Blog Post 2- Mentzer

 In this chapter, Salen and Zimmerman really emphasize this idea of meaningful play, and they explain it as, "learning to create great game experiences for players- experiences that have meaning and are meaningful" (Salen and Zimmerman, pg. 60). The two authors give examples of this meaningful play such as, "the intellectual dueling of two players in a well-met game of chess" or "the improvisational, team-based balletics of Basketball" (Salen and Zimmerman, pg. 60). Each of these instances relate to play in the form of a game. In my mind, meaningful play can be seen in many different forms or experiences, but has the common goal of gaining personal (physical, emotional or educational) development while participating in an entertaining game. However, like Salen and Zimmerman note, play does not necessarily come from the game itself, but rather from the way the players interact with the game in order to play it. 

An example from my personal life comes from a childhood filled with card and board games played with members of my family. Any time my parents found themselves with an hour of free time in their days, they would encourage us to join them in playing a round of 31 (my favorite card game of all time), or 30 minutes of UNO or Trouble. Their point in doing this was to act like a teacher, and take on that role to stimulate our brains to think creatively or strategically, rather than just allowing us to play with Polly Pockets or kick a soccer ball around all day. The point behind playing these games was to participate in meaningful play, team based games that allowed for that personal development and family bonding. This allowed me to become closer to my parents while learning how to play strategic games and have fun all at once. 

Blog Post 2 - Ramsey

 The article titled "Slave Tetris and Our Responsibility to Game Study" written by Samantha Blackmon was the reading that stood out most to me this week. This piece of writing was both interesting and unsettling as it explored distasteful (and flat out racist) realities behind some forms of gaming content in relation to the concept of agency within the realm of gaming. Within this article, the author explains how there was a section or "mini-game" within a game that educators would later find out about and test out themselves called "Playing History 2: Slave Trade". Supposedly the intent behind this game being created was to "make historical discussions of slavery age appropriate" (Blackmon) While this was a situation that could have been totally prevented by developers, game theorists, and designers alike, it was not and thus has become a great example of bringing up agency and games in education. 

Another example of agency in games could be the "Life is Strange" video game series. Within this series, there is a different main character with different powers in each version of the game. Throughout the game you go through the characters backstory and when you play as them throughout their present times, you have the choice to choose between different paths of life for them by deciding on different choices which all circle back to their lives and experience(s) in the game. At the end of each chapter of the game it gives statistics of what other plays around the world chose for their characters life and there is a lot of comparison regarding what could have been different to have the best outcome for the character and player overall.

Blackmon, Samantha, and Samantha Blackmon. “Slave Tetris and Our Responsibility to Game Studies.” NYMG, 3 Sept. 2015, https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=10993.

Blog post 2

Blog post two  
Emma Martin 
  
Ian Bogost argued against the definition of play, using video games as persuasion in his article, The Rhetoric of Video Games. According to Bogost “play is often considered a children's activity, a trifle that occupies or distracts kids and which they eventually grow out of, turning to more serious pursuits” 

( Bogost, 120 ). What I understand from this definition and how it is perceived in our society is,  play relates more to children, and isn’t necessarily supposed to be lessons or impactful to an individual, it is suggested to be an act of entertainment at one's leisure. With this definition, I immediately think of my human development class and how we learned the importance of play to a child's cognitive development. This leads me to question if play is so crucial to a child's development, then how is it not just as important and impactful to adults? Bogost questions the same and continues to argue that play is more than just entertainment, especially and more specifically when it comes to video games, stating that often video games are viewed as “interruptions to learning and social life, acting as a leech on normal childhood development” but this idea really “ is rather a by-product of a misunderstanding of the nature of play”

