After reading chapter five, and learning about dialogic ethics, it is interesting to think about the idea of "The Content of Dialogue"(82-83). The big take away from this section of the text is that dialogue ethics is not falling into a given group or norm because of wanting to fit in, rather it is what we want to do with our conversation, and where we want to direct it. The book mentions how dialogic ethics helps us to make the decisions on who and what we want to associate with based on good.
This concept can be shown through my coaching of youth hockey over the past several years. The lack of dialogic ethics is very prominent among children ages 7-10. Many times in the locker rooms, instances arise where some children are left out of the conversation or group because they aren't accepted. The children left out often try to over compensate and fit in. This is happening because children don't understand that need for dialogic ethics, and how it should not matter what the group is, but for what reasons they want to be in that group. The skill has not yet been developed for them to look at what good the group is promoting, and if they want to be a part of it.
That's a very interesting point about how the children don't know about the need for dialogic ethics. I'm curious if in your case about the hockey team, if that unacceptance and then overcompensation, translates onto the ice. For example, maybe the child who was being left out would pass the puck to the other players that were excluding them before as a way to gain acceptance off the ice. It'd be an interesting thing to look at, or maybe the players already have the mindset of separation between on the ice and off the ice events.
ReplyDelete