Interpersonal Communication

Approaching interpersonal communications is an aspect of which I understood as a positive aspect of communications.  Reading this chapter brought many different assumptions into the equation that I was not aware of.  An example the book uses is a good relationship does not guide an exchange.  Interpersonal communications focuses on the relationship to strengthen responsibility between two people who are participating.  Interpersonal communication should be relational nurture, with the assumption the relationships need to grow and change.  Negotiating a variety of complex dialectical tensions. (53) 

Distance needs to be in place so that one is able to see more clearly. (124)  More and more in society today we see couples doing less with each other.  Coming from an old fashioned family seeing my grandparents and my own parents doing everything together.  I see more twenty and thirty year old couples venture off independent of their spouse.  In situations that would leave a bitter taste in the others mouth.  One goes off every weekend with their friends and leaves the other to do as they wish is unsettling for some.  Enormous amounts of trust has to be communicated between the two people in the relationship.  If there is a line that needs to be upheld and what should happen if the line is crossed.

Interpersonal Communication

When examining the importance of interpersonal communication and what makes interpersonal communication work, the authors point out the main aspect that needs to be remembered and stressed. They state, "[t]he key to interpersonal communication ethics lies within the answer to this question: 'Do given persons work to honor a relationship, whatever the consequences?'" (131). This is an important question as sometimes conversations get too intense or heated and people lose sight of the fact that there needs to be a mutual respect to have any sort of meaningful and/or productive dialogue. We have discussed in class how when a dialogue takes place different people bring different backgrounds, and therefore different goods to the table. This relates directly to the quote above as the emphasis is on the ethics of the conversation, not necessarily the content.

I know that sometimes I have discussions with my family and we have differing views on certain issues. I very much enjoy having conversations about these topics and sometimes they get pretty intense. However lively and heated these dialogues get, I know that I always come to the table with respect for their opinions and they do the same. If we lacked that respect, the conversations would stray from being productive and learning about other views, and would creep into the territory of being too harsh and in the end, pointless. I know that my relationship with each member of my family is so important that it would not be worth using poor interpersonal ethics to disrespect our relationships.

Also within the realm of my own family discussions and the different views we hold is the notion of distance. the authors assert that distance within interpersonal communication "is the ontological home of a particular relationship that is nurtured and permitted to change naturally" (124). They argue with the idea of distance that people are allowed to change naturally, as stated, but also that with distance, one does not try and change the other. While having conversations with my family my aim is not to change who my dad is or who my sister is. They may express their views in a way that changes how I believe but they do not attempt to change who I am as a person and within our relationship. That illustrates the importance of distance in this context. With the respect we all hold for each other we can allow one another to be who we are.

Interpersonal Communication

"Interpersonal communication ethics presupposes that one cannot impose a particular type of relationship on another, nor can one demand a relationship from another" (128). I feel like this is very true. People cannot force a relationship with one another not matter what your intention is. One's demand about relationship can't be fulfilled just like that. There is process in relationships that one must do in order for them to achieve the relationship goal that one wants to have with the other person.

So I just moved here this semester and I live with a roommate that i didn't know. We facebook messaged each other when we hadn't met and we say things like "can't wait to meet you!" I felt pretty good and confident that we would be friends. However, things didn't go as I imagined it would be. We never really talk to each other and even worse, sometimes we just pretend like one another doesn't exist when we're in the living room together. It is very awkward and I really would love for us to at least talk so we're not in this oddly awkward relationship. However, I couldn't force this relationship and force to be friends with her. If it is forced, I'm 100% sure that things will get even worse than right now. "Without demand, relationships suffer, and with constant demand, relationships cease to have the character of what this chapter calls interpersonal communication ethics" (130). That sentence from the textbook really applies to real life, like in my situation. I can't really demand her to talk to me but if I don't, things will continue like this until the lease is over.