( Bogost, 120 ). I agree with this statement because of my experience with playing video games and how some were very educational, such as the games on the website cool math games. Although I would use this website for my own enjoyment, I also gained skills and expanded my knowledge as I practiced challenging math concepts. Other games can be just as impactful to us as individuals, teaching people of all ages different lessons that they can incorporate into their life. Animal Crossing was an example Bogost used as he explained the deeper lesson of capitalism rather than it being just a charming town life game, suggesting that “Video games make arguments about how social or cultural systems work in the world or how they could not work or don’t work” and that “ we need to play video games in order to understand the possibility spaces their rules create, and then to explore those possibility spaces and accept, challenge or reject them in our daily lives” ( Bogost, 137 ).  This last statement was most intriguing to me because I never thought about video games in this way before. I admit I originally viewed play purely just for entertainment, but now I have a new perspective. 
I believe that these rules throughout video games can teach one a lot about personal morals and values. I think of my younger brother with this example, he has been playing Minecraft since a very young age and has developed an online community. Through this online community, he learned a lot about himself. He understood what the basic ethical rules are when one plays a multiplayer game, such as respecting others' boundaries and having compassion and kindness towards others. Through both negative and positive interactions he faced, he learned how to collaborate and problem solve, which taught him to understand what his own values and good is, aligning him to act upon protecting and promoting that good. He continues to benefit from his experience and learns skills he will need throughout life without realizing the lessons that are being taught as he plays with his friends.

Bogost, Ian. "The Rhetoric of Video games". The Ecology of games: connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 117-140. DOI: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.117

Blog Post 3- Miltenberger

  The part of this week’s reading from Salen and Zimmerman that caught my attention was their section on design for gameplay, and its connection to the idea of “meaningful play”. The authors give the definition that games are designed for people to encounter a certain created context, and meaning emerges from the user of said game (Salen & Zimmerman, 62). Game design is deeply intertwined with the concepts of semiotics and symbolism. Semiotics, being the process in which meaning is made, involves the interpretation of symbolism and their context (63). Now, design is important because it provides players of a game a “carefully crafted experience” or context in which a set of rules can organize meaning to make sense of the play (63). In a sense, design creates a reason for certain aspects of play, and everyday life to have certain meaning, and when it comes to meaningful play, designers can help produce personal meaning to an intersection of “people, objects, and contexts” (63). The design of play also serves as a way for people to make sense of symbols, and “movement between known and unknown information” where new information can be built through interaction (67). 

When I started college, I actually came in as a Product Design major, and did that for about a year and a half. One of the things that I connected with in this reading was the idea of how the consumer or individual ‘encounters’ a design. One of the biggest things that you learn about effective design is how to attract an unfamiliar audience to your object. This idea of presenting an interesting encounter to an individual, and in return the individual interacting longer with your design is a common goal. I can remember working on projects, specifically things like headphones and bottles, and having to remember this idea of “who would be interested in this?”. When you do that kind of design, you don’t design for yourself, you design for the consumer or the individual’s needs. I never got the chance to design any sort of game, but I can understand the idea of crafting an experience that may create meaning for someone. I can only assume that creating gameplay, or some form of meaningful play utilizes some of the same aspects of semiotics and thought process. In the words of renowned designer Dieter Rams: “Good design is making something intelligible and memorable. Great design is making something memorable and Meaningful”.

"Basics Design 01: Format: Second Edition" by Gavin Ambrose, Paul Harris, A&C Black, (p. 151), May 1, 2012.

Blog Post 2

 During this week’s readings, meaningful play was broken down, described, and analyzed in a multitude of ways. In the reading “Game and Design and Meaningful Play” by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, they talk about how “play doesn’t just come from the game itself, but from the way that players interact with the game in order to play it…meaningful play emerges from the interaction between players and the system of the game, as well as from the context in which the game is played” (Salen and Zimmerman, pg. 60). Each player has choices to make and the system of the game can influence these choices, based on the desired outcome and the context in which the game is played. The action that each player makes can also influence the system in which the game is played. When it comes to communication ethics, I view communication as a form of play, and vice versa. Every game has a system and a set of rules. Communication, amongst different cultures, has their own system and set of rules. Each individual has their own ‘system of communication’ that is influenced by their own narratives and cultural backgrounds. The article “Slave Tetris and Our Responsibility to Game Studies” by Samantha Blackmon did a great job of showing the way that communication and play are influenced by each person’s narrative. The article talks about the Slave Tetris game and how most people did not see the problem with a game that has “kids stack human beings for ‘efficient’ transport across the ocean” (Blackmon), because they viewed it as an educational opportunity, in order to teach kids about the slave trade, instead of considering who might be offended by the game.

After reading about the way that ‘meaningful play’ can influence communication, I immediately thought about the game “Cards Against Humanity”. In the card game, each individual has to weigh out the aspect of their own humor with what could possibly be offensive to someone in the room. These aspects are influenced by each person's own narrative and their cultural background. Despite the creator of the game trying to create a ‘taboo humor’ effect, it is evident while playing the game that there is a possibility of someone being offended by the cards that are played, which then influences the interaction between players. For example, if the game were played by CIS white men, the context of the game would be different in comparison to a group of LGBTQ members in regards to each individuals experience. This is because the game was made with the intention of being funny, without considering who might be offended by each card played.

