then it stands to reason that if a person within the organization has a completely different good in mind they may clash with the organization as a whole. BUT! This is the difference of organization communication ethics: it is the good of the organization that matters, not of the individual. There must be a common good. After all, that's why most people join certain organizations; they share a common good, but people are ever-changing and so are their interpretations and definitions of the good. Just as you pointed out, the way the organization promotes their good may have to change as well.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of the institution of the Catholic church particularly hit home for me as I am a practicing Catholic. While I am a Catholic, I would define myself as more of a modern, liberal Catholic. As such I was relieved when Pope Francis began his position as pope with more of a liberal stance. To me this was an example of the organization of the Catholic church beginning to adjust its protection and promotion of its good to the current age. My dissonance with the previously conservative ideals of the Catholic church is an example of how individuals within an organization may disagree with certain aspects of the organization, but put those aside for the common good.
Well, I personally think church is a powerful institution. There are a lot of good things that churches have done with the God's name. I had several opportunities to read articles about churches' precedence happened all over the world. However, when I think of churches, the first thing I can think of is corruption. The reason why is because there are so many corruptions which happened and still happening which church got involved in my country. About 70% of people are christian in my country so the social influence they are having is inexpressive. For example, there is a church which has a lot of believers. The preacher of that church forced people to pay contribution for church. He even set up several ATM machines for people who forgot to bring money. Also, churches do not even pay taxes at all. One time, some politicians started to claim that churches should pay taxes too because their money increase their social influence so powerful. When the church union heard about that, they lobbied to a few powerful politicians with a lot of money to abolish that policy. This is why I am saying that churches are powerful institutions.
ReplyDeleteProbably Catholic that you are talking about is different from Christianity, but Christianity in my country does not have nice reputation to others.
(I am talking about Christianity only in my country. I know there are many honest and conscientious churches in the world.)