Democratic Communication Ethics

In Chapter 3, Arnett et al talk about democratic communication ethics. They define this approach to communication ethics as "a public process for contention about ideas, customs, and rights, protecting and promoting the good of decision making" (page 46). I think that this approach is interesting because it seems to require democracy as a common valued good. Would it be possible to take this approach in a non-democratic society? If we did try, how successful would it be? When decision making is not a valued good in a society, what sort of good might this approach be replaced by?

The democratic approach to communication ethics is clearly a very narrative-based approach. The authors speak about the democratic approach as stemming from early Greece, where "rhetoric provided a foundation for public participation" (page 46); I feel that since this time there has been a multiplicity of shifting goods within the sphere of democracy that are important to note in our interpretation of this approach.

While public participation is still a valued good in American society today as it was in ancient Greece, the desired participating publics have very much so changed. In ancient Greece the participation of wealthy white men who were educated was valued more than the participation of anyone else. Today I feel that as our society increasingly relies upon capitalism, it is the participation of consumers in the public forum that is important, more specifically wealthy consumers. Do you think that my interpretation of the who the valued public participant is is accurate? If so, is this choice ethical in the context of other American values? Or is it limiting and therefore unethical? Whose voices should we be hearing that perhaps we are not? 

Contextual Communication Ethics

One theme I found interesting within Chapter 3 was contextual communication ethics. Contextual communication ethics is essentially the adaptation of the ways one communicates based on the audience  being communicated with (pg. 51). In the book, there was an example given about the appropriateness of eye contact amongst different cultures. In American culture eye contact is vital in face to face communication while in other cultures it may be an invasion of privacy.

A personal example of contextual communication ethics for me could be the ways I communicate with a friend of mines with a Muslim background. I come from a very close knit family were hugs are a big part of how we communicate and show affection towards one another. On the other hand my friend comes from a very different culture where any form of touching between male and females is looked down upon. In respect of her culture I use contextual communication ethics by avoiding hugs and giving her more personal space while communicating than I would with other friends. Using this approach was most effective because I hug all of my other friends but for that individual case I chose what I felt to be the greater good.

Chapter 3

  In our culture today, narratives play an important role within our society.  A universal agreed upon set of stories- traditions, legends and heroes, told across different cultures can help further explain the meaning of life and why things are the way they are. Narratives offer guidelines for “living and for evaluating one’s own life and that of others. We see the power of a narrative in human response to stories, which are narrative in a form but less encompassing than the more comprehensive structures of a particular tradition. Human beings respond to stories and to the goods they manifest. Stories display attributes of the cultures of which they are a part of” (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, pg. 53). Narrative communication ethics recognizes the nature of human experience, providing a framework appropriate to the given characters in the story. The background displayed in a narrative teaches us how to behave, and how to further grow as people.

  From a storytelling perspective, those who are participating in the dialogue must be able to interpret the message in order to fully understand the underlying meaning (the moral of the story or why the message was told in the first place). A narrative “frames a good and holds implications for action and evaluation of that action; behavior of persons in the narrative should be consistent with the good articulated by the narrative. Religiously and politically grounded communication ethics- for that matter, all story-laden communication ethics- may be framed within a narrative ethic” (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, pg. 54). Different narratives that are told across cultures give outsiders a look into what is valued in their society and what differing individuals value. Additionally, narratives play an important role within a culture by presenting guidelines through stories on how to act and behave for those who are actively participating in a story.

  For example, a familiar narrative known to most people, especially to Christians, involves the account of Adam and Eve in the secret Garden of Eden. Those who understand the story of Adam and Eve agree, “A moment’s pleasure, results in a lifetime of pain.” This example including the account of Adam and Eve could potentially tie into postmodernity defined as, “a multiplicity of narratives within which persons and communities find meaning, generating rival understandings of virtues and competing views of the good. These competing narratives now take the form of “petite narratives,” a term that acknowledges the existence of more than one understanding of human life and the good” (Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, pg. 38). Biblical narratives help cultures and communities develop a closer connection by developing the underlying message together, and understanding the meaning of human life. To illustrate, Christians celebrate Christmas to acknowledge and rejoice in the birth of Jesus, and do so by getting together with friends and family. During Christmas, my grandma gathers her grandchildren around the Christmas tree and tells different stories about the birth of Jesus and the significance of the holiday as a culture. Similarly with narratives that provide a guideline on how to act, religious narratives also offer the same framework emphasizing the importance of values and morals. From an outsider perspective, religious narratives can also give a more in depth understanding on different religions.

chapter 3

Chapter 3 discusses different ways to frame dialogic ethics and approaches to communication ethics.  These are theoretical approaches and they help us u understand the “sense” of the good that each approach ask us to protect and promote (44).I got stuck with the Contextual Communication ethics approach that is recognizing variations in culture, persons and communication setting when applying communication ethics principles, protecting and promoting the good of the particular context and the good residing in that context (51). This approach asks questions about the situation of the determined and is looking to find the good appropriate for that individual case.