Blog Post 2 - Wolf

     In the article “The Rhetoric of Video Games” Bogost talks about the concept of play and how it has been misunderstood. Many people dismiss play as a children's activity that they will eventually grow out of but ignore the ways that play has taught us many things about ourselves and the world around us. Even when considering adults who play video games, it is seen as a distraction or a tool for relaxation rather than a possibility space. Play is defined as “the free space of movement within a more rigid structure… play refers to the ‘possibility space’ created by constraints of all kinds” (Bogost, 120). Play and possibility space give children the means to use their imagination and creativity to help them construct their own meaning of the game. 

The way that Bogost defines play is new to me and I find it really interesting. When considering that definition while I think of some of the games that I played as a child and even sometimes now I see them in a very different light. For example, I used to play the game Simon Says as a kid and I still play that game with my students at work all the time. I have always looked at it as just a simple mindless game that I knew everyone would be able to play, but now I can see it as so much more. Simone Says allows kids to learn how to pay close attention, follow directions, and can even introduce them to some leadership skills. There are rules within the game that the kids must follow like you have to do the said action after “Simon says” but if they don't say “Simon says” then the student should not do the action. These are the basic rules but when thinking about the possibility space within the game the rest is up to the people playing to decide what kind of action should be done or how to decide when a person is out.  

Bogost, Ian. “The Rhetoric of Video Games." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 117–140. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.117

Blog Post 2 - Knapp

I found the “Slave Tetris and Our Responsibility of Game Studies” article by Samantha Blackmon extremely intriguing because of the discussion around agency in games. “Mistakes weren’t made, you made the mistake!” This is the author’s response to a halfhearted response by an insensitive game developer for “game-ifying” the slave trade as a way to learn about it. While the slave game is an extreme and grossly insensitive example, agency in games do have a purpose, but it’s important to use it in the right context or else the educational value will go out the window. I find agency in games in general to be such a fascinating subject because at the heart of it, it’s what makes games as a medium so fun and immersive. 

The game director for The Last Of Us, Bruce Straley, said something about game agency that has stuck with me for years since I heard it. On a Reddit AMA in 2014, he said “We try to approach it from the gameplay angle. "Can this emotion be achieved on the stick? how??" and we go back & forth like that trying to suss out what would work best for what we're after...” I thought the phrase “on the stick” was so interesting because so much of games like The Last Of Us try to capture emotional moments or intense sequences, but unless the player is given the agency to control “the stick”, or the controller, they don't really get a feel for the potentiel anxiety or real joy if they are presented with a cutscene to watch instead.

Common sense blog week 2

 This weeks content on "Common sense" and play was very interesting to me. What I found interesting is games with gender or race slander continue to be produced. At what point will someone realize that we should be looking more in depth at the games we produce before just sending them online for everyone to play. I find it disgusting that kids are able to find most of these games online and play them, we need to be accountable for what young people see and learn. For example, the article written by Samantha Blackmon goes into detail about a game where you need to stack African American people on a slave ship. This is what blows my mind, someone had to have approved that. How can you sit down and agree with what goes on in that game and how are you allowing children play it? 

My outside concrete example for this week is actually a personal citation. I myself have witnessed racial problems while online with friends and just by myself. My first example deals with the game itself, when I was younger I stumbled upon my cousins old playstation three. I was about twelve and staying the weekend at my grandmothers and I did what any other twelve year old would do and plugged in the console to the television. As soon as the screen turned on the first thing that popped up was "Start: Grand Theft Auto, Vice City." I did some research and found out this game is dated, it came out in 2002. I started it and the first loading screen had photos of guns and a half naked women with the reddest lipstick I've ever seen. I shut the TV off very soon after hoping my grandmother didn't walk in the living room and see anything! 

