Johannesen Ch.3

This chapter discussed the human nature perspective of ethical communication. This chapter was packed with information about why we choose what is ethical and unethical, and what in our humanity makes it so.

Humans use symbols, rationality, persuasion, and judgment in deciding ethical values. For me this chapter felt abstract. Referring to humans as animals made the concepts harder for me to relate to.

The part of this section that most stood out to me was on page 40, it discussed persuasion. Our responsibilities to ourselves and others assess instances of persuasion. Our obligations to ourselves are openness and resoluteness. I never have really thought of holding an opinion as an ethical persuasion standard.

Being open is something I think more people need to be aware of. I have always struggled with one-sided opinions and people unwilling to address other world-views. As Christians, I think it is our duty to be more open to other ideas. In a Christian environment people tend to go with the trends and not hear other sides, but we must understand that being open can help us further understand, communicate, and persuade more clearly to those with differing views. On top of that we have our resoluteness to fall back on.

The duty to others ethically in communication is also important, gentleness and compassion. I think in the Christian community we throw out the word compassion often, but do not know what it means. Compassion is selfless, and not done with alternative motives. This creates more ethical implications. For example, is serve day done out of compassion, to persuade non-profits they are worthy of our time, or is George Fox University persuading the public that it is a school that reaches out?

Gentleness is to persuade without violence. The example that I thought of well reading this was the protest at the Lure exotic club on 99w. Students rallied against the club for its "School Girls" themed night. This was not violent, but was it gentle? I am not sure.

The other thing I found intriguing about this chapter is the assumptions we make in our communication, are these assumptions accurate? Are the sources credible? Is what we are being told coming for the benefit of humankind and not just as a means for personal gain? This chapter repeats that lying, anything said in deceit, is unethical. I agree, I have always been raised not to lie, and I find it tacky. It makes communication more blurred and complex than is necessary. Although, we still assume people lie to us?

My question is are their times when lying could be considered ethical? What in our human nature makes us think that deceit is acceptable?

Journalism Barbie

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/29398/journalism-barbie-marks-the-end-of-real-news/

This was just something I saw, and thought it would be interesting to write about as a journalism major.

This article really offended me. I do not believe Barbie becoming a journalist makes my profession irrelevant. Journalism is changing and impacting society more than ever through fast streamed articles and social networking.

This statement offended me:

"It seems as though the girls who used to be obsessed with Barbies grew up into journalists and voted this new doll into existence. Whenever I meet an astoundingly dumb, over-dressed female, it almost invariably comes up that she majored in journalism. It seems the journalism major is the new psych major. And now we’re all on Lexapro."

I consider myself a smart and intellectual individual. In order to be successful in journalism you have to have a competitive edge. Maybe these "dumb" individuals want a career in entertainment, that is not the whole of the journalism profession.

This stereotype of young dumb females creates a great communication barrier. I think that this author expressed sexist views, and as someone contributing to a journalistic outlet he should be more respectful of the profession.

Johannesen Ch. 1

In Johannesen’s first chapter, he discussed ethical responsibility in human communication. He connects ethics to communication by saying that the ethical dimensions of communication cannot be discredited. These techniques and ethical standards may be debatable, but they still exist.

In communication there is a sender and a receiver. Senders must find a golden mean to adapt to their receiver or audience. Is adapting to an audience an ethical implication? How do we avoid this? In communication classes, I have always been taught to review my audience, take in their demographics and their cultural differences, then adjust my message to be more suitable. Johannesen suggests that in doing this it is possible to lose the message entirely, or to not adapt to our audience makes the message unrelatable.

He connects the ideas of freedom, responsibility, intention, sincerity, morality, integrity, and character with communication ethics. He explains how each of these plays a factor in how we judge the ethicality of a communicator and his or her message. Does our judgment change because the questionable ethical content of the message was unintentional? Or is she or he free from the ethical standards because the message was said with sincerity?

I found several things interesting in this chapter. I liked how Johannesen mentioned that with the freedom of speech you could not decrease responsibility. Instead, responsibility and freedom work together, and communicators should respect their freedom and take responsibility as the “consequence” of that freedom. I think this is a low price. I also found Karen Lebacqz’s statement intriguing, “Our choices about what to do are also choices about whom to be.” Our actions explain our character, if our actions are insincere or unintentional this can disrupt our image.

I noticed this chapter did not mention the cultural ethical differences. He discusses the different meanings of western and eastern ideas of sincerity, but not the other values. How would an insincere message or the right of free speech differ in various cultures?

Schultze Chapter 5

Slaves to Sin

In this section Schultze describes how sin transforms our communication. He discusses it as a "glamorous weapon of destruction". We put aside our gift of communication and use it against each other. Common examples Schultze uses are: being convinced we are right, corruption, domination and greed.

Since the fall of humanity, we have had communication struggles. It is always better to get ahead, be right, be better, than to work out with the skills of communication. Businesses lure in individuals with communication with products that are not beneficial for them.

Even, though I agree with using communication negatively, I again find a disagreement with Schultze's view. I think education on communication can help and create a better communicating environment. And while the ideas of joyful music, drama, and prose sounds lovely, it is again creating a selfish reality (84). It is important to understand their is evil and I think communicating darkness, is a good way to create change.

Question: Other than sin, for secularists, what creates "immoral" communication? What are ways to overcome immoral communication?

Schultze Chapter 4

Symbolic Ambiguity

Symbolic Ambiguity is what complicates our communication. We interpret things differently, such as the Bible. We then form denominations with similar interpretations. Communication is influenced by the concept of postmodernism, people create their own realities. This can disrupt the Christian faith and spirituality. Augustine had suggests knowing the author, understanding text (message), and the context. Due to our own realities, Schultze explains how we lose fellowship with God. However, Schultze believes with our symbolic entropy God does positive things.