 It brings up the example about differences in appropriateness of eye contact across cultures, that it can mean different things in different culture. These may be something that an organisation and business need to think of with their employees and emphasise when having employees across different cultures.  I think this approach brings up a lot of things that I have experienced coming from a different culture and things that I think is important to emphasize in a lot of cases. A simply thing like saying “hi how are you” and being polite to strangers here in the U.S. Is where I come from almost rude and not as appropriate as it might be here. It is something I had to adjust to when moving here since people often got very intimidated about how I acted socially. Once again, communication ethics teach us to understand that there different goods and that they can vary across cultures and that we have different ways to perceive the world.

Narrative Communication Ethics

Narrative communication ethics

            Our book states that Narrative Communication Ethics protects and promotes the good that “manifests through the action of a given story, and the characters that live the practices of a given narrative structure.” Narrative communication ethics arise from one’s lived experiences, and the goods that reside in those experiences. Thus, those experiences construct guidelines and provide principles for “living and evaluating one’s own life and that of others.” (Arnett, Fritz, Bell P.53). Narratives are driven by the attributes of the cultures from which they originate, and the goods that reside within these cultures can sometimes be shared across cultures in locations across the globe.

            Additionally, the book describes “metanarratives,” which identifies one transcendent good or set of transcendent goods. Postmodernism, however, recognized the presence of multiple and competing “petite narratives.” These petite narratives, unlike metanarratives, have a “ground” – within each narrative is an ethic to protect and promote a given sense of the good. The existence of multiple petite narratives allows one a set or sets of guiding principles, whilst those guiding principles don’t necessarily claim universal validity. (Arnett, Fritz, Bell P.53)

Blog 3: Inviting Dialogue

The power of dialogic communication comes from its unbiased view that neither party owns a dialogue between two people. It is a shared space of mutual respect with the intention of achieving a higher learning and understanding. The subject of the dialogue is something external to the individuals’ understanding; it arises from a situation or trait that must be addressed, thus rendering itself to result in a meaningful revelation. Dialogic communication is an ongoing effort to promote open communications and reveal solutions that one person might not have had the capacity to discover by him or herself. These dialogues are ongoing conversations and sometimes when a good is discovered it can lead to the discovery of many other goods.

Dialogic communications ethics states that “dialogue is the home of a hope we cannot own, but can only invite” (Arnett, Fritz, Bell P. 58). Sometimes people can become depressed and self medicate with alcohol. Over time the alcohol becomes a crutch and the person’s mind is fogged up because of all the numbness they have grown accustomed to existing in their daily lives. Some might say this is a personality trait, but the truth is that the alcohol is not biologically or organically formed that person’s body; it is an externality that has found a home in a new body. The ingestion of alcohol makes the person not capable of seeing how damaging their behavior has become to themselves and those around them. Through dialogic communication friends, family, or even a therapist can help that person come to the realization that they must take certain steps to better themselves. In return, the person who has been numbed by alcohol can help others come to the understanding why he/she became dependent on the substance. Being a two-way format, dialogues help bridge externalities and circumstances to solutions that bring about a greater good; in this case a revelation to the substance abuser and knowledge of circumstances to those who have chosen to initiate the dialogue.

Universal-Humanitarian Communication Ethics. Chapter 3

  Chapter 3 gave examples of several different approaches to Communication Ethics, and showcased how vast and complex this subject is.  Out of all of the approaches that were talked about I was interested in the universal-humanitarian approach.  This approach takes the view that ethical principles are inborn and universal.  The basis of this approach is that we follow or adhere to rational principles as an obligation of being part of the human community.

 The chapter uses an example about telling the truth or lying in the circumstances of protecting a coworker.  This is followed by the most impactful statement I found within the explanation of this approach.  "A universal-humanitarian communication ethic does not attend to the messiness of particulars, but to the principles that prescribe or dictate one's duty."  So if you were to follow this line of reasoning, we are supposed to avoid any known wrong instead of avoiding a possible wrong.