My second example is playing games with my friend Gabe. Me and Gabe have been best buddies since pre-k and we both enjoyed playing video games. I remember after we "graduated" 8th grade both our moms finally let us get the new Call of Duty. We were so excited and I think we played the game for two weeks straight. Then one day out of the blue Gabe told me "I don't want to play anymore." Which was crazy to me because I thought he loved playing the game. I asked him why and he didn't really want to tell me so I thought about it that night. We grew up in a small town in northern Minnesota and I was blind to many racial slurs and I didn't know the meaning behind the words and phrases they were using towards Gabe. I never once even thought about what he was going through and how hard it must be to have to hear people say mean things all the time. There's so many things in these games that we let kids play these days that we might not even realize. We need to be careful what we let kids hear and say online because they are the next generation. We're supposed to be helping them not hurting them. We must gain common morals online for the future generations. 

Blackmon, Samantha, and Samantha Blackmon. “Slave Tetris and Our Responsibility to Game Studies.” NYMG, 3 Sept. 2015, https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=10993. 

Blog Post 2- Proulx

    So far in class, we've learned how beneficial and impactful play can be to learning. Play may teach us strategy, preparation, teamwork, goal setting, and so many other valuable skills. When reading "Game Design and Meaningful Play", they state "meaningful play in a game emerges from the relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome" (Salen and Zimmerman, pgs. 60-61). I think this super technical way to explain meaningful play is perfect because it leaves room for subjectivity. Something meaningful for one person may not be meaningful to someone else. Not everyone frankly always has the same goal in a game as the next person, so an individual's personal actions influence their personal outcome, which creates whatever meaning they're trying to attain.

    In applying these definitions, I immediately think of when I played volleyball in high school. Volleyball is a form of both controlled and aggressive play. It's not a contact sport, but it's super fast-paced and reactive. I found meaning in volleyball because truly every single play was a team effort. We aimed for 3 touches on the ball before we sent it back over. My job was covering the back row middle where to do my job meaningfully, add value, and support the larger group goal was to control whatever was initially sent over to us from the competing team. I was very much so our last line of defense. Other people had to be meaningful in different ways. One girl had to react to my play and set up our offensive players. Then those offensive players had to attract the ball to give themselves the best chance at scoring to make it difficult for the other team to respond to it. Sports are a great analogy for the subjectivity of meaningful play. Everyone interprets it differently and can play with different strategies and goals in mind. That's the beautiful thing about play. 

Blog Post 1- Proulx

 Lauren Proulx

Blog Post 1

    Arnett et. al.'s introductory chapters discuss how we define communication ethics and the theory of good. Those things are not clearly defined and agreed upon by all, which is where the challenge lies. Where is the fine line between what's ethical and what's not, and according to whom? Who gets to decide what's good and what's not and why? Decisions on these things are the backbone of civilization as one decision of something being acceptable or not can be applied to other things and then we have a trickle-down effect. That's why its' essential to have a checks and balances system. We absolutely need healthy debate and questioning. We need diverse perspectives to pose scenarios and questions coming from a place we hadn't even thought of. 

    In chapter 2 of Arnett et. al. he refers to Jensen's work in 1991 where he says "we grapple with the tension between relativistic and absolute ethics, between ends and means, between the 'is' and 'ought', and between private and public goods" (Jensen, Arnett et. al. pg. 28). "Jensen wants to remind us to protect and promote the good of tension, ever wary of answers that emerge without any counter claim. (Arnett et. al. pg. 28). I think that's brilliantly articulated. We shouldn't be relieved when there is no rebuttal in things, especially on complex topics. Frankly, we should be worried and seek a bit of conflict through counterarguments. It reminds me of the notion of diversity of thought. This is something that is often heavily applauded from the outside but I don't think many people and organizations do a good job of upholding and actually supporting diversity of thought once it's directly impacting them. I've felt this in many classrooms here at the U, where diversity of thought is encouraged from day 1, but when some kids share ideas or opinions, specifically of a certain political party, almost every time I hear them being met with being problematic and utterly unacceptable. When frankly what they've said is the opinion half the country has, and is absolutely critical according to Jensen and Arnett et. al. to provide this tension. I'm a Strategic Communications major, so have taken countless Journalism and Communications classes in my time here and can say that the prominent ideas being brought forth in every classroom heavily lean left. Looking at that objectively, not at all inputting my personal beliefs into the equation, everyone should think that's somewhat problematic. Because the reality of our country outside of these sheltered walls of our classrooms says that the other half of our population disagrees. Therefore per our author's advice, we need to examine the other side of the political spectrum with more respect and weight in the classroom instead of leaning too heavily toward one side to foster critical thinking and give students a better understanding of real-world current concepts. 

