{"id":53,"date":"2023-07-31T18:11:36","date_gmt":"2023-07-31T18:11:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/?post_type=chapter&p=53"},"modified":"2024-11-25T16:54:19","modified_gmt":"2024-11-25T16:54:19","slug":"communication-ethics","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/leadershipcommunication\/chapter\/communication-ethics\/","title":{"raw":"Communication Ethics","rendered":"Communication Ethics"},"content":{"raw":"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:\r\n
\u2022People do not always agree because there are varying perspectives about how to live in the world\u2026 with others<\/div>\r\n
\u2022People do not always agree because often there are competing goods and scarce resources<\/div>\r\n
\u2022People do not always agree because of free will and egoic drives<\/div>\r\n
\u2022People do not always agree because they see the world through their own \u201crose-colored glasses\u201d (and not the glasses of others)<\/div>\r\n
\u2022People do not always agree because they think of themselves first and negate perspectives of others (or make assumptions about them based upon flawed perceptions)<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
Having an orientation around communications, it is helpful to understand the following: Communication ethics<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\u2022is perspective-laden<\/div>\r\n
\u2022holds no consensus on an \u201cagreed-upon understanding of the good\u201d<\/div>\r\n
\u2022does not advocate for one answer<\/div>\r\n
\u2022responds to the demands of the historical moment<\/div>\r\n
\u2022is not one thing (this is why the couplet is \u201ccommunication ethics and not communication ethic)<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
For these reasons, it is good to have familiarity of communication ethics especially differentiated from the previous ethical lenses\u00a0 we discussed in the previous chapter.<\/div>\r\nLearning Outcomes - <\/strong>after reading this chapter, the student will\r\n<\/strong>\r\n\r\n1. develop a general understanding of the field of inquiry labeled Communication Ethics\r\n\r\n2. differentiate between different dialogic philosophers\/scholars\r\n\r\n3. apply basic principles of communication ethics to specific situations\/ethical dilemmas within leadership contexts\r\n\r\nThought-Provoking Questions<\/strong>\r\n\r\n1. 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?\r\n\r\n2. 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?\r\n\r\n3. 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?\r\n\r\nChapter Outline <\/strong>- this chapter includes discussions around the following\r\n<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/strong>1. A basic introduction to Communication Ethics in the Communication Academic Discipline\r\n\r\n2. A focused explanation of the dialogic philosophies of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas\r\n\r\n3. Two examples of communication ethics application within particular contexts\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBasic Introduction<\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nThe 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:\r\n\r\n\"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\u2019s purpose.\"\r\n\r\nYou can read more about NCA here<\/a>. You can read more about the Communication Ethics Division here<\/a>.\r\n\r\nCommunication 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. \u00a0It is however, concerned with \u201cthe good\u201d and \u201cthe right\u201d 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.\r\n\r\nThrough 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.\r\n\r\nDialogic Philosophies<\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nThe following discussion of dialogic ethics is taken again from the CMS Seniors Open Education Resource. You can access it directly here<\/a>.\r\n\r\nDialogical 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 \u201csafe zone\u201d for people to communicate.\r\n\r\nDialogic ethics emerged from philosophers such as Martin Buber (1878-1965) and Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995).\u00a0 When it comes to communication, Martin Buber distinguishes between I-It<\/em> and I-Thou. <\/em>\r\n\r\nI-It<\/strong> 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<\/strong> (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<\/strong> (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<\/strong> (for example, hurtful communication about another person, behind their back, that can either be true or not true).\r\n\r\nDialogic ethics require the shedding of one\u2019s personal needs and desires in order to communicate ethically with another. In dialogic engagement, we experience the I-Thou<\/strong>. Here<\/a> is a video that explains the difference between the I-It and I-Thou.\r\n\r\nIn the I-Thou, there is reciprocity<\/em><\/strong> 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\u2019s teaching philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn his book, I and Thou<\/em>, Martin Buber (1970) wrote about \u201cthe Between\u201d on the \u201cnarrow ridge\u201d 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\u00a0 dialogue can grow. This is important to keep dialogue ongoing and constructive.\r\n\r\nIn Between Man and Man<\/em>, 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\u2019s 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\u2019t 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.\r\n\r\nEmmanuel 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nLevinas believed in ethics as a first philosophy and that ethics begins first and foremost in person to person contact.\u00a0 We should become preoccupied with the Other. Our motto should be, I am my<\/strong><\/em> Brother\u2019s Keeper. <\/em><\/strong>At the same time, we cannot impose this sentiment of brother\u2019s keeper on others, it cannot be demanded from the other.\r\n\r\nHere<\/a> 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.\r\n\r\nFor 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.\r\n\r\nDialogic Ethics<\/span>:\r\n