Schultze: Chapter 7: Symbolic Power

Symbols are all around us. No doubt you will recognize what these symbols stand for...

Facebook: 39704-1287490872.gif

Twitter: mediaups.com

Target: thescene.com.au

Apple: http://www.obsessable.com/feature/pumpkin-carving-101-the-tools-of-the-trade/

Nike: ashwellgolf.co.uk

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? 

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:

• 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.

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

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:

• 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?

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

• 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...

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...

:)

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?

(http://www.emitten.org.uk/Training/Training%20Days/2009/Dec%202009/dec_2009.htm)

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?