    It's important to practice what we preach. We should not just be teaching and encouraging diversity of thought, particularly in our safe classrooms which is quite literally what they're for, but supporting and implementing ways to allow for tension and healthy debate to be fostered in our classrooms. We're supposed to be hearing all sides of the story and the ethical thing to do when communicating on a topic is to give each person who shares their perspective or even simply voices the perspective of a group whom they themselves may not even fall into, the time of day and respect they deserve for trying to create a critical thinking environment. 

Blog Post 1- Mentzer

The concept that I felt connected most to my personal experiences with communication ethics is multiplicity of communication ethics. Defined by the Arnett, multiplicity of communication ethics is the idea that we, "cannot assume that each good that we seek to protect and promote and that shapes the heart of a given communication ethic finds support from others" (Arnett, 23). To piggyback this definition, it is also important to highlight that currently, "we live in a time of constant disagreement about which virtues and narratives do and should guide us" and, "argument over what is good has been the defining issue of the 21st century" (Arnett, 29). To summarize, we all are different people on this Earth, with different values, different morals and different expectations for ourselves and others. We all have differing paths that we choose to follow, and unfortunately, no two people are going to exactly align on what goods they choose to seek, protect and promote. We will never all support one another's opinions and beliefs, and arguments will always central to disagreement. However, I find it to be extremely critical to recognize multiplicity of communication ethics as a way to understand human relationship and growth. I will further explain what I mean by this...

In the text, there are many scholarly notes that support my opinion that the idea of multiplicity of communication ethics can be seen as a good thing that allows for growth in understanding one another as humans. For example, Maku emphasizes, "protecting and promoting the good of the 'heart' in moments of ethical ambiguity" (Arnett, 28). In other words, we need to recognize the importance of caring for one another and recognizing that communication ethics does not rest in information alone. There is good in attentiveness to another. In addition, the chapter states that, "communication ethics involves searching for direction and recognition of diversity of values/ virtues" (Arnett, 29). It is extremely important for us to be open to others and what they understand to be "good", while still standing our own moral ground. I agree with Maku and other scholars when they highlight the importance of being kind to others and listening even when our morals and views do not necessarily align. There is something to be said about having respect for others while still maintaining your own path. Again, it is nearly impossible for humankind to agree on what is ethical and what is not. Or how we should live our lives and how we should not. The best we can do is be attentive, civil and understanding. 

One of my personal experiences with multiplicity of communication ethics has been within my friendships throughout college. When I first came to college at the University of Minnesota, I was lucky enough to find a group of amazing girls to spend most of my time with. We got along so well and spent a majority of our waking hours with one another. We all were so similar except for one thing: they were all extremely strong in their Christian faith, and I was not. A lot of what these girls found to be "good", was based off of their religious views. Many of their ethics and morals came from a place of religious belief, and mine did not. I often found myself struggling in conversation when these girls would speak of their faith and how it is shaping their life paths. I thought this was wonderful, and casted no judgement towards their opinions/ experiences. However, I quickly learned that it was ok that we did not agree about what virtues and narratives do and should guide us. Although I struggled to relate, I was happy to listen to what they valued because I cared for them as my friends. This is still something I struggle with today in my friendships, but I have come to realize not everyone will support what I choose to protect and promote as "goods" and that is ok!

Blog Post 1 - Ramsey

 After reading both of the weekly readings, a course concept that I would like to expand more on would be narrative. I wanted to provide more information about this topic because it is a concept that affects many general things and ideas in the world around us, however, I also wanted to expand more on the idea of narratives and their purpose(s) within communication ethics as a whole. The readings define the concept of a narrative as being “a story agreed upon by a group of people that provides limits within which we dwell as embedded communicative agents.” (Arnett, 25) As previously mentioned, narratives live all over the place. They can be presented as harmless, or on the other side, narratives can actually be really fabricated and lead to negative outcomes or associations. In regards to the concept of narratives in communication ethics, it is necessary to already have an understanding that “a narrative provides guidelines for human action.” (Arnett, 35) 

Although there is a constant array of narratives that surround the average person on a daily basis, it is most common for individuals to have their own set of narratives about the different kinds of things that they are used to seeing or having in their everyday lives. Our personal narratives can arise from what we have been taught by our family, friends, teachers, etc. However, with competing narratives going up against what we have been taught, it is clear to see just how much narratives can shift throughout time. When I think of narratives that I have personally seen firsthand, I would say one of the biggest ones would be this idea or narrative that in instances of sexual assault women are “asking for it” because of the clothing that they were wearing. The narrative expresses that women who are wearing “less” clothing or have more skin showing are putting themselves in a position to be harassed or harmed. However, this narrative is a false and contradicting one, as there is evidence that proves that this concept is incorrect.

