Communication Ethics

This chapter introduces you to communication ethics in general and provides a more detailed explanation of dialogic ethics which is a cornerstone for developing skills in leadership ethics and practices. There has been a lot written about communication ethics especially in the last 25 years. There are good reasons to think about communication ethics, here are some:

Learning Outcomes – after reading this chapter, the student will

1. develop a general understanding of the field of inquiry labeled Communication Ethics

2. differentiate between different dialogic philosophers/scholars

3. apply basic principles of communication ethics to specific situations/ethical dilemmas within leadership contexts

Thought-Provoking Questions

1. Understanding that dialogue can sometimes be messy or uncomfortable, do you find it difficult to stay in dialogue with an individual with whom you have strong different opinions?

2. Even if you do not care about the specific disagreement or the specific individual you have contention with, why should you stay in dialogue and continue to feel uncomfortable or challenged?

3. Consider this question, what are your relationships like, their quality, with people to whom you have rich and authentic dialogue? Do you think dialogue plays a role in that or those relationships?

Chapter Outline – this chapter includes discussions around the following

 1. A basic introduction to Communication Ethics in the Communication Academic Discipline

2. A focused explanation of the dialogic philosophies of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas

3. Two examples of communication ethics application within particular contexts

Basic Introduction

The National Communication Association (NCA) is the national organization that binds together communication and media studies scholars. Originally the American Speech Association (way back in the early 20th century), NCA provides support, professional development, and resources for teaching and scholarship in the area of communication and media. The NCA has divisions of focus and one particular division is the Communication Ethics Division. This is how they describe the focus of the division:

“The purpose of the Division is to promote research and teaching relating to ethical issues and standards in all aspects of human communication and to encourage educational programs that examine communication ethics. General membership in the Communication Ethics Division is open to any member of NCA who is interested in promoting the Division’s purpose.”

You can read more about NCA here. You can read more about the Communication Ethics Division here.

Communication ethics is a couplet that denotes diverse orientations, perspectives, and challenges. What people value can often be in contention with what other people value. The subject matter within this couplet, communication ethics, constitutes multiple perspectives and does not dictate a straightforward answer, one way or another.  It is however, concerned with “the good” and “the right” that might be different for different people. Communication ethics act as guideposts, moving from one unique position to the next, a standpoint of sorts, like a lighthouse, as one navigates a world of narrative and virtue contention in dark and muddy terrain. Communication ethics perspectives provides support for one to respond to the demands and questions they face situated within particular contexts and shadows.

Through the ages, philosophers, thinkers, and practitioners have navigated their terrain using well-reasoned frameworks to guide their discernment, thinking, and reasoning in order to make decisions and take actions that they recognize will impact other people and other environments. So, there is no one way to think and decide ethically. You might choose one approach to making a decision but you will have a variety of approaches to choose from. Finally, with the advancements in AI, the ways in which we make ethical discernment and decisions has to change and expand how we think ethically. It has to. AI is a game changer but we are not there yet.

Dialogic Philosophies

The following discussion of dialogic ethics is taken again from the CMS Seniors Open Education Resource. You can access it directly here.

Dialogical ethics concerns itself with the relationship between people; it does not have to be concerned about virtue, duties, or consequences, although sometimes those elements are also considered as a result of engaging in dialogue with others. However, the relationship is always central and it is a driving element to making decisions. This emphasis builds what some scholars (Neher and Sandin, 2007) refer to as a firewall which is designed to ensure fair play when one encounters the other. It is too easy to manipulate and take advantage of the other in a deceptive manner (language creates this potential). Dialogue creates a “safe zone” for people to communicate.

Dialogic ethics emerged from philosophers such as Martin Buber (1878-1965) and Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995).  When it comes to communication, Martin Buber distinguishes between I-It and I-Thou.

I-It experiences are often describe as communication that objectifies the other or manipulates the other in some fashion. I-It can also be closer are communication experiences that can be described as phatic communication (for example, small talk with people you know or you do not know-we sometimes do this when we are waiting in line at a grocery store and we engage in communication with people about the weather or the delay at the check-out counter), technical communication (for example, giving someone directions to go somewhere or providing instructions to someone who is trying to make something), or some forms of negative communication like gossip (for example, hurtful communication about another person, behind their back, that can either be true or not true).

