This was my favorite chapter I have read all semester. The imagery Schultze uses about all of us being a part of Christ's orchestra was really an awesome image. As the conductor, God is directing us; presenting us with, or taking away opportunities, leading us down our path, and creating or taking away relationships that will help or hurt us.
We have the responsibility then, to make our song the best song.
We need to sing, we need to play, we need to dance for Christ.
I want to live my life the way my conductor wanted me to. I want to please him. I want to make him proud. I was blessed with the gift of writing. I want to use this gift to promote Him. I want to write to create justice, peace, and authenticity. I want to create change, spark hope, and motivate others.
I want to use my gifts the Lord has given me, and the skill sets I have learned through school and work, and live my life to the fullest.
And I will.
I feel so encouraged by the conclusion to Schultze's text. I do not want to be one of the people who tries to write their own score in the song. I trust God and know he has a plan for me (Jeremiah 29:11).
I am excited to use, or to continue using, the gifts I have been blessed with. What will you do with yours?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 11: Christian Virtue
This chapter highlights authentic communication by means of peace, justice, authenticity, and civility. On page 154, Schultze uses the example of the Michael Jordan ad campaign, writing that the goal of the campaign was to truthfully highlight Jordan's talent, instead of hyping it up to sell Jordan's image or feed his ego.
Schultze writes, "Professional communicators often sacrifice authenticity in favor of status, money, and ego (154)."
What a true statement!
It seems as if ad campaigns everywhere are using methods to sell to their audience that sacrifice their authenticity.
For example, so many magazines, movies, and TV shows use sex and sexiness to sell their product, image, or label. Print advertisements are so played up it is hard to grasp whether it is a "real-life" situation or not. Many advertisements may display very intense or dramatic scenes, none of which are applicable to most people.
For instance, this situation used in this ad is probably not applicable or authentic to most women:
What do you think about authentic communication in advertisements? Does it work, or is our society too focused on unreal, stretched, or dramatized images?
Schultze writes, "Professional communicators often sacrifice authenticity in favor of status, money, and ego (154)."
What a true statement!
It seems as if ad campaigns everywhere are using methods to sell to their audience that sacrifice their authenticity.
For example, so many magazines, movies, and TV shows use sex and sexiness to sell their product, image, or label. Print advertisements are so played up it is hard to grasp whether it is a "real-life" situation or not. Many advertisements may display very intense or dramatic scenes, none of which are applicable to most people.
For instance, this situation used in this ad is probably not applicable or authentic to most women:
(counterfeitchic.com)
This advertisement goes against the four main principles Schultze discusses. It is not authentic, it is not promoting justice, peace, and it is not forming civility.
One ad campaign, similiar to the Michael Jordan example, strives to remain authentic, promote civility, peace and justice. This is the Dove: True Beauty campaign.
Here, the company takes real women, real stories and real situations and uses them to sell the idea that we are all created perfect and beautiful.
I think the message the True Beauty campaign is issuing is a perfect example of good advertisement. Dove does not appear to be using this angle to create a bigger ego or status, or bring a large amount of money. It appears the campaign is done with good intentions. A change I appreciate. :)
What do you think about authentic communication in advertisements? Does it work, or is our society too focused on unreal, stretched, or dramatized images?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 12: Intercultural and Multicultural Communication
In this chapter, Johannesen not only explains the definitions of intercultural and multicultural communication, he also gives various perspectives on different perspectives within this realm.
I think the most interesting part of this section is found in the section "The Golden Rule." I had no idea so many different religions have this rule. The "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism and Jainism.
I have not even heard of some of those religions, in written in their own way, each has the basic concept of "The Golden Rule" integrated into their religious practices.
If only people would pay attention to, and implement this rule.
Think of how many lives would be saved, feelings would be spared, and injustices would not exist if people would follow this rule?
Although I strive to implement this rule, there is a large majority of people who do not. Think of terrorist groups, hate groups, gangs, and similar people.
A major example would be the Holocaust during WWII. Would Hitler want the Jews killing him, his family, friends, and followers? Obviously not. By the "Golden Rule" there is no justification then for Hitler acting towards the Jews and other groups, as he did.
In the same way, the attacks on 9/11 killed thousands of people. Would the groups responsible for these attacks rather we did it to them? Or if we were to do something comparable?
Instead of hurting others, breaking them down, or taking their lives, why can't we treat people with respect, love, and compassion?
As Christians, this is one of our responsibilities. Treating others the way we want to be treated, and acting as a light for those in the dark, uncommitted to a life with Christ.
What makes it click for some people though? Why is this rule in so many religions, yet fails to be followed in such drastic examples?
What do you think? Is it ignorance? Is it that people feel that their actions are just? What can we do to stop this behavior, without falling into retaliation thinking?
What do you do when you feel angry with someone? Instead of retaliating, how do you calm yourself down or take the "high road?"
I think the most interesting part of this section is found in the section "The Golden Rule." I had no idea so many different religions have this rule. The "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism and Jainism.
I have not even heard of some of those religions, in written in their own way, each has the basic concept of "The Golden Rule" integrated into their religious practices.
If only people would pay attention to, and implement this rule.
Think of how many lives would be saved, feelings would be spared, and injustices would not exist if people would follow this rule?
Although I strive to implement this rule, there is a large majority of people who do not. Think of terrorist groups, hate groups, gangs, and similar people.
A major example would be the Holocaust during WWII. Would Hitler want the Jews killing him, his family, friends, and followers? Obviously not. By the "Golden Rule" there is no justification then for Hitler acting towards the Jews and other groups, as he did.
In the same way, the attacks on 9/11 killed thousands of people. Would the groups responsible for these attacks rather we did it to them? Or if we were to do something comparable?
Instead of hurting others, breaking them down, or taking their lives, why can't we treat people with respect, love, and compassion?
As Christians, this is one of our responsibilities. Treating others the way we want to be treated, and acting as a light for those in the dark, uncommitted to a life with Christ.
What makes it click for some people though? Why is this rule in so many religions, yet fails to be followed in such drastic examples?
What do you think? Is it ignorance? Is it that people feel that their actions are just? What can we do to stop this behavior, without falling into retaliation thinking?
What do you do when you feel angry with someone? Instead of retaliating, how do you calm yourself down or take the "high road?"
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 9: Prophet, Priest or Demon?
In this chapter of the text, Schultze analysizes mass media in four main sections, including creating myths, priestly propaganda, demonizing our neighbor, and finding prophetic media voices. On page 124, Schultze comments on storytelling contexts. From what used to be storiest old by mouth around a fire or around the dinner table, has converted to stories told online via the Internet, magazines, television, and radio.
I have grown up going to my family's lake house near Eugene, Oregon. While there, we do various activities, but nothing compares to our time spent as a family (my whole Dad's side), circled around the campfire in our chairs, and talking until the moon is high in the sky and the fire has burned down to coals.
We share and hear stories from our personal lives, stories from growing up, and stories from my grandfather's adventures. It is time I cherish, and look forward to it every year.