Blog Post 1 - Wolf

 One of the concepts from the reading that stood out to me was the concept of narrative. In chapter two of Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue & Difference, Arnett defines narrative in the most basic sense as, “a story agreed upon by a group of people” (Arnett, 36). When looking at narrative alongside communication ethics they expand the definition to state, “A narrative provides guidelines for human action… and is working rhetorically to protect and promote a given sense of the good”(Arnett, 36). Communication ethics is then seen as living within a narrative and carrying on the ideas and practices from that narrative. 

One example of competing narratives that I see a lot of, especially this time of year, has to do with politics. I tend to see each politician create a narrative around themselves of what they believe to be good. Then I see competing narratives being created by their opponents of how they are not as good as they may claim to be. To create a narrative it doesn't matter which side is right or more true it only matters whether or not people believe and agree with it.

Blog post 1

Blog post 1 : The importance of the Multiplicity of goods 

Emma Martin 

The beginning of chapter one of Ronald C. Arnett's Communication Ethics Literacy : Dialogue and Difference, expresses that in order to understand communication ethics, we as individuals must understand the importance of having different views of what is good, there is no strict guide or rules to what is good in the world, only our personal values that guide ourselves and how "one seeks actively to protect and promote a particular hyper good and it's supporting goods with communicative practices in our personal and professional time together" ( Arnett, 4 ). This difference was defined as "fragmentation, the reality of differing views of the good held by groups of persons and individuals" ( Arnett, 5 ). This interests me a great deal because I would argue that the majority of children grow up thinking that their own specific good, taught to them by their parents or traditions, is the correct kind of good. Which overall conflicts with not only challenged in the adult world, but also with others goods that guide them to make their own choices or acts. Hence these children might grow up having less sympathy towards others actions because it doesn't suit their good, yet personal goods are not universally good. This leads into the multiplicity of goods, of which "requires us to show up and to take the time and energy to learn and reflect upon the goods at hand, such as the charge of communication ethics, which asks us to be attentive to how communication ethics works hand in hand with a given historical moment, not just our own demands of how the world should be" ( Arnett, 10 ). This refers to accepting all sorts of good, especially another individuals that differs from your own, or that you personally might consider to be "bad".

An example of multiplicity of goods that I think of comes from personal experience. Last year I took a gap semester because of a number of reasons that were affecting me personally. I felt that I was making the right decision, yet a lot of my friends and family greatly disagreed with me because they thought it would lead me to a different path in life. For example, my mom thought I wouldn't go back to school because she also took a gap semester and never achieved her degree. Without knowing she used the multiplicity of goods and came to an understanding of where I was coming from, accepting my decision even though she felt it was out of place from her own values that guides her own good. Furthermore the multiplicity of goods displays how valuable and important communication is. Along with the importance of understanding the difference of beliefs throughout our society today, especially when the majority have the need to prove they are right when it comes to protecting and promoting what is good and bad.

Blog Post 1 - Knapp

The concept that stuck out to me the most in the Artnett chapters two and three this week was “narrative”. It was because it’s a word I’m very familiar with and have studied quite a bit in terms of the traditional literary since and in context of film studies, but I haven’t found myself considering it in terms of communication ethics.

In chapter two of Communication Ethics Literacy : Dialogue & Difference, Arnett defines “narrative” as “a story agreed upon by a group of people that provides limits within which we dwell as embedded communicative agents… Communication ethics philosophy and application are foreground issues for this chapter, but it is the background narratives of what groups of persons know and do that put limits and shed light on the knowing and doing of communication ethics. Narratives can and do change from the actions of communicative agents and shifts in the historical moment— narratives change, ideologies resist alteration from the outside, and stories sometimes fail to move people to the point of active support.” (Arnett 25). Arnett goes further in the next chapter and explains that “[narrative] assumes that a communication ethic begins with persons' lives guided by stories about the way the world is or should be, protecting and promoting the good residing within given narratives.” (Arnett 43). 