Dialogic ethics require the shedding of one’s personal needs and desires in order to communicate ethically with another. In dialogic engagement, we experience the I-Thou. Here is a video that explains the difference between the I-It and I-Thou.

In the I-Thou, there is reciprocity toward the other. So, for example, in my communication with you, me as the faculty member in the CMS department and you as a CMS major (student), I recognize that I am a faculty member because there are students here AND you are one of them. I recognize and honor our relationship. I cannot be a faculty member/teacher if we do not have students. You, as well, cannot be a student without a teacher and you could not be a student here in the CMS department at PSU if we did not exist. Our relationship is reciprocal. This distinction in reciprocity grounded Buber’s teaching philosophy.

In his book, I and Thou, Martin Buber (1970) wrote about “the Between” on the “narrow ridge” as essential qualities of dialogue. He describes these as places between extremes in communication. By avoiding the extremes of positions (For example, the radical left and the radical right in politics), there is a better chance of having authentic and genuine dialogue that is capable of finding common ground, or as Buber would say, a common center from which  dialogue can grow. This is important to keep dialogue ongoing and constructive.

In Between Man and Man, Buber (1978) reveals the first time he understood about genuine dialogue. In this moment, he was in the barn with his horse at his grandparent’s farm. He said while he was combing the mane on his horse, that there he met her eye to eye and communicated without words. He said once he realized he was connecting with her genuinely and dialogically, and that he no longer noticed the separateness between beings, they were one. The moment he again felt the separateness, that genuine moment was over. But while he was in it, he no longer was aware of anything external in their environment. He said these moments of authentic dialogue happen rarely between human beings but that we ought to be so preoccupied with the other that they can happen more often. He doesn’t negate technical dialogue or monologue because there is absolutely a place for them in human communication, but he advocates that we should not forget or turn away from the other by not being open to those serendipitous moments of genuine dialogue.

Emmanuel Levinas believed that all communication is an act of violence since we impose our language, thoughts, actions on others in the process of communication. When he said communication is an act of violence, he was referring to the interruption that we are when we impose our thoughts, ideas, and positions on others because they then have an obligation to respond. This is unavoidable. But, because of this perspective, Levinas advocated for each person to be thy brother’s keeper, observe, reflect, and select the language most appropriate toward the other and invite the other to respond. In some cases, one must wait for the other to respond and in this waiting, one bears witness to other.

Levinas believed in ethics as a first philosophy and that ethics begins first and foremost in person to person contact.  We should become preoccupied with the Other. Our motto should be, I am my Brother’s Keeper. At the same time, we cannot impose this sentiment of brother’s keeper on others, it cannot be demanded from the other.

Here is a video of an interview with Emmanuel Levinas which does not totally get into his dialogic ethical theory but it gives you a treat to hear him speak himself in general terms related to our relation to the other (and in French, there are English subtitles). The notion of transcendence becomes important in this interview.

For Levinas, ethical dialogue creates common ground where there is no power imbalance; there is no recognition of power, period. He advocates for us to engage response-ability by putting self-interests aside and respond to the other.

Dialogic Ethics:

• Provides for us a method in which to engage others
• Helps us comprehend why some of our relationships go wrong or succeed
• Helps us comprehend larger scale societal marginalization
• Provides ways to resolve conflicts

While easy to understand, it is not so easy to behave in this way. There is also no guarantee a similar response from the other will come (especially with Levinas).

These are some ways for us to consider how to engage in dialogic ethics and practices:

• Set aside or suspend our own positions;
• Openly listen to others and their needs/opinions;
• Understand where the other is coming from;
• Share your position and be willing to let your position shift/alter/be reshaped by the other as dialogue emerges;
• Engage in mutual respect for the other and the opinions of the other;
• Do not make demands on the other;
• Be open in the dialogical/conversational process;
• Provide unconditional positive regard to the other;
• Empower the other through voice;
• Through dialogue, find mutually agreed upon common ground (even if it is a sliver of ground)

Some challenges of dialogic ethics involve unwillingness to set self-interests aside, unwillingness to relinquish control and allow others a voice of difference; unwillingness to accept the no demand rule; and unwillingness to be open to the other.

