I really liked Arnett et. al.'s piece because it really spoke to our class concept of the multiplicity of narratives and how there is more than one way to define "the good". He says "One of the major questions of this era is, "How do we live constructively within an era of so many differing views of the good, a time of acknowledged different goods?" The importance of this moment finds shape and clarity in the desire to understand (learn and discern) "communication ethics" rather than to prescribe "the" communication ethic" (Arnett et. al, 5). We live in such a high-tension time, where people can be so hostile and argumentative that their point of view is correct, and all others are invalid.
Let's look at religion for example. It's a classic example of differing "goods" that individuals and cultures have devoted their entire lives to for centuries, yet have competing narratives of what "doing good" is. Who is correct? Who does more good? What does good actually mean? These are frankly existential questions that we'll never have the answers to, but in the US we have the freedom to practice whatever religion we please and it's generally accepted. However, we do of course have extremist groups who make it their personal life mission to shut down and destroy other religions because they believe so strongly that they're incorrect. These people exemplify unethical behavior and disrespect the concept of upholding and honoring the multiplicity of narratives and goods.
Arnett, Ronald C., et al. Communication Ethics Literacy : Dialogue and Difference. Sage Publications, 2009.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job of analyzing the Arnett piece. I really enjoyed the quote you picked. I think it does a good job of explaining the multiplicity of narratives and how everyone can define “the good” in different ways. I think what Arnett is trying to say with that quote is that it's important to realize that not everyone will agree on what “the good '' is but that it's important for us to still listen to other voices and learn from one another. I think that we need to be willing to have open dialogue rather than just talking at people and thinking that only we can have the right answers.