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.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You made a statement about dialogic communication ethic stating, "It is a shared space of mutual respect with the intention of achieving a higher learning and understanding." This statement caught my attention.
ReplyDeleteMy take is a little different. I agree with the shared space, mutual respect, and achieving a higher learning and understanding, however my take is that it is not an intention. It is something that completely develops out of the dialogue.
The text states that it "protects and promotes the unexpected revelation that emerges between and among persons" (55) This lends me to believe that there is nothing intentional about the outcome of this communication ethic. It's unexpected, unplanned, and emerges specifically through the discourse between the people involved. It is something that can't be forced, it feels to me as something much like what people describe as that "ah ha" moment.
The text uses the example of the college students, that after a night of drinking are discussing their behaviors, the consequences of their actions and through these stories emerges that they should never do this again. They didn't intentionally start the conversation to convince each other to not drink again, but they became aware through the communication.
I feel like this communication ethic is something that isn't guaranteed. You can always have dialogue and discourse, but because this is something that just seems to happen without intention is anything that is taken away from the conversation considered dialogic communication ethic? Does it need to be something that is of significance or is it any little thing that is taken away from the conversation, because it means something to something?