When we develop a communication ethics disposition, we take the high road, the road less traveled; we do this because of care we  have toward other.

Applications of Communication Ethics

Here are two applications for decision-making using a communication ethics lens:

Application 1

Sandy is now at work for a week and enjoying her job. The most important thing to her is to have a job with flexibility and Company X gave her this. More specifically, Sandy has two children, 6 months and 2 years. She can’t afford childcare if she works full-time, so she has flex hours (works 25 hours a week and sets the hours to her convenience) which enable her to have family watch her children so she does not have to pay the high costs at a for-profit daycare.

As other employees notice her flexibility in her schedule, they start to grumble. Lucy is angry because she says that Sandy gets easier cases/clients to work with because she has flex hours. This leaves the more complex clients for Lucy, the most experienced. Lucy feels it is unfair that Sandy gets to pick and choose her hours while she (Lucy) is stuck with working 9-5, five days a week. Lucy puts in a request to Jenna to work four days a week in the office and have a floating day each week where she can work from home. Jenna receives Lucy’s request in writing and asks Lucy for a meeting. In the meeting Jenna asks Lucy why she needs to change her hours and Lucy responds, “It doesn’t matter why. That is my personal business.” Jenna tells Lucy she will consider the request and let her know later in the week.

Jason requests to work half days so he can train for a marathon. He is an avid runner and says that this keeps him healthy and mentally fresh in his job. He says he can make up his work from home at night and on weekends. Jenna, tells Jason she will consider his request and let him know later in the week.

Frank sends an email to Jenna claiming he will be filing a lawsuit against the company because he was hired 6 months ago and did not have the option to negotiate a flex schedule like Sandy did. He says he will not file the suit if he can make his schedule more flexible so that he can take courses in a graduate program. Jenna again tells Frank she will get back to him.

Jenna meets with George and asks him what she should do. George says, “Well Jenna, this is why I hired you. You are on your own with these requests.”

What should Jenna do with each request? Use the framework of dialogic ethics above to discern the issues involved and then take specific action.

(Adapted from Neher, W. W., & Sandin, P. J. (2007) Communicating ethically: Character, duties, consequences, and relationships. Allyn & Bacon.)

Application 2

Is Lying on your Resume Ethical (and what does it mean to lie on your resume?)

Graduation is months away, and Nicole still doesn’t have a job. Thousands of dollars in college loans are backing up and payments are due soon. Furthermore, her mother was recently laid off, and her parents are in need of some supplemental income. Stress and pressure, then, is building as Nicole remains jobless.

Fortunately, she just received a request from a marketing firm to send in her resume. However, Nicole’s resume is not quite up to the standard that this job expects. She has had an internship in marketing before, even excelled in the subject at school, but she doesn’t have the proper list of real-world experience her employers will desire. When pondering the issue, she realizes that she could exaggerate her responsibilities from her internship. Although she was typically filing and making coffee, she could say that she “wrote” a report she had in truth transcribed. When she staffed the front desk, she could claim she was doing “client intake.” And even though she quit after a quarter due to boredom, she could say she worked there for six months.

Nicole knows she’s competent and capable of doing the job well; it’s just that her employers might not recognize it based solely on her resume. Since she is buried in debt and her family is in need, is it all right for Nicole to simply alter or embellish some facts?

1. Consider this from a communication ethics perspective. What action would you take?

2. Compare now, consider this from one of the other ethical lenses in the previous chapter. Are your action steps the same or different? How so?

This is adapted from Santa Clara University, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Conclusion

This chapter dove deeper into communication ethics by providing some context and detail around ethical thinking coming from a communication perspective. Dialogic ethics is only one form of communication ethics. Depending upon communication practices and preferences, there may be other ways of applying communication ethics other than through dialogue. One way might be always using feedforward messaging that focuses on transparency, and not on dialogue. Perhaps another way would be to emphasize a framework for a feedback loop that is not dynamically dialogic but still uses other people’s feedback to make decisions. There are endless ways in which we might employ a communication ethic differently across all situations. Can you think of any other ways a communication ethic might work? The next chapter discusses Leadership Communication Skills, what they are and how to develop them.