Ch. seven

      Interpersonal Communication ethics is this good produced in a small group setting. Interpersonal ethics doesn't seek to grow a relationship for the sake of business advances. It is a setting in which people bond in the understanding of each others good (Arnett, Fritz & Bell, 2009, pg. 120). Many theories may help further understanding of interpersonal ethics because of the way it happens. When a group of people first meet, there can be a lot of tension for a variety of reasons from a lack of understanding of one's culture to simply being afraid of not being liked. Interpersonal communication ethics is a nice guide to reducing this tension and uncertainty. The idea is that each person has a respect for the relationship being formed and wishes to grow the bonds between each other. It is important to care for the relationship(s) because in case of disagreement, a general acceptance of each other will help maintain the Good of the relationship(s).
      I work in a dining hall on campus with a lot of cultural diversity. As a manager I have a duty to make sure that everything that needs to be done is getting done. I still like to have fun and talk to everyone that I work with. Instead of creating an atmosphere of "we can be friends as long as the work is getting done" I like to take the approach of "we can work as long as we are friends". This has worked so well because everyone in the kitchen takes time to have meaningful conversation during work hours. we all have gotten to know each other and about each other's culture because we genuinely want to know more about the other person. As far as task orientation goes, we are a more effective work unit because we genuinely want to help each other complete all the tasks together, so no one has to do more work than the other person. We have formed a friendly Good within an institution that has other goals.

Interpersonal Communication Ethics

Interpersonal communication ethics “differentiates itself from other forms of communication ethics by attentive concern for the relationship between persons. Interpersonal communication finds its identity in the ethical mandate to protect and promote the good of the relationship. When the interaction no longer nourishes the relationship, interpersonal communication moves into another form of communicative interaction” (Arnett, Fritz & Bell, 2009, pg. 119). Essentially, the understanding of interpersonal communication joins the identity of the conversation to the positioning of the conversation, further contributing to the good of the relationship. Interpersonal communication protects and promotes the good of relationship shifting to an explicit feature of interpersonal communication. Though, protecting and promoting the good of relationship does not presume mutual interpersonal agreement, and does not garner the approval of one’s communicative partner. Interpersonal responsibility starts with each person’s commitment to actively care for the relationship that is nurtured with or without the approval of the other individual.

Throughout the chapter the authors provide examples of the consistency of demand that takes the relationship into one’s own hands, moving from interpersonal communication that requires co-compromising conversations to a unilateral “my” image of what I think it should be. No one skill is the answer to all problems. Communication ethics in interpersonal relationships is not “who is the best at communicating effectively” or “who has the best interpersonal skills”- it is the responsibility to the Other in the conversation. For example, “Wanda and her good friend Stacy are about to leave a party. Wanda notices that Stacy is too impaired by alcohol to drive safely. Wanda says to herself: “I know my responsibility to this relationship. I will not let my friend drive home in this condition” (Arnett, Fritz & Bell, 2009, pg. 131). In this moment, one doesn’t know whether the Other will approve or even be willing to continue the friendship. Such instances, the responsibility for the Other is named the “relationship,” and in interpersonal communication ethics, relationships matter. Interpersonal communication ethics first begins with a relationship in which both parties consider worthy of responsibility and keeps the differences between character and personality existing in interpersonal relationships.

For instance, similar to the example in the textbook relating to impairment of a friend, over the past weekend one of my coworkers celebrated her 40^th by combining her birthday and Halloween together. Work related parties are notorious for getting a little out of hand, and this past weekend was no exception. With that being said, I was the designated driver and it was my responsibility that a few of my coworkers and friends got home safely. Towards the end of the night when people were leaving, I noticed that my friend was too impaired to drive safely. As a close friend of mine I felt it was my responsibility to take care of her. Although, how do I tell her that it is unsafe to drive without her getting upset? What would be the best way to handle this situation? Will she accept my suggestion that I drive her home, or will she deny my offer and end our friendship? I later offer to drive her home and to my relief she obliges and I get her home safely. Further, this example illustrates, “interpersonal communication ethics rests not in our hopes or wishes, or those of another, but in something that we invite and never create alone, a relationship that calls us to responsibility” (Arnett, Fritz & Bell, 2009, pg. 131). In difficult situations it’s important to protect and promote the good of the relationship, but in some scenarios it does not presume interpersonal agreement or needs the approval of another.