  If you apply this within the example in the text then we are to tell the truth instead of protecting a coworker because lying is a universally known wrong, but we don't know the consequences of if we lie to protect the coworker.  To take this principle a step further, because we can never know the consequences of what any of our actions will be we should never lie, even if the intention of the lie is to bring about something good.  I have been in this situation before and thought that I was protecting someone with good intentions but inevitably the truth finds a way and then the consequences are worse because you have to deal with the fact that you lied also.  So no matter how ethical you would view your reason for lying, universal-humanitarian communication ethics say that the universal pre-existing duty is to tell the truth.  In this approach the rule of honesty is the best policy definitely applies.

Blog Post 3

Every culture has a set of standards, codes and procedures that defines what is and isn't ethical. Thus, these codes "justify different communication standards for different audiences, cultures, and relationships" (51). Understanding the context of the communication setting is a very important factor when promoting the common good because one must understand what is and isn't ethical in different settings. Typically, many cultures have certain core values that stand out as their central idea to promoting the common good and the core values are what socialize people into maintaining their culture.

First of all, when someone is born into a culture they are immediately socialized and taught what is right and wrong. For example, in a school setting they're specific rules every kid has to follow from the day of kindergarten until the day they graduate. The communication ethics between students and teachers is very important because teachers are responsible for promoting an authentic yet healthy environment for kids. In addition, students are taught is to raise they're hands when they have something to say. What types of ethics is this promoting in kids and how does the structure of raising your hand to speak effect students for the rest of their life? Kids are taught to raise they're hand as a respect to the teacher and others around them. This enforces an environment that gives everyone a fair opportunity to speak without being interrupted. Thus, this notion of respect is then taught and carried out into kids/students daily lives--teaching them control over their thoughts when around others. However, some people grow up and don't have copious amounts of respect for what others say and still interrupt people. That being said, even though not everyone is perfectly respectful of people speaking they're still people who grow up to be very respectful--making the lesson of raising your hand an important tool for students.

In all, respect is an important key factor in communication ethics and is a popular standard for many people to follow. Respect is a huge value that is said to be used and enforced but is often not always carried out. Thus, this is why communication ethics is important to understand because people have to understand how to navigate and manage the co-existence of cultures.  

The Philosophy of Communication---Chapter 2

After reviewing Chapter 2, there comes a question for me: what is the essence of the philosophy of communication and what does the role of narrative in communication ethics in social life.
Here are some basic descriptions of the philosophy of communication and narratives.  In chapter 2, it says the value of  the philosophy of communication is " gives life richness, depth, texture, and meaning. Without a philosophy of communication, we meet only a technical manual or a set of isolated recipes that assumes that we already know why what we are doing matters"(p 35); also, the philosophy " understanding of communication ethics provides the 'why' for communicative action, and applied communication carries the “why” into interaction with others"(p 35).  Talking about narrative, there is a brief introduction on page explains narrative as "a story agreed upon by a group of people that provides limits within which we dwell as embedded communicative agents", and narrative is capable to "do change from the actions of communicative agents and shifts in the historical moment; ideologies resist alteration from the outside and stories fail to move people to the point of active support".
As the descriptions above, there should be a question that who will use the philosophy of communication and narrative for what purposes?  If narrative targets to limited groups of people, change communicative agents and lead people to support a specific idea, and the philosophy of  communication provides the necessities and reasons of communicative actions, how can we understand some historical and political documentaries?  We clearly know that those kinds of documentaries aims to educating citizens and solidifying governing for people who are in power, based on the influence of the philosophy of communication and narrative, we surely can suspect whether all these documentaries are reliable and true.  Taking Holy Bible as the example, there are different explanations about the Holy Bible from different genres, but how can we distinguish which is the most accurate explanation?  From my perspective, it depends on the government.  To be specific, what is the effect the government expected by supporting one specific explanation or what is the influence on the public the selected explanation can bring, and what is the government's the final purpose by selecting one explanation.
Or maybe we can think about another question: after learning the knowledge of the philosophy of communication and narrative, we know how to communicate with others more effective; meanwhile, how the philosophy of communication and narrative have influenced our life.  We can utilize all these knowledge, and we can also be made full of by these knowledge without consciousness, especially in political and social life.

Blog 2: Re-defining Communication Ethics

On our first day of class one of the definitions we came up with for Communication Ethics was “understanding why morals are important.” This definition is broad to the sense that the directives and causes of morals vary significantly between individuals, their experiences, backgrounds and what constitutes a solidified notion and definition of the word moral. This is problematic in the sense that one person’s idea of morals might be another person’s definition of unethical. Therefore it is imperative that we revisit our definition of Communication Ethics and revise it to be more inclusive and respectful of those with differing views on what constitutes moral values.