On a recent trip to the lake, my uncle loaded up the car with David, five of our cousins, and myself and headed down the road to find blackberries. One of my cousins, Joey, brought along his Ninendto DS. When my uncle saw Joey was playing on it, my uncle told him we were going on an adventure, and electronics were not to be used.
I admire him for saying that.
Media and electronic devices that can access the Internet and such distract us. They take us away from playing outside, reading books, and enjoying the company of our families and friends. I love the accessibility of the Internet, but interpersonal relationships that are NOT online are more important to me.
Schultze goes on to say mass media, and the stories shared within the mass media realm, reflect how and what we believe.
Is this true all of the time? Of course not. But our society has become obsessed with learning the latest celebrity gossip, the new scandles, and the newest break-ups or hook-ups. We look at the media for guidance on what to wear, how to talk, how to walk, and how to act.
Schultze implies our society views these celebrities as saints.
When was it okay, as Christians, to devote so much time watching, reading, listening to, or acting like these people? Shouldn't our time be spent pouring over the pages of our Bible, serving others, and sharing the Word?
Media is not bad, and I will be the first to admit, I enjoy reading magazines and keeping up with Hollywood. However, the problem comes when my, or our priorities shift and God becomes second in our lives.
Where does God fall in your list of priorities? Are there areas you should cut back to make room for Him?
I have grown up going to my family's lake house near Eugene, Oregon. While there, we do various activities, but nothing compares to our time spent as a family (my whole Dad's side), circled around the campfire in our chairs, and talking until the moon is high in the sky and the fire has burned down to coals.
We share and hear stories from our personal lives, stories from growing up, and stories from my grandfather's adventures. It is time I cherish, and look forward to it every year.
On a recent trip to the lake, my uncle loaded up the car with David, five of our cousins, and myself and headed down the road to find blackberries. One of my cousins, Joey, brought along his Ninendto DS. When my uncle saw Joey was playing on it, my uncle told him we were going on an adventure, and electronics were not to be used.
I admire him for saying that.
Media and electronic devices that can access the Internet and such distract us. They take us away from playing outside, reading books, and enjoying the company of our families and friends. I love the accessibility of the Internet, but interpersonal relationships that are NOT online are more important to me.
Schultze goes on to say mass media, and the stories shared within the mass media realm, reflect how and what we believe.
Is this true all of the time? Of course not. But our society has become obsessed with learning the latest celebrity gossip, the new scandles, and the newest break-ups or hook-ups. We look at the media for guidance on what to wear, how to talk, how to walk, and how to act.
Schultze implies our society views these celebrities as saints.
When was it okay, as Christians, to devote so much time watching, reading, listening to, or acting like these people? Shouldn't our time be spent pouring over the pages of our Bible, serving others, and sharing the Word?
Media is not bad, and I will be the first to admit, I enjoy reading magazines and keeping up with Hollywood. However, the problem comes when my, or our priorities shift and God becomes second in our lives.
Where does God fall in your list of priorities? Are there areas you should cut back to make room for Him?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 8: The Role of Media
Media is an interesting thing. With such a large grip over media consumers, the media has the ability to shape our thoughts, beliefs, actions, and opinions over things.
In the eighth chapter of Schutlze's text, he writes about media and it's role in creating consumer-based products idolatry of media. One example he uses is that contemporary Christian music styles in the church is an inappropriate way to worship, according to some traditional Christians and churches.
While I am familiar with this ideology, I have also heard that some Christian churches believe that media, in some situations, is inappropriate as well, as it does not align in the way God intended worship to be.
In both cases, however, I disagree. I find it easiest to engage at church with music that is more from my era, with an exciting mix of drums, guitar, keyboard and vocals. In my past experiences at a small church in Gresham, the church sang only hymns and an elderly woman played the organ. That was all. No drums, no upbeat modern song, merely an organ and the voices of those in the congregation.
In that specific church in Gresham, I felt disconnected not only because the music was unfamiliar to me, but also because we read from hymn books. I like having Powerpoint slides with lyrics, or videos demonstrating what the pastor is speaking about. Technology is useful, it is available, and it helps people connect. Times are changing and although it may not be the specific way Christ intended us to worship him, it is a form of modern worship regardless. Worship is worship, no matter if it is using technology and upbeat music or not.
Do you agree or disagree? How different would church services be now if we only used the traditional forms of worship (no media and no modern music)? Do you think attendance for church services would increase, decrease, or stay the same?
In the eighth chapter of Schutlze's text, he writes about media and it's role in creating consumer-based products idolatry of media. One example he uses is that contemporary Christian music styles in the church is an inappropriate way to worship, according to some traditional Christians and churches.
While I am familiar with this ideology, I have also heard that some Christian churches believe that media, in some situations, is inappropriate as well, as it does not align in the way God intended worship to be.
In both cases, however, I disagree. I find it easiest to engage at church with music that is more from my era, with an exciting mix of drums, guitar, keyboard and vocals. In my past experiences at a small church in Gresham, the church sang only hymns and an elderly woman played the organ. That was all. No drums, no upbeat modern song, merely an organ and the voices of those in the congregation.
In that specific church in Gresham, I felt disconnected not only because the music was unfamiliar to me, but also because we read from hymn books. I like having Powerpoint slides with lyrics, or videos demonstrating what the pastor is speaking about. Technology is useful, it is available, and it helps people connect. Times are changing and although it may not be the specific way Christ intended us to worship him, it is a form of modern worship regardless. Worship is worship, no matter if it is using technology and upbeat music or not.
Do you agree or disagree? How different would church services be now if we only used the traditional forms of worship (no media and no modern music)? Do you think attendance for church services would increase, decrease, or stay the same?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 7: Symbolic Power
Symbols are all around us. No doubt you will recognize what these symbols stand for...
One of the most powerful videos demonstrating symbols comes from the movie Supersize Me. Here, Morgan Spurlock asks young boys and girls to identify different things based on symbols he holds up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpRQhVd63Y8&feature=related
It's shocking and disturbing to me. The youth in this tape can recognize Ronald McDonald almost immediately, but when it comes to Jesus they are stumped.
Oh. My. Gosh.
In chapter 7, Schultze investigates the power symbols have over us. These symbols and products behind the symbols are often controlling our lives in one way or another. For example for me, I work at Target. As I write this post I have my email, Facebook, and Twitter pages open. I am plugged into these products, and therefore, their symbolic and products are successfully pulling me in.
Schultze said something on page 105 that most people can sing advertisement jingles but cannot recite the Ten Commandments. As Christians, shouldn't it be the other way around? Schultze suggests that we should communicate the way Christ did by downward mobility (reaching out to those in need), and symbolic generosity (sharing our communication gifts with others), but how can we do that if we are so absorbed in different symbols?
As a journalist, I have the power to connect to those in need and share my gifts of writing if I use my writing gifts to please God. I can write about the good things happening in the world. I can write about the positive sides of negative stories. i can write to inspire, to change, and bring people to action.
I can even use these symbols, and other symbols in my life to do so. I can blog. I can update my statuses to share the Word. I can demonstrate my Christian beliefs through my actions and attitudes at work. I can do my part to keep the Word relevant, in a world where symbols are all around us.
How will you do your part?
