There is one key point that I believe we should get out of
this chapter. Dialogue ethics is essentially the communicative practices
between two different people. When one person interacts with another, there is
instantly a need to understand where the other person is coming from, and what
their personal narrative is about. No, we don’t sit and analyze a person before
we talk to them, but this does happen in the beginning processes of communication. Because
of this, dialogue isn’t a bunch of different forms of communication, but it is
just the way we communicate, good or bad. As Martin Buber states in our “Communication
Ethics Literacy” text book, “Dialogue is only one way to communicate with
another (83).” It’s pretty basic, but it really simmers down to the
similarities and differences that we get from another person and how we use
that to communicate with them without sacrificing our own background.
These
days it is becoming difficult to see how people are cooperating with others in discussion.
For example, we clearly see that the Republican presidential debates are a bad
example of dialogue ethics because people with very similar points of view
cannot agree on anything. They only focus on their own narrative and that gets in
the way of having a fluid conversation, and thus, ethical dialogue is slightly
lost. Dialogue ethics should just be a base line for how we communicate with
one another, but when people don’t understand another person’s narrative,
background, and community, it can be a struggle to get to a common place where
conversation can happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment