Blog Post 10 - 12/6

Arnett et al, discusses the modern state of communication ethics and pragmatism. Much like many of our discussions this semester, the piece focuses on the importance of understanding what "good" is being represented through various examples of communication. An important argument made in the article is the threat posed by individualist ideas and behaviors to ethical communication. The assumption that one is an inherently rational, objective or correct being, and the adjoining assumption that nothing of value may be offered by others is an increasingly common frame set in the modern day. These assumptions run counter to the style of ethical communication which Arnett et al, lay out in their discussion. Respect is a vital core component of ethical communication, and if one assumes that they have all the answers, that all others are lesser, or less "objective" than themselves, that they are truly alone, then the goods which they understand cannot facilitate a conversation as equals.

It should be understood that each person engages with the surrounding world differently. The piece emphasizes the importance of pragmatism, the engagement with our modern communicative moment through a practical lens, understanding both that we ourselves are biased, while trying to consider the goods presented in a situation and the perspectives of those others who are involved alongside us (Arnett et al.). Communication is not an objective act, but it is important that we consider the goods and objectives of others in order to facilitate ethical communication, rather than looking at our own actions as if in a vacuum, for we live in complex systems, and no action exists truly isolated from the global whole.

Arnett, Ronald C., et al. Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference, SAGE Publications, 2012.

Blog Post 10

         The Arnett chapter “Communication Ethics Literacy and Difference: Dialogic Learning” discusses the good between the individual and the community. It specifically focuses on dialogic ethics and how we should utilize it to be able to learn from each other. Dialogic ethics means that everyone's voice should be heard whether you agree or disagree. It’s everyone coming together to address how people, narratives, historical situations can guide our values and beliefs, and actions.  As Arnett states dialogic ethics is, “seeking to negotiate new possibilities through attention to content via listening, attentiveness, and negotiation of difference, inviting new insight through the “between” of persons and historical moment, ever protecting and promoting the goods of interpersonal relationship, dwelling places, a sense of welcome and home in organizational life” (Arnett et al., pg.15).

I think this is really important when talking with people who have different beliefs or who might have different life experiences and making sure that we hear all perspectives. It doesn't matter if you disagree with that perspective but you should still see where everyone else is coming from before making judgments or decisions on a topic. I think this is something that I think is important when talking with people with different political or religious beliefs.  

Arnett, Ronald C., et al. Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference. Sage Publications, 2009.

Blog post 10

Blog post 10 

Emma Martin 

    Arnett’s chapter, Communication Ethics Literacy, and Difference stood out to me the most because it breaks downs the difference between an individual's “good”, as we have been discussing throughout the semester. Two sections that Arnett discusses include Narrative theory and Dialogic theory. Arnett states that Narrative theory “encourages us to be reflective about the traditions that embed us and the goods that those traditions carry” (Arnett). Understanding that everyone is different and has come from different pasts and how their pasts have influenced them, will help us find more sympathy and empathy for those who disagree and challenge our own opinions and ideas. These challenges can bring a new perspective on relationships between people who have completely different views and values. Although they may still conflict or dislike each other, an examination is created to “take on a public dimension that lessens our tendency to look only to find what we want or demand to see” (Arnett). This examination can be defined as the Dialogic theory, and overall it helps us see and understand points of view that we never considered before we engaged in a differentiating conversation. These definitions have honestly changed my own values and ideas. I now see other people's points in their stories or arguments instead of just listening or becoming defensive over my own claim. I am able to easily talk, compare and understand their perspective. I really have felt a change in my thinking because of my understanding of no universal good and have found more maturity in my conversations. 

    I think one thing that is really common in our society is the hate people give to those who aren’t like them individually. What I mean by this is as I have explained above people have come from all sorts of different backgrounds, some may be more traumatized or influenced more than others and don’t have the privilege of being different from those who have been around them. It can take more time to change and some may not even change. A lot of people have hate towards them because they think that they could have easily left their situation, or become someone better, without even trying to acknowledge that they had an entirely different life. For the most part, I don’t think anyone should be at blame but understanding that sometimes life experiences can influence a person to be or act a certain way is okay, we can educate if needed but giving respect and kindness to those who are different will help society grow for the better. I think a lot about how some kids are greatly influenced by the actions of their parents and without knowing copy those actions until they are old enough to think differently. Growing up my mom always told me to care for those who bully because they may be influenced by their home life and are just reacting to their own emotions or insecurities out loud. I found compassion for others at an early age because of this. I also think of bigger examples like differences in religion and different political parties. Both think they are the ones who are right before understanding that they can all be right in their own, different ways.

Arnett, Ronald C., et al. Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference. Sage Publications, 2009.

Blog Post 10- Mentzer

 "Embrace the necessity of learning as we meet diverse ethical positions contrary to our own with the assumption that learning does not necessarily suggest agreement" Arnett states (Arnett 1). The pragmatics of dialogue suggests that we are all different human beings with differing experiences that shape what we define as the "good". This is extremely important to understand. Growing up for me has been learning that no one is really ever going to completely agree with all of your morals and values in life, and that is completely fine. In addition, I don't necessarily have to agree with or believe what others believe to be good either. But it is important to at least understand where other viewpoints are rooted from and why certain individuals believe in what they do. Arnett suggests, "Communication ethics is the call to learn about differing views of the good assumed by different positions" (Arnett 5). By this, he is suggesting that we are all brought up by different backgrounds that shape who we are, and why we believe in the things we believe. He also acknowledges that a lot of what shapes an individual can be dedicated to narrative. As I discuss greatly throughout my research proposal, narrative can shape a lot of morals and "goods" especially when it comes to religious texts such as the Bible.

Growing up, my mom took my brothers and I to church. She grew up in a strict Catholic household where different morals and standards were held against her, and she was forced to believe that following those things was the only ethical way to live. According to the Bible, of course. My dad grew up very differently. Religion was never integrated into his childhood, so he grew up deciding what "the good" was on his own. Not at all influenced by narrative or his environment. My parents decided to sorta give us an in-between option. The church my mom took us to was religion based, but preached free thinking. So they never suggested that we follow directly what the Bible says to follow. It allowed me a more broad perspective on what religion can be, and how it doesn't always have to be forced upon you. You are able to have differing views from your peers. And in reality, that is the most healthy! Going to college with this background was different. I ended up in a friend group of girls who found strict religious practices to be a large part of their beings. A lot of what they believed to be "good" was based off of religious narrative. This confused me because I thought, how in the world can you believe in and agree with everything that book is saying?! But that was their own decision. And this proves Arnett's point even further. Religious practices and morals were their understanding of "the good" and that's alright. That is just their background and how they grew up. But it didn't need to be mine. It's ok if I did agree with abortion, or didn't necessarily believe in one God. That is just who I am! 

Arnett, Ronald C., et al. Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference. Sage Publications, 2009. 

Blog Post 10 - Ramsey

 From the article titled "#CommunicationSoWhite" by Chakravartty et al, there is a decisive breakdown of what racial inequalities look like in the field of communication and public discourse. The concepts of race and gender are presented in this piece by actively reflecting upon more specifically underrepresentation of black and brown authors in academia. I found this writing to be interesting because it allows for more understanding regarding the past and present of what we have known this to have looked like, but also encourages implementation of principles that will allow us as a whole to challenge whiteness (or rather lack of non-white scholars) in academia going forward.

 The lack of citing non-white authors is something that I don't believe I have ever actively thought about due to the privilege that I hold, however, now that I am aware of the disparities black and brown authors in particular face in relation to this issue, I hope to try and pay closer attention as a scholar. I think that overall, this problem as a whole can go back to privilege. It is clear this is just another example in which those with intersectional identities are seemingly being looked past. 

Paula Chakravartty, Rachel Kuo, Victoria Grubbs, Charlton McIlwain, #CommunicationSoWhite, Journal of Communication, Volume 68, Issue 2, April 2018, Pages 254–266, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy003

Blog Post 10 - Knapp

In the “#CommunicationSoWhite” reading, I found it interesting that the author decided to tackle the intersectionality within communications-centered academic writing itself. I thought that table summarizing key journal characteristics was fascinating to view because you are able to clearly see that the older journals in the dataset are the journals that have the lowest percentage of first authors of color. Also the way in which the authors decided to collect their data was interesting and I’m not quite sure how I feel about it because it feels like they are making some big assumptions. They are using photographs and surnames in order to estimate what race certain journal authors identify as.

This makes me think about all the different forms that I fill out for university or applying for jobs that specifically ask for what ethnicity I identify as, and what this information will be used for, and whether or not it will be used against me somehow. It feels strange that corporations feel the need to have this information about us.

Paula Chakravartty, Rachel Kuo, Victoria Grubbs, Charlton McIlwain, #CommunicationSoWhite, Journal of Communication, Volume 68, Issue 2, April 2018, Pages 254–266. 

Blog post 10 Henke

 This week's readings were very interesting to me because I have been learning about crisis communication in some of my other Strategic Communication classes. Crisis communication can be a very tough subject that can be looked at from many different angles. The main goal should always be to reduce harm. Sometimes in crisis communication this is hard to attain because usually there is always someone who will be harmed in one way or another. I have chosen to focus on the Arnett reading for this week because I found it the most helpful in finding deeper understanding on this topic. Arnett states "Do not expect the other necessarily to endorse your understanding of the good." (Arnett et. al (chpt 12) I find this quote powerful because it relates to all things people believe in. 

I am fascinated by discussions within crisis communication. There are so many different topics in which I think of but one that seems interesting to me is politics. When I think of crisis communication I first think of a company like BP who for instance had an oil spill that was damaging to the environment. Crisis communication would be a response to this disaster addressing the public of information BP owes them. Maybe an apology and a way of them showing how or what they are doing to fix the specific disaster. But the more I read I learned crisis communication can be everywhere. It's extremely difficult to find the right answers when we all see things different from our own personal ethics. We must learn to coexist with the people we don't agree with and respect the things they stand for even if we don't.