Facebook: 39704-1287490872.gif
Twitter: mediaups.com
Target: thescene.com.au
Nike: ashwellgolf.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpRQhVd63Y8&feature=related
It's shocking and disturbing to me. The youth in this tape can recognize Ronald McDonald almost immediately, but when it comes to Jesus they are stumped.
Oh. My. Gosh.
In chapter 7, Schultze investigates the power symbols have over us. These symbols and products behind the symbols are often controlling our lives in one way or another. For example for me, I work at Target. As I write this post I have my email, Facebook, and Twitter pages open. I am plugged into these products, and therefore, their symbolic and products are successfully pulling me in.
Schultze said something on page 105 that most people can sing advertisement jingles but cannot recite the Ten Commandments. As Christians, shouldn't it be the other way around? Schultze suggests that we should communicate the way Christ did by downward mobility (reaching out to those in need), and symbolic generosity (sharing our communication gifts with others), but how can we do that if we are so absorbed in different symbols?
As a journalist, I have the power to connect to those in need and share my gifts of writing if I use my writing gifts to please God. I can write about the good things happening in the world. I can write about the positive sides of negative stories. i can write to inspire, to change, and bring people to action.
I can even use these symbols, and other symbols in my life to do so. I can blog. I can update my statuses to share the Word. I can demonstrate my Christian beliefs through my actions and attitudes at work. I can do my part to keep the Word relevant, in a world where symbols are all around us.
How will you do your part?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 9 Communication in Organizations
When I think of culture, many times cultural pieces such as ethnicity, language, dress, mannerisms and style of speech. While these pieces are part of the cultural puzzle, culture also applies to different organizations, and ethically these organizations have codes to follow as well.
Target is an organization I have worked for for roughly two and a half years. While there, the organizational culture, and the way communication works throughout the Target corporation has been revealed to me.
One main cultural pieces of Target is the idea of being "Fun, Fast, and Friendly." Our culture, and this motto, means that we must complete our work and remain fun, fast, and friendly to both guests and our fellow co-workers. Within this culture of Target, we are also known for various other items, which help create the overall culture of Target stores. These include:
Target also has specific subcultures and counter cultures it relates to:
Together, each of these pieces create the complex culture at Target. It is not just one single thing that creates the Target culture.
However, within the culture of Target, there is a level of integrity that employees must follow to for Target to remain a successful culture. For example, recently a fellow employee I knew was fired for stealing from the company. I could not believe it! Who would do such a thing, especially someone who is familiar with the high level of security within our store?
Target HR representatives handled the situational well, following "The Model of Organizational Integrity" (Julie Belle White and Doug Wallace, p. 161-162). Target solved ethical problems directly and reflectively by meeting with the employee discretely and promptly following his ethical violation (the stealing). The situation was dealt directly and involved only the necessary people so it was not a store-wide dramatic event. The HR department was responsive and responsible in the way they handled the situation, which helped the entire process run smoothly.
The second section of the organization integrity says organizations must interact responsibly. As mentioned above, Target was responsible by only involving those who were necessary in the situation such as security and a corporate representative. Furthermore, Target was acting to promote peace and justice, while remaining sensitive to the employee's privacy.
The third habit says to model integrity. As I understand, integrity means doing the right thing, even if no one is looking. This is the ethical code the employee violated. He took advantage of his position and stole from the company he worked for. He did not do the right thing, and in turn, he suffered the consequences of his actions. Target followed their ethical code by dealing with the integrity violation. If they had just passed it by, without drawing attention to the situation, they too would have been violating ethical codes. Luckily, Target handled the situation and did what was necessary in this specific case.
The fourth habit says an organization should share purposes and directions. The goal of Target, simply put, is to be the best store by offering the lowest prices, best customer service, product availability and so on. By not allowing the employee to keep his job will help maintain the goal of Target: to be the best. If a company cannot trust the employees working within it, there is no way the company can be the best.
That being said, the fifth and sixth habits, valuing stakeholder perspectives and practicing personal integrity must take place. If every employee acts responsibly, and strives to maintain the "fun, fast, and friendly" attitude, situations like this can be avoided.
Johannesen also comments that using nondestructive communication such as slang, aggressive or abusive language and so on. I have noticed at times I will adjust my language depending on who I am talking to. For example, I might use slang or less formal language if dealing with people my age. If working with older adults or elderly people, I will be more professional and formal. However, I would NEVER use curse words, racist remarks or labels to refer to people.
Language and commuication within organizations can be tricky for some; however, in a culture such as Target where it remains fun while professional, it is easy to fit in. As long as we don't steal.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WyajAgP0xB8/ShbczDd6ryI/AAAAAAAAAFg/fgKiRE34RWQ/S240/bullseye.png&imgrefurl=http://fastfunfriendly20.blogspot.com/&usg=__TSfHx0f0bsYUCrKhVjs5cherItk=&h=213&w=210&sz=29&hl=en&start=18&zoom=1&tbnid=0ECwD-CzhgkH9M:&tbnh=106&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtarget%2Bfun%2Bfast%2Band%2Bfriendly%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1281%26bih%3D615%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1
Target is an organization I have worked for for roughly two and a half years. While there, the organizational culture, and the way communication works throughout the Target corporation has been revealed to me.
One main cultural pieces of Target is the idea of being "Fun, Fast, and Friendly." Our culture, and this motto, means that we must complete our work and remain fun, fast, and friendly to both guests and our fellow co-workers. Within this culture of Target, we are also known for various other items, which help create the overall culture of Target stores. These include:
- Layout among regular Target stores, as well as Super Targets, are almost all the same, although Super Target stores have a produce and grocery section that may differ than regular stores
- Training for employees are the same among stores also, helping to create that overall culture. A person trained here in Oregon is going to be the same as the training found in stores across the nation
- Red and Khaki: Brand is important to Target’s culture and Target employees in all Target stores help make that culture known by wearing Red and Khaki and following the policies and practices of Target.
- The consistency with having the shelves stocked and the store clean is another part that helps define the culture of Target since it is consistent across store
- Commericals and print advertisements are also consistent from one week to another, allowing guests an easy way to identify the commericals and the culture at Target.
Target also has specific subcultures and counter cultures it relates to:
- Subcultures: There are examples of subcultures found within a Target store. These include the different departments such as Electronics, Sporting Goods, Furniture, Ready to Wear, and so on. These subcultures include a group of people who specialize in that area and create a subculture with experiences and knowledge shared amongst that group.
- Some major counter cultures of Target include Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Fred Meyers, K-Mart and even Costco. By keeping an eye on the competitors and their cultures, Target will know what adjustments their stores can make (prices, practices, policies and so on) to ensure their guests have the best shopping experience possible in the unique and fun culture Target is known for. These counter cultures also allow Target the opportunity to tell what it is doing well as a company. This may be offering the lowest prices, best service or return policy, and biggest product line in comparison to these other stores and their cultures.
Together, each of these pieces create the complex culture at Target. It is not just one single thing that creates the Target culture.
However, within the culture of Target, there is a level of integrity that employees must follow to for Target to remain a successful culture. For example, recently a fellow employee I knew was fired for stealing from the company. I could not believe it! Who would do such a thing, especially someone who is familiar with the high level of security within our store?