Interpersonal Responsibility/Interpersonal Comm Ethics

The book explains that "interpersonal communication ethics differentiates itself from other forms of communication ethics by attentive concern for the relationship between persons (p. 119)." It goes on to explain that when the interaction no longer "nourishes" the relationship, that the interaction ought move on.

An idea brought up in the book that I really like is the idea of interpersonal responsibility. It explains how Ernest Boyer,  explained that a condition of student success is that student having significant people in his or her life who hope that the "young person is worthwhile and can and will succeed (p.126)." It is, as further explained in the same paragraph, about a key ingredient, which is the responsibility to the "other."

An example that I can apply this idea to in my own life is my relationship with my 17 year old nephew and his relationships with his other family members, teachers, and peers.

He is a very talented upright string bass player at the high school level.  He is in his high school's concert orchestra and an assortment of state level orchestras, no doubt of which was a direct result of his his hard work, dedication and practice. 

An element of the success in his life, as Ernest Boyer may argue, is that he has a load of significant interpersonal relationships with people who think he is worthy, and capable, of success encouraging him.

The fact that he has supportive parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who positively reinforce his practice, help him financially (my parents paid for half of his new bass, my sister and brother in law gave up on him getting a job, my other sister and I throw him cash as we are able) help the matter. Having people important to him give him positive reinforcement undoubtedly strengthens his resolve to practice, work hard and get even better. It carries him through on long days when he is exhausted.

For those reasons, for having "others" who feel responsible to him, they are helping him be the best version of himself. His playing field is more level than another kid's who has less relationship advantages, and as such, his hard work goes further. He can get more out of it. He has relationships with people who feel responsible to him.

Have you been on on either side of this equation? Providing encouragement to the "other" to help them succeed, or gotten encouragement from someone to help you succeed? What was the relationship like? Did it help you/the other person in the end?

Chapter 6. Public Discourse Ethics

While reading chapter 6, I could well understand and see the examples of  how is what the chapter is talking about applied to our real world nowadays. As technology develops, internet becomes a space where eveyone can access it and express their feelings and opinions without any restriction. In other words, Internet becomes our most popular public arena where tons of different ideas and perspectives can coexist. The textbook says, "The public arena is teh place that protects and promotes discernment among diverse ideas (103)." It should be good and one reason is because we are getting better opportunities to share the ideas from people who live in different countries and cultures and, therefore, we can broaden our perspective. However, sometimes it results in negative influences on us because we share too much of ours.

For example, let's think about Facebook. In my opinion, Facebook is one of the most popular social media where public discourse ehtics is lacked the most.  Despite of its many advantages, it even causes people to suicide due to its lack of limitations on posting and commenting. I saw one ariticle where a teenage group bullied a girl by posting her embarrassing pictures and commenting with sexual jokes under the picture and ultimately made her kill herself. This made me feel horrible and remind me of the analogy that our text book used. "When gardening, one must protect and promote healthy soil by seeking a diversity of crops and practicing crop rotation. Additionally, one must deccide what a weed is and what harvestable crops are, with knowledge that what we consider edible plants and what we consider a weed change over time (102)." When we use social media, including Facebook, we should be aware of which information should we regard as a weed and neglect and which one should we accept. We, as a citizen of this technology age, should be able to discern what is right and wrong and defnitely correct or get rid of it when we see the wrong, weed-like information. Whether we try to put the public discourse ehtics into practice and garden a beautiful place with diversity of healthy ideas and information or not will be the most important factors to make our world beauty.