Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference

"Communication ethics in an era defined by difference, disagreement, and lack of concurrence requires two pragmatic moves. First, cease using ethics as a weapon; disagreement should not immediately move us into referring to an opponent as unethical."(P 209)  In other words, communication aims to dealing with differences and disagreements, communication ethics guarantees the process of dealing with differences and disagreements to the right direction.  During the process, we should pay attention on being pragmatic and communication ethics literacy.
"Pragmatic" means the need for practical engagement of ideas responsive to a particular historical moment."(P 210) and the definition of communication ethics literacy is "identifies the good in
the interplay of self and Other and the particular historical moment, attending to what is protected and promoted"(P 210).  Based on my personal understanding, pragmatic means that we should be adjustable to the different environments and set up a clear expectation or purpose of the result of dealing with differences and disagreements, or the result of communication.  Communication ethics literacy can be regarded as the tool of maintaining and protecting communication ethics and assist different group of people to reach the expected communication results.
In reality, the most outstanding situation is, we usually make different decisions when we encounter with different people in different situations.  For me, if I realize that I cannot communication my father and figure out things well, we both will choose to pause the communication for a while and wait for a correct time and situation, or sometimes, simply live it alone, based on situations.  The most significant point of view is “How do we live constructively within an era of so many differing
views of the good, a time of acknowledged different goods?”(P 214) as we need to be comprehensive and attempt to understand others, and be pragmatic that sometimes we cannot reach the expected communication goals and keep the communication with communication ethics.

Chapter12

In the communication ethics course, we have discussed what kind of good is protected and promoted in each given case. Chapter 12 concludes what we have learned from the textbook and discussions with the analysis of different viewpoints and beliefs. Arnett, Fritz, Bell defined communication ethics literacy as “working from one’s own position, learning from that of the Other, and interpreting that material for the task of the moment in pragmatic engagement with the Other” (p.211) In essence, communication exists in the interaction between the other and you. The other could be from different background from you in terms of religion, gender, race and ethnicity. The authors emphasized the today’s postmodern moment in crisis communication and insisted the need of a contentious understanding of the good. One of the major suggested questions “‘How do we live constructively within an era of so many differing views of the good, a time of acknowledged different goods?’”(p.214) requires all learning from the textbook. Also, we need to consider which good can fit in with each issue in this era. In my case, I, as an international student, would focus on intercultural communication ethics to respect for American perspective and values.

Communication ethics would become more important topic as time goes on and unethical events happen in the world. Sadly, religious wars contain the problem of lack of understanding about others. Since I’m from Japan, which is culturally different from the United States, my viewpoint and value is sometimes different from American people. However, I believe what we should do is not holding own opinion and reject others, but being open minded and try to start seeing things from other viewpoints. Environment makes different values. For example, people from California and people from Minnesota understand the word snow in slight different ways, but it is not impossible to guess how the other group of people think and interpret the term.

Chapter 12

This chapter stresses how everyone has different viewpoints, values, and beliefs. "The major root of difference is differing views of the good. This contention over the notion of the good is at the heart of crisis communication, which reminds us not to assume that the Other will think as we do or value what we hold dear." (212). It is our responsibility to not put off everything that we disagree with, we have to seek to understand these viewpoints and learn even if we feel it is unethical. The chapter talked about how in life, you will not always agree on what is right or wrong and there may be time where you don't agree with what is "ethical". The point is not to change yourself, but it is to understand both sides of the good.

As nice as being open to both sides sound, it can be very hard if not impossible in some situations. For example, as wrong as I believe racial motivated shootings are, there are still people that see this as being completely okay. These people would be the shooters and maybe even others. I understand that these people may have been brought up differently and taught different beliefs, but I can't open up my mind to see how this can in anyway be acceptable. Even thug many don't agree with the shooter, some still try to understand why. People try to understand where this shooting came from and why which I think is good because as bad as the situation is, we are still trying to understand. The question is though, does the shooter try to understand the people? And if not, may this be the problem?

Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference-chapter 12

This chapter has a section about the pragmatics of dialogic ethics that states, "Dialogue requires that one know the ground from which one speaks, meet the Other with a willingness to learn, and learn about the ground from which the Other's discourse emerges". (223) To me this statement is at the heart of difference in literacy. This is the point that makes or breaks dialogic ethics within it's pragmatics. When we are not open to learning about the place that someone else is coming from we will close down communication, that "dialogue hides when we demand that another vacate the ground that offers meaning and vision for a given standpoint." (224) Dialogue will not hide however if we are open, request, and respect it, it will emerge. In communication ethics literacy, when people disagree they need to ask themselves what and how they can learn from the other's position and how the other's view can add to the view they hold themselves. By opening yourself up the these questions communication among people on opposing or differing sides can negotiate and change. This is a necessary part of crisis communication because at a critical point ethics guides us to listen and attend to that moment and seek new possibilities, not to stand firm and approach with an unwillingness to learn about where the other is coming from. I think that this is illustrated in almost all major topics that people debate or take sides on. When people start a dialogue with someone who doesn't stand on the same side of an issue or topic that they do, there is an instant wall that goes up. They hold tight to the belief that their standpoint is right and that there is nothing that the other can say to change their minds. Most conversations aren't had with the intent that they can engage communication and learn something from the other side, or that something could add to their standpoint. People tend to take a side and do whatever they can for that view, they want to push their agenda as quickly as possible instead of try and learn from open communication. The issue of gun control, as the book brought up, I feel does just this. There are two sides and neither one wants to hear what the other one has to say. Instead of communicating with a willingness to learn and finding a more educated common ground, than just the far left or the far right. I know even for me personally, I have a tendency to not engage communication with the willingness to see the other's standpoint. Up to this point, do you think that society is failing in the topic of pragmatics of dialogic ethics? Are we failing to engage dialogue with a request and a willingness to learn instead of with a demand for change?

Chapter 12

Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference discusses how we are living in an era of difference, disagreement, and lack of concurrence. When communication of multiple goods comes into play we should learn from difference even though it may not lead to agreement. Learning and discernment are two major topics when dealing with the acceptance of others viewpoints that the book also examines. "This chapter centers communication ethics on the good of learning as the constructive pragmatic response to an era defined by difference"(210). Learning from others is one of the most important things that this book touches on. Pragmatics is one of the three major topics that this book discusses, which is the need for practical engagement of ideas. "The pragmatic demand is to learn and investigate ways of negotiating contending goods, which leads to the ongoing rise of crisis communication studies in this historical monument"(212). Pragmatics is learning from difference without ignoring others conflicting viewpoints and possibly leading to more clarity of the subject. With differing viewpoints conversations can eventually lead to Crisis communication.

Crisis communication is the contention of competing goods where a person needs to respond with care and discernment. This is when multiple goods arise in a situation and one has to accept others views on certain issues. This can come into play when discussing controversial topics where both sides can be argued. There is debate whether the minimum wage should be raised to $15 dollars an hour. One person may be strongly for this because it will provide more sustainable jobs for the poor but they lack the information from the opposing viewpoint. If the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour the business would hire less people and people would also not want to try that hard to achieve something greater than working minimum wage when they can make a decent living off of it. So in reality this can be argued both ways, and with pragmatic responses to the topic it can provide more clarity towards the issue and allow the practice of crisis communication.

Chapter 12

In the book, Chapter 12 discusses the concept of communication literacy ethics.  This chapter was slightly different from most of the other chapters, as it takes a few terms and further defines them to the understanding of communication ethics.  One concept that I found to be very interesting was the idea of crisis communication.  The book states, "Crisis communication begins with the contention of goods that disrupts the public sphere"(213).  When the goods of two parties conflict, is where there needs to be a middle ground in order to advance toward a common good.

In my own life, I have seen this come to fruition working with different coaches. Each one has had an idea of what they want to see out of the team for the year.  It usually comes down to wanting to develop the kids, wanting the kids to have fun, and winning.  At this point when all of the goods are out in the open, is where compromise is made and these goods that are in contention are brought into a single good that satisfies something for everyone.

Comm ethics literacy and difference

Communication ethics literacy "identifies the good in the interplay of self and other and the particular historical moment, attending to what is protected and promoted" (210).  If language didn't exist the world would be a much different place and human interaction and communication would most likely be defined as something completely different. However, when people communicate they exchange ideas in order to answer or confirm what is happening. Each conversation holds a specific purpose and within that conversation each party has their own purpose of what they are communicating.

The good or a specific set of beliefs that a person feels will ultimately endorse something that will make the world better can have many variations. For example, gun control is a hot topic and has evolved greatly over a period of time and there are many different views of what the good is. The book used the example of how twenty years ago gun control wasn't as needed and no one expected gun control to escalate as much as it did. Hence, over time and as problems arise there is a shift in what the good may be. However, it is important to remember that there are many competing ideas of what the good is and should be and sometimes a combination of goods can ultimately lead to a better good. In the gun control example, there are so many different views and so many factors to consider that it is difficult to pick one belief that will universally work. Hence, it is important to always take into consideration what each side believes because most of the time there are pros and cons to each side.

In conclusion, even though there are so many goods that exist, if everyone was the same there would be no room for learning or growing. Thus, a variety of goods only helps us a grow as a society because people can bounce there ideas of each other and hopefully discover a better good. In the end, there will always be disagreements, but it is how people handle those disagreements and interact with each other while in a discussion.