Target HR representatives handled the situational well, following "The Model of Organizational Integrity" (Julie Belle White and Doug Wallace, p. 161-162). Target solved ethical problems directly and reflectively by meeting with the employee discretely and promptly following his ethical violation (the stealing). The situation was dealt directly and involved only the necessary people so it was not a store-wide dramatic event. The HR department was responsive and responsible in the way they handled the situation, which helped the entire process run smoothly.
The second section of the organization integrity says organizations must interact responsibly. As mentioned above, Target was responsible by only involving those who were necessary in the situation such as security and a corporate representative. Furthermore, Target was acting to promote peace and justice, while remaining sensitive to the employee's privacy.
The third habit says to model integrity. As I understand, integrity means doing the right thing, even if no one is looking. This is the ethical code the employee violated. He took advantage of his position and stole from the company he worked for. He did not do the right thing, and in turn, he suffered the consequences of his actions. Target followed their ethical code by dealing with the integrity violation. If they had just passed it by, without drawing attention to the situation, they too would have been violating ethical codes. Luckily, Target handled the situation and did what was necessary in this specific case.
The fourth habit says an organization should share purposes and directions. The goal of Target, simply put, is to be the best store by offering the lowest prices, best customer service, product availability and so on. By not allowing the employee to keep his job will help maintain the goal of Target: to be the best. If a company cannot trust the employees working within it, there is no way the company can be the best.
That being said, the fifth and sixth habits, valuing stakeholder perspectives and practicing personal integrity must take place. If every employee acts responsibly, and strives to maintain the "fun, fast, and friendly" attitude, situations like this can be avoided.
Johannesen also comments that using nondestructive communication such as slang, aggressive or abusive language and so on. I have noticed at times I will adjust my language depending on who I am talking to. For example, I might use slang or less formal language if dealing with people my age. If working with older adults or elderly people, I will be more professional and formal. However, I would NEVER use curse words, racist remarks or labels to refer to people.
Language and commuication within organizations can be tricky for some; however, in a culture such as Target where it remains fun while professional, it is easy to fit in. As long as we don't steal.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Johannesen Chapter 8: Interpersonal, Communication and Small Group Discussion
Interpersonal communication, or small group communication makes me laugh. Has anyone else seen someone walking down the street for example, that you just want to avoid? I have done this before. I have even gone as far to change my normal walking route around school, just to avoid certain people.
I am not doing this to be rude, but some people can be awkward to talk to, silent, or maybe the opposite. Maybe they are loud, talk too much, or say random things.
In chapter 8, Johannesen quotes philosopher H. P Grice with his ethics for everyday conversation. Grice says that the four main types of ethical guidelines for conversations include:
I am not doing this to be rude, but some people can be awkward to talk to, silent, or maybe the opposite. Maybe they are loud, talk too much, or say random things.
In chapter 8, Johannesen quotes philosopher H. P Grice with his ethics for everyday conversation. Grice says that the four main types of ethical guidelines for conversations include:
- Quanitity: presenting as much information that is required without saying too much
- Quality: only speaking in truth and saying things that have evidential support
- Relation: making sure what we say makes sense in the context of conversation
- Manner: being brief, to the point, and avoiding intentional ambiguity
With certain people, they may violate one or more of these ethical codes. For example, for the person who talks too much or talks about unrelated topics, he or she would be violating the relation and manner ethical codes.
But what about me. Surely, I violate these codes sometimes as well. Have you ever been in a situation (I certainly have), where you have a really good point or thing to say, but unfortunately the conversation has moved on. Instead of letting the topic go, you throw it out there? Sometimes it gets the conversation back on track, other times, it just confuses people.
Has this ever happened to you?
Or has the opposite happened? Have you dealt with people who just don't carry conversation well?
Two nights ago, David and I came home to the fire department outside our apartment. Going up to someone to ask what had happened, the woman looked up, said someone's cooking caused the smoke alarms to go off, and we were waiting for the "all clear." While David returned to the car for a moment, I tried to make small talk with the woman by introducing David and myself. In response, she was texting the entire time, and only looked up to say, "I'm Heather."
It was an uncomfortable and awkward situation. I tried to make small talk, be friendly towards a neighbor we had not met, but instead, she looked down at her phone the whole time.
In our case, Heather was demonstrating "topical avoidance" according to Stanley Deetz (141-143). Topical avoidance meant she was avoiding the topic by being unwilling to talk about her emotions and perceptions over the event.
Has normal face-to-face communication between people, or meeting people in a face-to-face place been replaced by social networking and meeting people over the Internet?
Will face-to-face communication eventually be nonexistent? Does the Internet have that much control over us, or will it someday?
Monday, November 1, 2010
Johannessen Chapter 7: Some Basic Issues
Continuing on the topic of ethics, Johannnessen has a section on Internet Ethics towards the end of the chapter. What a fascinating topic.
The Internet is extremely powerful. Once something is published, it will forever remain in Cyberspace and may be accessed by tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of people!
As technology continues to improve and change the way we do things, an ethical code for the Internet needs to be established.
But since technology and the Internet is growing and changing so rapidly, is there a way to create a somewhat standard set of ethical guidelines?
On page 125, Johannessen quotes Thomas Cooper with these ethical issues
The Internet is extremely powerful. Once something is published, it will forever remain in Cyberspace and may be accessed by tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of people!
As technology continues to improve and change the way we do things, an ethical code for the Internet needs to be established.
But since technology and the Internet is growing and changing so rapidly, is there a way to create a somewhat standard set of ethical guidelines?
On page 125, Johannessen quotes Thomas Cooper with these ethical issues
- Dehumanization: this is especially relevant in chat rooms, or in a feedback post to a news article or something similar. All to often chat rooms, comment streams and video replies are answered in a rude, immature, ignorant or hurtful way. I am not going to post specific examples, but look around. You'll find an example soon enough.
- Deception: the issue of deception is big on the Internet too. I used to use a fake name to protect myself from anyone with bad intentions online. Gradually, I have allowed myself to reveal my name and such, but things such as my year of birth go unsaid. Does that mean I am lying? Am I breaking a commandment? Or am I just protecting myself?
- Personal Privacy: See above. How much is too much to reveal? How little is too little?
- Fair and equal opportunity: people can access the Internet almost 24/7 from anywhere, thanks to wireless and Wi-Fi connectable phones, mp3 players, and so on. But what happens when people use the Internet so much it consumes them? What about Second Life? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3d_fqDcN1s
Is Second Life ethical? What do you think? I personally don't like the idea of Second Life, nor do I ever want to use it, but many people use it for classroom lectures, for shopping, and for recreation. But is creating an alias on Second Life, or similar sites considered deception?
Are Internet ethics going to be along the same lines as the ethics in written or spoke communication? Hmm...
Are Internet ethics going to be along the same lines as the ethics in written or spoke communication? Hmm...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Chapter 10...
Well. I accidently read the wrong chapter 10. I thought we were supposed to read from Johannesen, instead, we were supposed to read out of Schultze. Oops...