I noticed a very specific kind of ‘narrative’ that started to grow in the communities around where I lived during the George Floyd protests in 2020. In my hometown, there are lots of surrounding wealthy people living on Lake Minnetonka that live very sheltered and privileged lives. While the protests carried on, I heard many conversions building around the idea that Minneapolis has somehow always been this very dangerous city that you shouldn’t visit, and that the suburbs like the ones around Lake Minnetonka are the only place to be because they have the “correct” views on what is going on. There was a bit of group polarization going on because instead of informing themselves on the situation, many people in the wealthy community would just gossip to themselves and polarize their thoughts to concerning levels.

 

Blog Post 1

    The main takeaway, for me, from chapter two and chapter three is the idea of narratives, and how they play a role in communication ethics. Narratives, at their core, are simply “a story agreed upon by a group of people” (Arnett, 35). Everyone has their own narrative that helps guide them through the way they communicate with one another. As Arnett talks about, “Moral and ethical decision making and our understanding of the good dwell within narrative structures” (Arnett, 37). As we grow up, we differentiate ‘the good’ based upon our own narrative. I find this extremely interesting because our own narrative can be extremely different from one another, which makes communicating ethically very tricky. Our narratives come from the way that we were raised, including our family traditions and religious practices.

   The first thing that I thought of, in relation to narratives, is political agendas. During elections, each political runner has their own agenda and narrative, and they sell it to the American people in hopes that they share the same narrative (i.e., President Biden pushed the narrative that he would be able to combat the coronavirus, unlike his opponent, Donald Trump). When someone shares the same narrative as the political runner, they tend to vote for them, and assume that the other runner is completely wrong. This effects the way that people communicate with one another, because they believe that they are the only 'good'. In my experience, the narratives of each political party makes communication almost impossible with one another.

Blog Post 2: Miltenberger

In the reading this week of chapter 2 of Arnett’s Communication Ethics Literacy the area that caught my eye the most was the Narrative metaphor of the Communication Ethics Praxis. The general notion of the narrative is that of a “story agreed on by a group of people” (Arnett, 15) and that humanity has this natural narrative paradigm, wherein people are classified as “storytellers” (Arnett, 16). The narrative’s importance in a communication ethics standpoint is its ability to voice or “dwelling” to a good, promoting it (Arnett, 16). Now, in order to promote this idea of ‘good’, the narrative must be agreed on by a group of people who can interpret said narrative for guidance (Arnett, 16). Narratives work as rhetoric, as they are conceptualizations and easy ways to present these ‘goods’ that audiences are able to understand this structure (Arnett, 17). The issue is that sometimes, due to competing narratives leading to different definitions of ‘good’, the intended narrative meant to unite people on a common objective, can become distracting and dividing (Arnett, 18). Arnett suggests that by placing the idea of the ‘good’ into narratives, humanity has been able to develop and understand these guides much easier. 

As someone studying Journalism alongside Communications, the phrase narrative is something that comes up quite often when discussing the media. The context is usually that of dueling narratives between media outlets with opposite political leanings. Especially in the odd state of political polarization that seems to permeate most levels of the media, it seems like every major news story has a different narrative attached to it, depending on the source. Competing narratives in this context make it more difficult to achieve the full agreement by a large group of people for a narrative to be successful. Therefore this idea of ‘good’ becomes almost up to interpretation, depending on where your morals and values lie. The idea of postmodernity, as presented in this chapter, assumes that smaller communities create their own narratives based on shared beliefs, and create competing sets of communication ethics (Arnett, 16).

I think the main question that I have is that I have to wonder whether the competing narratives in the news are a result of increasingly polarizing viewpoints from audiences, or whether the reverse is true. 

Blog Post 1

   For blog post one I decided to write about multiplicity of communication ethics from chapter two. I chose this topic because it seems very interesting to me because we all come from different places, different backgrounds and grew up in different families. The books definition is "we cannot assume that each good that we seek to protect and promote and that shapes the heart of a given communication ethic finds support from others." Arnett, R. (2018) Communication ethics literacy: dialogue and difference (page 25).  

