The book states that public discourse communication ethics is the protection and promotion of a place of conversation for diversity of ideas and persons. It nourishes the public arena as a conversational space that provides a pragmatic welcome for difference(100).
The differentiation of public and private space really stood out. I relate it to politics with the democratic and republican parties. Each party needs the other to even out the playing field. One wants everyone to be taxed the same and keep their money. Then the other wants the rich to be taxed higher. There are lists of differences between both parties, but that is the reason when one of the representatives gets into office they will try and put into action their policies. Then they have to get through the house of representatives where the policy is put to a vote. If enough members agree or disagree will cause the policy to be thrown out or put through for further consideration. This allows policies that affect each party to be considered.
The book uses the example that private discourse counters public discourse. Clarifying that there is a difference between the two as well that one informs the other. Also that learning in a public realm positively reinforces our own private position. Intimacy directly correlates with private and distance correlates with public, which reinforces the unique identities of each (106).
A good example of changing the discourse is of someone using the ability to move away from a small town where everyone knows everything about everyone, to a larger city to create more distance to allow more privacy. This example hits home because I am from small town of 1000 people, and now I am going to the biggest school in Minnesota.
No comments:
Post a Comment