Communication is a God-given gift according to Schultze. People are given the gift of crafting and/or delivering messages according to Augustine. Schultze believes that in order to partake in Shalom we should use our gifts for peaceful and forgiven communication, not petty squabbles and gossip.

Schultze also discusses the use of communication through technology. He talks about how we use our time, energy, and resources. This is one of the aspects I agree with Schultze on. While, technology has played a prominent role in our communication, making it more accessible, it can also be a hinderance. Since we are taking in so many images, thoughts and ideas from the internet it can sometimes weaken our shalom. And not let the cyber world take over our ability to communicate interpersonally with others.

Question:

Schultze uses primarily Christian examples for the ideas of symbolic ambiguity. Is there anything else, morally or ethically wise that symbolic ambiguity can affect?

Stewardship

I found a definition on Merriam-Webster which stated that the Definition of stewardship was the obligation of a steward (supervisor). Or the conducting, supervising and managing of something.

My own definition of stewardship is taking responsibility for God's creation and people. When people help others or work to make shalom more present on earth, they are practicing shalom.

Schultze Chapter 3

Cockfights and Demographics

Schultze describes the purpose of theories. There are several different theories and areas of style, but the main point of these theories are to be prescriptive and descriptive maps of the human communication.

The transmission view of communication is one of the viewpoints theorists have. This concept assumes that individual's are greatly affected and changed by external subjects and messages. This view focuses on more of the scientific aspects of communication. The concepts of encoding, decoding, static, noise, and feedback are key terms in this viewpoint.

There are several drawbacks to this viewpoint though. in the transmission view God is typically eliminated from the communication process, people are passive receivers of communication, human motives are irrelevant, promotes propaganda, and focuses on the selfishness of of the sender to control the receiver.

There is also the cultural view of communication. This is a more artistic approach to communication. The key terms in this viewpoint are interpretation, meaning and context. The goal of this more subjective viewpoint is based on individual experience.

From Schultze standpoint cultural view seems to be the way to go. The downfall he believes that this view has is falling into relativism. If each culture has their own meaning and objective, then nothing will have purpose or meaning from culture to culture.

In my opinion I think both viewpoints are essential in communication. We need to have the room for subjectivity, but still respect communication as an objective way of relating with one another.

Question:

What is the importance of using both quantitate and qualitative methodologies in communication?

In my opinion the author is slightly biased in extreme, are there ways in which Christians can successfully use the concepts of transmission?

Chapter 2

Chapter 2

The Mystery of Human Communication

This section discussed human communications and how we work to communicate shalom in out conversations. Schultze emphasizes how grace and forgiveness are important in communication. When grace falls apart it is symbolic entropy. However, to keep shalom and peace present in our communication with others we use a tool called identification. "Walking in another's shoes" helps us to be able to find forgiveness and give encouragement, or find common humanity. Common humanity gives us another taste into Shalom. It creates unity in the communication process, that often lacks order and predictability.

People community in a variety of ways. Spoken and written words are just one avenue we take to communicate and interact. There are the nonverbal aspects. We can communicate through the other senses, touch, sound, taste, sound, and sight. There also ritualistic ways we have communicated through the history of church and various cultures. The idea of communicating through worship is an important aspect of spirituality. Whether we meditate silently, or chant these are all ways we seek grace, forgiveness, guidance, and shalom.

Questions:

What are the flaws of identification?

I have been to churches were I have felt that worshipping was part of an agenda, not an open time of communication. How does this affect our communication with God, when communication is available just to be available and the spiritual purpose is not present?

Communication and Spirituality: Artifact

After reading Chapter 1, I was curious to what other people thought of the combination of communication and spirituality. I googled "Communication and Spirituality" and was intrigued by one of the first links.

http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com/

This is a group of women, their goal is:

"Women consecrated like Paul the Apostle to be Apostles of Christ to the world today, announcing the message of reconciliation using the means of communication."

"Communicate Christ to the world"

"Communicate Christ's love in a culture of communication"

I thought it was interesting how they took God's call. They literally seek out ways of communication to spread a culture of Christ to the world. It makes me wonder what the impact would be if we all chose to speak to others who may not know God.

Intro & Chapter 1 Schultze

9/1/2010

The Intro to Schultze's book, Communicating for Life gave an overview of the books purpose. It discusses how communication is in correspondence with spirituality. Schultze tells the story of Wiesenthal and the reaction to the Nazi's plea for forgiveness on his death bed. Schultze reveals that although the world may not accept the view of communication as a spiritual aspect, it is deeply rooted in our relationship with God. Researchers often see communication from a secular view, and scholars describe it as a process of sending and receiving.

Question: How would you have responded to the Nazi's plea if you were in Wiesenthal's place? and How has spirituality changed the way you communicate in comparison to those you speak to with secular views?

Chapter 1

Symbolic Stewardship

Chapter one discussed the importance of language as symbols. Schultze is challenging his readers to understand that their words can either promote creation and culture, or distort God's reality with our own selfish realities. In our communication are we offering shalom and unconditional love or taking away opportunities of potential peace? God communicated to create, and since we were made in the image of God (Imago dei) we must speak in order to create society, define reality, and taste shalom.

Question: If telling of God's reality and being responsible stewards will give us a taste of Shalom, why do we prioritize selfish talk that is not worthwhile nor beneficial to our society and faith?

Definition of Spirituality

8/31/2010

We were asked to find a definition of spirituality. This is what I found on www.dictionary.com.
"1. the quality of fact of being spiritual. 2. incorporeal or immaterial nature"

My personal definition of spirituality: Beyond the physical aspects of world, is a spiritual attribute. It is the relationship or the understanding we have of the immaterial world, and how we respond to that understanding in our day-to-day lives.