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?

(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?

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?

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 5: Slaves to Sin

This chapter focuses on man's fall and how communication can be used for both good and bad. After listing various examples such as Michael Ryan's obsession with sexual experiences (although God's amazing grace turned his life around), and how Adam blamed Eve, who in turn blamed the serpent for their eating of the forbidden fruit.

Communication, although it would be nice to say it only is used for positive reasons, is associated with negative reasons as well. Lying, holding back information, gossiping, "venting" or cursing are forms of this.

The Bible even mentions in Deuteronomy 5:11 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (NIV)”

All too often I hear people using profanity, or my least favorite, using the Lord’s name in vain.

Like I said (agreeing with the text), communication is not always used for positive reasons).

I especially think communication is interesting is within the media. Overall, the use of media and the effects media has over the major population fascinates me.

In the chapter, Schultze writes, "Like the citizens of Babel, we use communication to create and maintain evil structures of oppression and deception. (80)"

In the context of mass media, I think this is especially true. Is what we see on TV, read about in magazines, or hear of on the radio always true?

Of course not.

But people don't always realize that.

Here are some advertisements I found that demonstrate that sort of oppression and deception within communication (unfortunately, some of which are at the expense of women).

This communication implies that without breast implants, you cannot look your best.

 adagencyconfessional.blogspot.com

 Apparently if men wear Axe Effect, women won't be able to keep their hands off of the man... Hmm. I don't even like the smell of Axe, personally. Therefore, this ad is deceiving. 

 http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss3307_fall2007/2007/09/

Calvin Klein Jeans seem to say that with their jeans, you will have sex. Again not true...

 Communication is an interesting thing. For Michael Ryan, he fell away from Christ and into a trap of deception, addiction, and guilt. For some, communication can be a saving grace. Communication can bring people closer to Christ, tell stories, share memories, bond through experience, and relay emotions.

Therefore, communication can be a tough area to find. 

That being said, does the phrase, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all" ring true?

I think so.

Chapter 4: Symbolic Ambiguity

The fourth chapter of the book explains how communication, and symbols within communication are often associated with ambiguity or uncertainty. This is because there are so many different ways to respond, react, or interpret information. The text used the example of the dictionary, and even though there are standardized definitions, there are still multiple, agreed-upon meanings for different words. Not only that, but what I might see/hear, could greatly differ from what someone else is looking at/hearing based on our own interpretations, backgrounds, and experiences.


The author also relates communication and symbolism to Christianity. While Christians agree that Jesus lived, died on the cross, was resurrected three days later, and will return to Earth, different aspects of Christianity are disagreed on, due to different perspectives, cultures, experiences, and so on.


I think this idea is extremely fascinating. What I think of, write, or speak has the potential to be 100% than the person that is experiencing something with me.


Crazy.


Speaking of symbols, and symbolic ambiguity, I looked up some optical illusions online to help demonstrate the main idea of the chapter. :)






Is this a sad clown? Or a princess?

(zzz3167_50_Optical_Illusions.php)






Just trees? Or is it a woman?

(http://www.desicomments.com/tag/dhillon/?r_sortby=highest_rated&r_orderby=desc)

Are the dice lying flat, or is one end sticking up?

(http://www.sharenator.com/profile/stephen7/comments/)


Where did the floor go?

http://www.innocentenglish.com/funny-amazing-pictures-videos/optical-illusions-3d/amazing-optical-illusions.html

Where are the colors going?

(http://www.innocentenglish.com/funny-amazing-pictures-videos/optical-illusions-3d/amazing-optical-illusions.html)

Although illusions and symbols can be fun, it is important for us, as communicators, to always give clear and concise language that everyone--hopefully-- will understand.

Chapter Three: Cockfights and Demographics

The third chapter of the book, Communicating for Life, was regarding two main types of communication theory: transmissional and cultural styles.

I thought it was interesting that the author spoke about the seven step model of communication under the transmissional umbrella. I am also learning about this in my organizational communication class, and therefore have a very clear understanding about the seven step process.

The sender (who encodes a message) sends a message to the receiver (who decodes the message), who sends feedback to the sender, which all happens through a channel, all the while the sender and receiver have to ignore the external or internal noise that is going on within their environment.

It is an on-going circle. Even if the receiver does not give audible feedback, his or her facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal communication will.

The author, Schultze's does say that this model does not necessarily leave room for God to interact with the sender or receiver because it is a closed sort of system.

I disagree with that statement. I believe that Christ can interact with anyone at anytime, regardless of who, when, or what type of communication style is being used.

The transmissional style of communication tends to be used in a scientific sort of approach, and has been used in various experiments and has been paired with surveys, information gatherings, etc.

The cultural theory of communication is much more lax, in that it does not follow a structured step-by-step process. Instead, it is influenced by culture, and more qualitative approaches to communication including observation and creativity.

Again, I believe that God can interfere whenever and to whoever he likes, regardless of the communication theory they lean on.

What communication theory do you like best? Do you like the structured style, or the seemingly more interpretive style?

For me? I like both. But I like the idea that I am not forced to use one or the other, but I can come up with my ideas using my creativity, and blend the two together.

