Dialogic ethics is a very interesting concept because everyone is involved in a situation where it comes into play. According to the text, "Dialogic ethics is the meeting place for learning in an age of difference." (81). Through this area of ethics, we can take the difference in narratives and continue to learn through dialogue despite these differences. This can ultimately improve communication and allow for better conversation and discussion.
It's interesting to look at the political debates through the lens of dialogic ethics. The book states that "Dialogic ethics begins with one basic prescription - respect whatever is before you and take it seriously." (91). After watching a few of these debates, I have a hard time seeing this concept expressed from the candidates. I have no doubt that all the candidates take what they are doing seriously, but I don't see them showing much respect for the other candidates and for the material discussed. Throughout the debates, most of the talk throughout is typically aimed towards others instead of towards the material at hand. When you begin calling out others and attacking others, it takes away from what you are there to debate and can limit the communication. It does make for good TV though.
Is it interesting to think about that dialogic ethics affects everyone. Everyone has a different agenda in a conversation and it takes maturity and openness to learn something from the other person.
ReplyDeleteAlso thought it was a good example comparing it to the debates. Unfortunately, I agree with you that the typically aim to attack or call out the other candidates instead of having an informed opinion and solution of each problem our country is facing. The credibility of their arguments tends to weaken and doesn't involve successful dialogic ethics.