:)
:)
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 10
After finishing my ethical reflection paper, I was not surprised this chapter would follow. This chapter deals with Formal Codes of Ethics, something I have become very familiar with since writing my paper.
On page 180, Johannesen says there are nine main objections to ethical codes, one of which being that ethical codes violate a journalists first amendment rights.
This is an interesting thought. The first amendment give every one in the United States freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Specifically for journalists, freedom of the press and speech are important because that is what a journalists job revolves around.
As a journalist myself, and wanting to pursue a professional career in journalism, I must develop a personal code of ethics that will guide my writing and conduct within the field. The Society of Professional Journalists have developed a code that many journalists, or aspiring journalists turn to (www.spj.org) I never really considered how ethics might hinder the rights given to us in the first amendment. I may choose to hold my tongue, or my writing rather, to protect someone or something. But legally, I have every right to publish what I want (if I do say certain things, I may get a lawsuit however).
So where do we draw the line? When are ethical codes too restricting? Is there a balance between personal ethics and personal ethics while in a professional setting?
For example, if societal norms or ethics differ from my personal ethics, what happens then?
On page 180, Johannesen says there are nine main objections to ethical codes, one of which being that ethical codes violate a journalists first amendment rights.
This is an interesting thought. The first amendment give every one in the United States freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Specifically for journalists, freedom of the press and speech are important because that is what a journalists job revolves around.
As a journalist myself, and wanting to pursue a professional career in journalism, I must develop a personal code of ethics that will guide my writing and conduct within the field. The Society of Professional Journalists have developed a code that many journalists, or aspiring journalists turn to (www.spj.org) I never really considered how ethics might hinder the rights given to us in the first amendment. I may choose to hold my tongue, or my writing rather, to protect someone or something. But legally, I have every right to publish what I want (if I do say certain things, I may get a lawsuit however).
So where do we draw the line? When are ethical codes too restricting? Is there a balance between personal ethics and personal ethics while in a professional setting?
For example, if societal norms or ethics differ from my personal ethics, what happens then?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 6
This chapter highlighted Religious, Utilitarian, and Legalistic Perspectives, and had a lot of really interesting information.
On page 82, the text says since we are made in the image of God, we should communicate with others in the same way we worship the Lord. For many Christians that would mean in a respectful, honorable, and kind way.
Just listening to the way people communicate with one another is enough to make someone feel sick sometimes. Bad language, cursing, "put-downs," manipulation are among the many bad things happening with communication in our society today. Look at rap songs for example. "Sexy Bitch" by David Guetta featuring Akon is an example. The lyrics read:
"...I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl
Without being disrespectful
Damn Girl
Damn Girl you'se a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch..."
(http://www.lyricsyoulove.com/d/david_guetta/sexy_bitch/)
and it continues on from there. Mass media plays a huge role in determining people's ethical standards. For example if they see their favorite movie star, singer, song writer, and so on, acting in a certain way (ethical or not) they may be inclined to mimic those actions to be more like their favorite person/people.
If we are trying to use our communication to resemble the way we worship, what would this be saying to the Lord?
Switching gears, on page 82 also Johannesen quotes Kyle Haselden saying the Ten Commandments are "'detailed, inflexible, always appropriate moral codes' which are 'adequate for all times, places, person and circumstances.'" I wonder if this is always true. Is it unethical to lie (which violates the 10 commandments) if it means saving someone's life? Is it unethical to dishonor your mother or father if it means protecting them against someone or something?
These areas are a bit fuzzy for me. I want to honor the Lord by following these commandments, but are they really appropriate for "all times, places, person and circumstances?"
What do you think?
On page 82, the text says since we are made in the image of God, we should communicate with others in the same way we worship the Lord. For many Christians that would mean in a respectful, honorable, and kind way.
Just listening to the way people communicate with one another is enough to make someone feel sick sometimes. Bad language, cursing, "put-downs," manipulation are among the many bad things happening with communication in our society today. Look at rap songs for example. "Sexy Bitch" by David Guetta featuring Akon is an example. The lyrics read:
"...I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl
Without being disrespectful
Damn Girl
Damn Girl you'se a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch, a sexy bitch..."
(http://www.lyricsyoulove.com/d/david_guetta/sexy_bitch/)
and it continues on from there. Mass media plays a huge role in determining people's ethical standards. For example if they see their favorite movie star, singer, song writer, and so on, acting in a certain way (ethical or not) they may be inclined to mimic those actions to be more like their favorite person/people.
If we are trying to use our communication to resemble the way we worship, what would this be saying to the Lord?
Switching gears, on page 82 also Johannesen quotes Kyle Haselden saying the Ten Commandments are "'detailed, inflexible, always appropriate moral codes' which are 'adequate for all times, places, person and circumstances.'" I wonder if this is always true. Is it unethical to lie (which violates the 10 commandments) if it means saving someone's life? Is it unethical to dishonor your mother or father if it means protecting them against someone or something?
These areas are a bit fuzzy for me. I want to honor the Lord by following these commandments, but are they really appropriate for "all times, places, person and circumstances?"
What do you think?
Johannesen: Chapter 5
This chapter deals with the idea of situational perspectives. Johannesen explains the concept of situational perspectives by stating that depending on the specific situation, the approach and ethical standards held may vary due to the sitaution's context. However, there are four main perspectives Johannesen cites, however there were two that stuck out to me as interesting.
The first piece of information that stands out to me is found within the first perspective, Situational Ethics and Public Relations Professionals. On page 72, Johannesen quotes David L. Martinson saying, "Many undoubtedly respond by 'doing what needs to be done' -- leaving 'worries' about ethical questions until 'later.'"
This automatically makes me think of various events throughout the world's history, the Holocaust of World War II especially.
Although I can not say for sure, it seems as if some of the Nazi's, or SS members, had this same mentality towards the Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and other groups of people they exterminated during World War II to purge Germany of those inferior to the Master Race. Clearly there were ethical violations being made in a large scale. But to the Nazi's, was extermination just something that "needed to be done?" which allowed them to set aside their ethical questions until later?
In the beginning of the book we have been studying by Schultze, he gives the example of the Nazi who comes to the Jewish man for forgiveness. Instead of responding to the Nazi man's pleas, the Jewish man stood up and left the room in silence.
That man's ethical violations caught up with him.
I wonder if any of the other Nazi's or those involved with the extermination stopped and reevaluated what they were doing? Did they feel bad? Did they feel like it was justified because of their loss in World War I like Adolf Hitler believed?
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of social ethics at an Episcopal theological school says "the love for fellow humans in the form of genuine affection for them and concern for their welfare"is one of way to analyze situational ethics from the Christian standpoint (73).
I also wonder if any of the Nazi or SS officers were converted after the Holocaust? Fletcher's statement spells out the idea that we are supposed to love each other and care about each other.
I like that situational perspective the best because I think it is the most realistic. If everyone was concerned about the welfare of their neighbor, and everyone loved each other, how different would our world be?
Would escape war? Injustices? Murder? Crime? Genocide?
As Christians it is our responsibility to share the love of Christ to each other and advocate that same sort of idea that Fletcher had, love and care for your neighbor.