At the very core of Communication Ethics there are two forms of communication: Philosophical and Applied. Together, the Philosophy of Communication and Applied Communication work to produce a how and a why. “Communication Ethics is the recognition that we take the philosophy of communication, an understanding of the good, and apply it in interaction with others” (P. 32). This understanding of the good signifies the why, a connection to other areas. As morals have different meanings to different people, understanding that dissimilarity in definitions is essential to applying the good and forming a bridge to communication.  As the philosophy of communication is the primary in connecting to the applied communication, its foundation is what sets the tone for the overall communication ethics.

As Kassi Vickerman pointed out in her presentation of the recent VW scandal, morals played a major role in how the whole situation got out of control. The morals of those employed by VW who installed the deceptive devices in millions of automobiles were not aligned with the morals of certain customers or the EPA, and therefore the understanding of the good found it self in a precarious ledge. Both sides of the issue could make passionate speeches why this was ethically or unethically done, but as heard from VW’s president’s speech and apology, he has yet to find the philosophy of communication to explain his company’s actions. As there is “no universal right or wrong” (class), this debate could take a long time to settle, furthering our misunderstanding of what defines Communication Ethics.

Codes, procedures, and standards vs. contextual communication ethics

Rules are set in place to maintain order, and they are meant to be followed. It can be argued, however, that rules are meant to be broken in certain cases. It can be difficult to determine which set of communication ethics we should adhere to in certain, and sometimes severe, cases. Communication Ethics Literacy defines the praxis Codes, procedures, and standards as “guidelines by which conduct is evaluated, protecting and promoting the good of corporately agreed-upon regulations.” Most organizations have a code by which they follow to ensure fairness, stability, and success amongst many other goals. Communicative actions should stay within the bounds of an organization’s codes because their rules are set in place to sustain their identity.

One part of this section of the chapter that stood out to me was the ancient Hippocratic Oath, which still remains in tact today. It requires that physicians “do not harm” their patients. The American Medical Association sticks with this oath because it is their ultimate goal to keep patients alive, so they strive to protect and promote this written rule. While back in ancient Greece, the oath was up kept in order for physicians to keep a clean reputation, it maintains in place today so that doctors will do everything in their power to not kill their patient. However, this oath can come across as a disdain for patients in extreme circumstances that do not want to endure the physical and emotional turmoil of fatal diseases.

The Physician-assisted suicide creates a fuzzy line for those who want to approach communication ethics through the lens of codes, procedure, and standards, and those who want to approach it on a contextual basis. A contextual approach to communication ethics supports the recognition of different cultures, settings, and persons—going about communication by means of the particular person or situation. This creates an especially tough decision for doctors who want to protect and promote the oath they have sworn to keep, and their lookout for the patients who want to die with some dignity left. Though it is currently prohibited in most of the United States, assisted suicide is a widely debated topic that has the potential to become legal in the future, which would take a heavy weight off doctors’ shoulders and leave the decision entirely up to the patient.

Contextual Communication Ethics - Chapter 3

This chapter outlined the many different approaches to communication ethics.  Out of the many approaches mentioned, the one that stood out the most was contextual communication ethics.  This way of looking at communication ethics is described in the text as a form that "recognizes variations in culture, persons, and communication settings when applying communication ethics principles..." (Arnett, 51).  Looking back on past chapters, this approach reflects the idea of narratives and how everyone has a different background and reason for doing what they do.

Later on in this chapter, different examples of the various approaches are given concerning the topic of alcohol.  This particular topic was intriguing to me because I do not drink alcohol, but most of my friends do.  It's always interesting to see how people act around me when there are people drinking.  More often than not, my friends will not offer me an alcoholic beverage because they know that my view on drinking is different from theirs.  There have also been some cases where my friends will not drink because they know I am not going to drink.  My friends understand my narrative and the context of the situation and were nice enough to accomodate for the difference in points of view.

Chapter 3: Choices and Dialogue

As college students we all have many choices that seem to change our lives in many ways. As stated in chapter three "Other choices comes from attention to codes, procedures and standards in communication ethics." (45) At every college there are codes of conduct that we all abide by. It helps us distinguish the good actions from the questionable actions that may proceed if we do not have a good communication of ethics with other individuals.
Talking to others will help us open our mind to new ideas. It will transform our thinking because opinions and input from others will give us a more well rounded idea of the concept. Recently at school I was having trouble studying a certain topic and I asked someone in my class if they understood the chapter. He told me how he studied and what tactics helped him focus more. This enlightened my thinking process and helped me exponentially. I now have a good process in studying and my choices were reexamined because now I won't be doing the wrong ways of studying.