Chapter 2: Conversations

Amanda and I spoke about the second chapter in the text, and she asked whether there are limitations to identification?

This is a very interesting idea to me because as much as we can relate to someone or something, we may not be able to relate exactly, or completely compared to another person's identification with something.

Interesting...

Chapter 2: Inexplicable Grace

The second chapter in Communicating for Life is based around the idea of grace, and how grace within communication works. I thought the idea of identification was fascinating. Sure, it makes it easier to relate to an audience or another if there is a common ground. But the examples used within the text were interesting, such as the couple forgiving the man who killed their son, or the man speaking to gang members. By identifying with the person/people, they were all able to forgive, and show God's grace.


Another idea gathered from reading the text was the example used with the co-herence of lovers. The text gives the example of the wife who fleetingly looked at the mantle and moments later (with no words exchanged between the two) the husband lit the candles sitting on the mantle. This rings true in my husband and my relationship. We often will say the same thing or want to do the same thing. For example, this past weekend was his 25th birthday. Completely a surprise to him, and without me giving hints, David would casually mention things that he wanted to do, such as get a birthday massage (I had couple massages scheduled for us for days before he said this). Or when he said it would be fun to go out of town (I was already planning on taking him to the beach). It is fun for us because it helps us feel closer and more intimate as a couple. We always joke that we are the same person.


I think the idea of grace itself is awesome. God sent Jesus, a human, to Earth so that we as humans could identify with him, and therefore better relate, listen to, and trust what Christ was saying. Grace is such an incredible thing. We can mess up, get in trouble, or disappoint, and the Lord will constantly show us his mercy and grace, if we seek it. If that same way, we all should show grace and mercy to others. It is easy for someone to stay upset or mad at someone for something (no matter how big or small) but it is harder to that person in the wrong to seek forgiveness. That being said, it is important for us, especially as Christians, to replicate the grace the Lord gives us, even if it is difficult at times.


Chris Tomlin sings a great version of "Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)." After really thinking about the incredible gift of grace, it is nice to really soak in the lyrics of the song and relish in the grace God continually gives us (although it should not be taken for granted).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqJsBRFdrA0

Defining: Stewardship

For this class, we were asked to define the word steward, or stewardship. As I was looking online (using Google as much search engine), I was surprised to see how many definitions that came up were related to nature, national resources or our environment. Sure I have heard the word used in that context, but more commonly I have heard the word used in relation to religion and ministry.

Looking online, I decided to return to Merriam Webster online (www.m-w.com) to see if I could find a definition that I felt comfortable with, based on my previous understanding of its usage.

I found it interesting that it included the natural resource part in its definition, but I guess it makes sense in both that way, as well as being Christian stewards. This is because as Christians, or as nature-lovers we have certain obligations (or opportunities depending on how one sees it) to protect, manage and knowledge over certain things. I am interested in hearing other people's definitions of the word because I am curious if other people have heard it in a religious setting like I have. :)

According to Merriam Webster, "stewardship" is defined as:

Definition of STEWARDSHIP

1

: the office, duties, and obligations of a steward

2

: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something;especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care <stewardship of our natural resources>

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stewardship)

Chapter 1: Symbolic Stweardship

Today I began reading the first textbook for the class, Communicating for Life and I am really pleased. This is because this books read more like a book, and less like traditional textbooks. The introduction about the WWII scenario made me want to keep reading (partly because it was well written, but mostly because I love learning about WWII).

Regardless, I made my way through the first chapter in the book, titled "Symbolic Stewardship." As I read through it, and read Schultze's ideas, it made me think of a few personal experiences that I have dealt with.

On page 18 and 19, Schultze talks about the idea of Christ being the center of our communication. This made me think of a couple times where, in my own life, this idea has been a major factor. Yes, I strongly believe that Christ should be at the center of everything we do, but more specifically our communication.

Being married has been amazing. I love my husband, and we have so much fun together. We were blessed with a relationship where my husband and I get along 99.9% of the time perfectly. However there are times where we disagree or don't see eye-to-eye on specific things.

We have found, and have discussed our findings, that when we focus Christ to the center of our relationship, everything else in our relationship falls perfectly into place. For example, one night David and I disagreed over something, and we realized, we had not been into the Word as much as we could have been.

When we refocused our time and priorities, we disagreed less, and were our happy "perfect" selves again.

It's amazing how Christ works. He brings David and me together when we disagree to realize we had not had Him as the priority.

Schultze's comments regarding communication and Christ made me reflect on moments in my own life where this bond (between communication and Christ) is so important.

How cool!

Also, Schultze's ideas regarding us, and the things around us, as symbols is really a fascinating thought (page 21). I know that we should strive to be in God's image, but I never thought of myself as being a symbol of Christ. I want people to look at me and see Christ shine through me. I never considered that people could look at me and potentially "see" something else. That makes me want to live life even more Christ-like. I don't want people to see the wrong symbol when they look at me. I only want to be associated with positive symbols.

(Schultze used the example of pornography being symbolized in so many ways to different types of people).

I want to be a light. I want to be a good, Christian symbol.

What symbol do you think people see when they look at you?

This chapter really made me think, and I am really looking forward to continuing this book.