The first piece of information that stands out to me is found within the first perspective, Situational Ethics and Public Relations Professionals. On page 72, Johannesen quotes David L. Martinson saying, "Many undoubtedly respond by 'doing what needs to be done' -- leaving 'worries' about ethical questions until 'later.'"
This automatically makes me think of various events throughout the world's history, the Holocaust of World War II especially.
Although I can not say for sure, it seems as if some of the Nazi's, or SS members, had this same mentality towards the Jews, handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and other groups of people they exterminated during World War II to purge Germany of those inferior to the Master Race. Clearly there were ethical violations being made in a large scale. But to the Nazi's, was extermination just something that "needed to be done?" which allowed them to set aside their ethical questions until later?
In the beginning of the book we have been studying by Schultze, he gives the example of the Nazi who comes to the Jewish man for forgiveness. Instead of responding to the Nazi man's pleas, the Jewish man stood up and left the room in silence.
That man's ethical violations caught up with him.
I wonder if any of the other Nazi's or those involved with the extermination stopped and reevaluated what they were doing? Did they feel bad? Did they feel like it was justified because of their loss in World War I like Adolf Hitler believed?
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of social ethics at an Episcopal theological school says "the love for fellow humans in the form of genuine affection for them and concern for their welfare"is one of way to analyze situational ethics from the Christian standpoint (73).
I also wonder if any of the Nazi or SS officers were converted after the Holocaust? Fletcher's statement spells out the idea that we are supposed to love each other and care about each other.
I like that situational perspective the best because I think it is the most realistic. If everyone was concerned about the welfare of their neighbor, and everyone loved each other, how different would our world be?
Would escape war? Injustices? Murder? Crime? Genocide?
As Christians it is our responsibility to share the love of Christ to each other and advocate that same sort of idea that Fletcher had, love and care for your neighbor.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Johannesen: Chapter 2
The second chapter in text talked about different political perspectives. It seems as if just the word politics is crawling with uncertainties, dislike, and confusion. However, the word "politics" in this case is used as an umbrella term for any communication on public issues and public policy.
The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out.
"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances?
Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related
However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.
But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.
But there is an ethical line to be drawn.
There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?
The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out.
"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances?
Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related
However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.
But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.
But there is an ethical line to be drawn.
There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Schultze Chapter 6: Class Notes
Incarnate Power:
- Power of Communication
- Power of Knowing
- Power of Charisma
Logos: word
Rhema: spoken/inspired
Charisma: gifts
Knowledge: information abundance, information overload
"Sticks and stones:" racial slur is bad for your soul
"Sticks and stones:" racial slur is bad for your soul
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Schultze: Chapter 6
Hello old friend. I am so happy that we have switched back to this text for the time being. It is written in a clearer, more understandable way that Phaedrus or Johannessen, so it is like a breath of fresh air.
This chapter was dedicated to the topic of power, more specifically incarnate power. After reading the text, there were a couple passages that stuck out to me for various reasons.
The first takes place on page 90. Schultze is talking about how words can and do hurt people. I found this interesting because this is exactly what my devotional is about that I will give in early November. He says, "Even without physical violence, our communication can injure listeners and speakers alike."
It kind of goes back to the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words with never hurt me."
Like I said this is a topic I will dive into more during my devotional, so I don't want to give my whole presentation away. However, I will include the clip I am using in my presentation to help demonstrate the point that words can be hurtful and harmful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyyhNwdQz0
This clip from Mean Girls demonstrates how hurtful Regina words were to the other girls, ultimately breaking up their friendships.
In my own personal life, I used to be made fun of for my frizzy hair and dry skin. Because of this, I have always been self conscious, specifically over my dry hands. When David asked to see my hands just before we were dating (my freshman year of college), I told him no because I was worried about what he would think. Luckily, David loves my hands and says they are beautiful (that's when I knew he was different. :) )
Schultze's point about words being sometimes just as harmful as physical violence is completely true, since words can affect us deeply for a long, long time.
Another point that stuck out to me from the reading was on page 94. Schultze is quoting a passage from Quintilian and says, "In other words, person and message should be united so that what we say is a product of who we are and what we believe..."
This goes right along with my earlier point. Our communication, both verbal and nonverbal, can help determine our reputation. By using harsh words, or saying hurtful things, a person may be defined as being mean, rude, inconsiderate or hurtful. Instead, saying kind words and uplifting things will help people associate positive words with that person.
They say we are what we eat. But I think, we are what we say (both verbally or nonverbally).
What are your thoughts?
This chapter was dedicated to the topic of power, more specifically incarnate power. After reading the text, there were a couple passages that stuck out to me for various reasons.
The first takes place on page 90. Schultze is talking about how words can and do hurt people. I found this interesting because this is exactly what my devotional is about that I will give in early November. He says, "Even without physical violence, our communication can injure listeners and speakers alike."
It kind of goes back to the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words with never hurt me."
Like I said this is a topic I will dive into more during my devotional, so I don't want to give my whole presentation away. However, I will include the clip I am using in my presentation to help demonstrate the point that words can be hurtful and harmful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJyyhNwdQz0
This clip from Mean Girls demonstrates how hurtful Regina words were to the other girls, ultimately breaking up their friendships.
In my own personal life, I used to be made fun of for my frizzy hair and dry skin. Because of this, I have always been self conscious, specifically over my dry hands. When David asked to see my hands just before we were dating (my freshman year of college), I told him no because I was worried about what he would think. Luckily, David loves my hands and says they are beautiful (that's when I knew he was different. :) )
Schultze's point about words being sometimes just as harmful as physical violence is completely true, since words can affect us deeply for a long, long time.
Another point that stuck out to me from the reading was on page 94. Schultze is quoting a passage from Quintilian and says, "In other words, person and message should be united so that what we say is a product of who we are and what we believe..."
This goes right along with my earlier point. Our communication, both verbal and nonverbal, can help determine our reputation. By using harsh words, or saying hurtful things, a person may be defined as being mean, rude, inconsiderate or hurtful. Instead, saying kind words and uplifting things will help people associate positive words with that person.
They say we are what we eat. But I think, we are what we say (both verbally or nonverbally).
What are your thoughts?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Phaedrus: The Final Section
This section of the text was interesting to me. Going through both persuasion and public relation classes, I have learned the different parts necessary for good rhetoric, or argument.
In this section, Socrates and Phaedrus discuss rhetoric and how it is used, and there were a few sentences that stuck out to me. For example:
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
This strikes me as humorous because I agree with this statement. I always correct people when they speak or write and use grammar or language incorrectly. For instance, if I heard someone say, "I did good on that test." I would polietly respond, "No, you did well."
That goes the same way if/when I see people use "text language" in academic papers. I once edited a paper where someone wrote, "It's a great place if u like warm weather." I would be more content with that person had he or she made a more complex mistake, but something as silly as "u" versus "you" is just pitiful! I think Socrates was on to something by saying the disgrace begins with just poor English, writing, or speaking skills. Shoo!