I found this to be interesting because it is such a broad topic that we all engage with on a daily basis. How accurate is it to have one definition for such a large group of people in society. An outside article that I found very interesting from NPR states that Roe V. Wade has made an impossible choice for doctors when providing care. This decision over the summer shook many Americans, we saw many different reactions from a number of people. I found this to be an extremely good comparison to look at compared to the topic I have chosen here. 

I hate talking politics and I think in communication it doesn't always get the truth to the people. I mostly see people fighting and it seems like everyone must pick a side which can totally depend on a person's beliefs and geography and a number of numerous other things. So at what point do we decide what is ethical to put on television and what factors must we take into consideration for the good of all people? As a very non confrontational person I find this topic extremely interesting and worth learning about because it will forever be evolving.

Arnett, R. (2018) Communication ethics literacy: dialogue and difference (page 25)

Simmons-Duffin, S. (2022, June, 24) For doctors, abortion restrictions create an 'impossible choice' when providing care 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/06/24/1107316711/doctors-ethical-bind-abortion

Blog Post 1 - Walkup

The main takeaway from the preface and first chapter of Ronald C. Arnett’s Communication Ethics Literacy : Dialogue and Difference, is the concept of “postmodernity”; the name given to contemporary society’s ways of communication. A term that highlights the competitive nature of human interaction. Our era of communication is the most open in terms of willingness to learn from one another (Arnett, 13). While the point of emphasis must be the grand polarization stuffed in the face of anybody who wishes to communicate with another human, the hopeful message sent by Arnett is that people nowadays are more likely to sit down and listen to the opposing perspective of another person (Arnett, 13). In the era of postmodernity, the “universal sense of “good” is no longer normative” (Arnett, 16). While there has never been universal peace and unanimous agreements on all terms, society is at a point right now where it would be unwise to even assume that one’s neighbor has the same stances on global issues (Arnett, 16). In a world where everybody wants to prove the credibility of their personal moral compass, communication is essential. 

My largest paper last year was about the immense polarization surrounding illegal immigration into the United States, and all the varying opinions it has sparked. I interviewed people of all different backgrounds, and the general consensus was that people should always be let into the country; that is how the United States was started anyway. While I agree with this point of view, it is important to highlight that it could not be further from the opposing view. The view that says nobody should be allowed into the country. “Keep America American.” I had multiple interviewees tell me they switched from a conservative to a liberal at the start of high school, when they started hearing more viewpoints than those of their parents. This generational cutoff in political beliefs begs the question, how will polarization progress during the era of postmodernity alone? How will polarization progress post-post-modernity? How can our communication skills advance humanity, and allow relationships to prosper? Will people learn to look past differences, or will people learn to conform? 

Blog Post 1 - Nelsen

             The reading by P.J. Nelsen involves the issue of removing facets of “play” from aspects of school policy. These aspects of education have been disregarded for their “Unpredictability and seeming purposelessness”, in favor of practices viewed as more “measured” and “Rationally justifiable” (Nelsen, 1). Nelsen, along with a number of other scholars, view this as a mistake, and a movement that ultimately places unintended restrictions on the literacy, and self discovery of a number of students. Nelsen helps the reader to understand that “Alternative literacy practices” aren’t necessarily welcomed in many school environments because these certain methods or subjects don’t align well with success in the “test prep classroom”, or any sort of quantitative notion of success that many schools have run with (3). Nelsen concludes that “prescription and rigidity” do not control the uncertainness of schooling (16). In a nutshell, Nelsen is arguing that, in a desperate attempt to close a gap in achievement between students, schools removing aspects of play may in fact be hurting their students’ progress.

In a more personal example, this type of action by school administration was something that I had the displeasure of experiencing in high school. From my sophomore through my senior year, my school cut a number of programs related to the arts and music, as well as teachers in those areas. There was a general notion that this was because the administration felt that these particular programs didn’t necessarily contribute to their agenda of higher SAT and ACT scores throughout the school. I’ve always been very interested in art and music, so cuts like this stung a little more. These cuts didn’t necessarily result in drops in my academic success, but it did for some students, because many of them no longer had the activities available to them that they loved, and that meant they didn’t have much else to look forward to while in school. It really kind of cut the motivation of these students down quite a bit. 

I do have to question, it seems like most of the time, the people making these decisions aren’t involved in the programs they are cutting or defunding. It seems unethical to make a decision like this without consulting or including those who rely on these programs or teach these programs for input before making up their minds.

content (blog post 1)

 2-3 paragraphs citations MLA format