Another part that stuck out to me was the response Phaedrus gave to Socrates saying:
Phaedr. And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment; nor with the truly good or honourable, but only with opinion about them, and that from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth.
In communication classes we are taught that pathos, ethos and logos are important in persuasion/rhetoric. In this case, the ethos would be questioned if people said what they thought their audience wanted to hear.
What if Jesus just said what his opposition wanted to hear? What he if denied that he was Christ? What if, since Jesus knew he was not welcomed by many, he lied about who he was? What if, what if, what if?!
Where would we be?
People need to be challenged. People need to hear what they might not want to hear in order for them to learn and grow. I am thankful for people who stand up for themselves, or stand their ground in situations because they will not give in to that peer pressure of answering/speaking to a crowd with the crowd's well-being in mind. Speak out! Be brave! Stand up for what you believe in!
Whoo. I'm getting all worked up.
What are your thoughts on this all? In certain circumstances, is it okay to say what the person wants to hear? Think of sales for example. Maybe a person isn't sure whether they really need another pair of shoes. But after a sales person insists they make the outfit complete and that they will save money today since they are on sale, the person gives in because he/she hears what he/she wants to hear.
So where do you draw the line? When is it okay to speak your mind and when is it (if ever) okay to say what people want to hear? Hmm...
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
This strikes me as humorous because I agree with this statement. I always correct people when they speak or write and use grammar or language incorrectly. For instance, if I heard someone say, "I did good on that test." I would polietly respond, "No, you did well."
That goes the same way if/when I see people use "text language" in academic papers. I once edited a paper where someone wrote, "It's a great place if u like warm weather." I would be more content with that person had he or she made a more complex mistake, but something as silly as "u" versus "you" is just pitiful! I think Socrates was on to something by saying the disgrace begins with just poor English, writing, or speaking skills. Shoo!
Another part that stuck out to me was the response Phaedrus gave to Socrates saying:
Phaedr. And yet, Socrates, I have heard that he who would be an orator has nothing to do with true justice, but only with that which is likely to be approved by the many who sit in judgment; nor with the truly good or honourable, but only with opinion about them, and that from opinion comes persuasion, and not from the truth.
In communication classes we are taught that pathos, ethos and logos are important in persuasion/rhetoric. In this case, the ethos would be questioned if people said what they thought their audience wanted to hear.
What if Jesus just said what his opposition wanted to hear? What he if denied that he was Christ? What if, since Jesus knew he was not welcomed by many, he lied about who he was? What if, what if, what if?!
Where would we be?
People need to be challenged. People need to hear what they might not want to hear in order for them to learn and grow. I am thankful for people who stand up for themselves, or stand their ground in situations because they will not give in to that peer pressure of answering/speaking to a crowd with the crowd's well-being in mind. Speak out! Be brave! Stand up for what you believe in!
Whoo. I'm getting all worked up.
What are your thoughts on this all? In certain circumstances, is it okay to say what the person wants to hear? Think of sales for example. Maybe a person isn't sure whether they really need another pair of shoes. But after a sales person insists they make the outfit complete and that they will save money today since they are on sale, the person gives in because he/she hears what he/she wants to hear.
So where do you draw the line? When is it okay to speak your mind and when is it (if ever) okay to say what people want to hear? Hmm...
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Phaedrus: The Soul
First, I would like to begin by saying I am so glad I have the opportunity to read modern-language material most of the time. I am having a really hard time getting through the Phaedrus reading, especially when there is Greek mythology and uncommon words mixed in.
Luckily we are using the translation which is a bit easier for me to get through...
This classes reading was around the Phaedrus section regarding the soul. The text talks about the white horse, the dark horse and the charioteer. The white horse is more disciplined, obedient and well-mannered, while the dark horse is rowdy, untamed and unwilling to cooperate. The charioteer is in charge of controlling, or helping the horses behave.
){kind=link}
In Christianity, God acts as the charioteer, grouping the horses together and controlling them. As humans, we are all a lot like the white and dark horses. At times, we can be switch between identifying with qualities of the white or dark horse. As Christians, however, we strive to be more like the white horse; diciplined, obedient and well-mannered in our relationship with Christ and others. We want to show that Godly love to others and want to spread the joy of Christ to others. There are dark horses out there though, that remain that way. People can lose sight of a righteous path, and fall into a rowdy, untamed or unwilling lifestyles.
God's grace is amazing though and allows even the darkest horse to become stark white by accepting that Christ is Lord and receiving redemption through Jesus.
Imagine though, a world full of white horses. :)
As Christians, our goal is to spread the Word, and by doing so, we can help gray horses, brown horses, and black horses become another white horse in God's corral.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Phaedrus: Reading 1
This reading documents a conversation being Phaedrus and Socrates about love, specifically nonlovers and lovers. One idea from the text that stood out for me was Phaedrus states that he knows Socrates better than Socrates knows himself.
In the reading, it seems as if Phaedrus and Socrates demonstrate phileo, or that brotherly love. Although the story Socrates was telling seemed to lean towards eros.
Being a newlywed I am finding this statement is true in a lot of ways. David and I are best friends but we are so close that he can read me like a book!
For example, David can read my facial expressions, even when I try so hard to disguise them. He knows when I am mad, sad, happy, confused, and so on, even if I do not feel like I am giving my emotions away. Not only that but we share common interests and will often say the same things at the same time.
I think that is part of why love is unique. There are various types of love however. The Bible says there are three types of love, eros, phileo, and agape.
Eros is defined as intimate or sexual love. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=eros)
Phileo is defined as brotherly love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phileo)
Agape is defined as an unconditional love such as the love of Christ (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:+agape&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
In the reading, it seems as if Phaedrus and Socrates demonstrate phileo, or that brotherly love. Although the story Socrates was telling seemed to lean towards eros.
It is interesting to me how loosely the word "love" is thrown around. For example, all to often we hear people say, or we say, "I LOVE that movie" or "I LOVE that restaurant," or "I LOVE that shirt!"
Has the real meaning of love been skewed because of how loose the word has become? Does it still mean the same things if we use the word to describe so many insignificant things such as food, clothes, movies or books?
I love 1 Corinthians 13 because it clearly defines the concept of love. I challenge you to read this passage and reflect on your own life. Do you use the word love too loosely? Do you follow what the Bible says? What are areas you can work on based on this passage?
1 Corinthians 13 4-18: 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails... (NIV)
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Chapter 4: Dialogical Perspectives
The fourth chapter in Johannesen's book talks about the different dialogical perspectives. Despite there being various approaches to dialogue, such as a monologue, persuasive dialogue, interpersonal dialogue and so on, there are a couple interesting aspects of dialogue that are important for communicators to keep in mind.
One positive aspect of dialogue is that it tends to carry the text or conversation between two or more people. In written form, dialogue can help the guide the reader in a different way than blocks of text. For example, a conversation between two people may be easier to read than a paragraph or two or straight words. Dialogue gives the reader breaks in the text. It can also help the reader engage and relate to the speakers.
On page 60, Johannesen comments that dialogue is unplanned. I like the idea, although I disagree. Dialogue can be planned. How many of us have practiced what we might say to someone on the first date? During times of conflicts? Or for a job interview?
Dialogue can be planned, although sometimes it is more fun not to.
Improv for example is a form of dialogue that is unplanned (not the improv stages, where the jokes are pre-rehearsed).
We depend on dialogue. We depend on the social interactions between people. Could you go through life without talking to someone else?
What if we were mimes?
I did a fundraiser in high school called a "Mime-a-thon" for Theater where we were unable to speak for an entire day. We got sponsors and they paid for us not to talk.
It about killed me! I love talking in general, so not being able to talk, and have people depending on that was so difficult for me.
How long do you think you could go without dialoguing? Could you last a whole day without saying a word?
One positive aspect of dialogue is that it tends to carry the text or conversation between two or more people. In written form, dialogue can help the guide the reader in a different way than blocks of text. For example, a conversation between two people may be easier to read than a paragraph or two or straight words. Dialogue gives the reader breaks in the text. It can also help the reader engage and relate to the speakers.
On page 60, Johannesen comments that dialogue is unplanned. I like the idea, although I disagree. Dialogue can be planned. How many of us have practiced what we might say to someone on the first date? During times of conflicts? Or for a job interview?
Dialogue can be planned, although sometimes it is more fun not to.
Improv for example is a form of dialogue that is unplanned (not the improv stages, where the jokes are pre-rehearsed).
We depend on dialogue. We depend on the social interactions between people. Could you go through life without talking to someone else?
What if we were mimes?
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/pages-3/Mimes-silently-suffering-through-recession-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html)
I did a fundraiser in high school called a "Mime-a-thon" for Theater where we were unable to speak for an entire day. We got sponsors and they paid for us not to talk.
It about killed me! I love talking in general, so not being able to talk, and have people depending on that was so difficult for me.
How long do you think you could go without dialoguing? Could you last a whole day without saying a word?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Chapter 3: Human Nature Perspectives
In this chapter, Johannesen covers the topic of human nature perspectives. After going through specific examples, such as human symbol-using capacity, Kant's categorical imperative, and epistemic ethics, there were a few things that stood out to me.
On the first page of the chapter (35), Johannesen states that "we often 'yearn' for what is not good." I find this statement to be very true. It seems as if some people are always wanting what they cannot have. Unfortunately, a lot of time this lust leads to affairs or people blowing their money on materialistic things. Some people even yearn for addictive things such as gambling, drugs, alcohol, or sex (in a premarital, or floozy type way). These things are ethically wrong, at least most people would agree that they are wrong if done in excess (an occasional drink is not the end of the world).
I thought it was an interesting, and true statement.
Another item that stuck out to me was Aristotle's rejection of the idea "the end justifies the means when the means is unethical," talked about in Human Rational Capacity.
Last time in class we talked about the idea of right and wrong, and continue to do so as we try and figure out what ethics, or being ethical really is.
We know that stealing is wrong. But what if you had to steal food (or money for food) in order to feed your family?
Does the end justify the mean?
Is this still wrong?
Based on what the author of the text is saying, it seems as if Aristotle would say it is wrong.
We have so many different ways to go about studying and understanding ethics.
I just wonder, are there instances when doing something bad, is really a good thing? Is it worth breaking the ethical expectations if it will bring peace or happiness to someone?
What do you think?
Would you steal the food or money for food to feed your family?
Where and how do you draw the line?
I thought it was an interesting, and true statement.
Another item that stuck out to me was Aristotle's rejection of the idea "the end justifies the means when the means is unethical," talked about in Human Rational Capacity.
Last time in class we talked about the idea of right and wrong, and continue to do so as we try and figure out what ethics, or being ethical really is.
We know that stealing is wrong. But what if you had to steal food (or money for food) in order to feed your family?
Does the end justify the mean?
Is this still wrong?
Based on what the author of the text is saying, it seems as if Aristotle would say it is wrong.
We have so many different ways to go about studying and understanding ethics.
I just wonder, are there instances when doing something bad, is really a good thing? Is it worth breaking the ethical expectations if it will bring peace or happiness to someone?
What do you think?
Would you steal the food or money for food to feed your family?
Where and how do you draw the line?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Chapter 1: Ethical Responsibility in Human Communication
This week, we have set Schultze aside and turned to the book, "Ethics in Human Communication," by Richard Johannesen, Kathleeen Valde, and Karen Whedbee.
Chapter one addresses the issue of ethical responsibilities in communication. Although I found the text to be fairly dense and hard to read (not bad, just written quite differently than Schultze), there were some interesting ideas I gathered from the text.
I liked the way the authors split the chapter into sections, such as "Ethics and Personal Character" or "Components of Morality and Integrity."
The authors explore different areas where ethics might be needed, or where ethics can be more of a fluid idea.
In the beginning of text, the authors offer counter arguments to people who might justify their ethical or nonethical behavior on the fact that ethics are just someone's personal opinion. This struck me as a fascinating idea.
If ethics are indeed, a personal opinion (I would say they are), are there certain circumstances where a person's opinion, although the First Amendment grants us the right to freedom of speech/media and so on, are inappropriate, and breech ethical standards.
Yes, of course. Ethical issues, although disputable, are needed and necessary for a culture or environment. For example, it is unethical to walk up to someone and demand that he or she gives the thief the money.
But what if the person stealing money was broke, and trying to feed his or her family with that money?
Does that make it okay?
That does not solely involve unethical/ethical communication, but actions as well.
That is why certain organizations follow a set of ethical guidelines. They may not be fully agreed upon, but they do form a pathway for people to follow.
For example, journalists often will follow the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).
As Christians, does the Bible act as our code of ethics? I say yes. But what about non-Christians? Where do their ethical guidelines come from, or what sets the line between right and wrong?
Hmm...
What do you think?
Chapter one addresses the issue of ethical responsibilities in communication. Although I found the text to be fairly dense and hard to read (not bad, just written quite differently than Schultze), there were some interesting ideas I gathered from the text.
I liked the way the authors split the chapter into sections, such as "Ethics and Personal Character" or "Components of Morality and Integrity."
The authors explore different areas where ethics might be needed, or where ethics can be more of a fluid idea.
In the beginning of text, the authors offer counter arguments to people who might justify their ethical or nonethical behavior on the fact that ethics are just someone's personal opinion. This struck me as a fascinating idea.
If ethics are indeed, a personal opinion (I would say they are), are there certain circumstances where a person's opinion, although the First Amendment grants us the right to freedom of speech/media and so on, are inappropriate, and breech ethical standards.
Yes, of course. Ethical issues, although disputable, are needed and necessary for a culture or environment. For example, it is unethical to walk up to someone and demand that he or she gives the thief the money.
But what if the person stealing money was broke, and trying to feed his or her family with that money?
Does that make it okay?
That does not solely involve unethical/ethical communication, but actions as well.
That is why certain organizations follow a set of ethical guidelines. They may not be fully agreed upon, but they do form a pathway for people to follow.
For example, journalists often will follow the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).
As Christians, does the Bible act as our code of ethics? I say yes. But what about non-Christians? Where do their ethical guidelines come from, or what sets the line between right and wrong?
Hmm...
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)