Ethical Reflection: Habermas' Discourse Ethics

I found chapter 17 very interesting. The portion of the chapter called Ethical Reflection: Habermas’ Discourse Ethics discussed a very important variable in the functional perspective on group decision making. The fact that Habermas’s approach looks at culture in an after the fact manner discourages my belief of the group decision making perspective. Griffin (2008) states, “Habermas assumes that people within a given culture or community can pretty much agree on the good they want to accomplish, and overtime they’ve built up practical wisdom on how to achieve it” (p. 231). This statement seems true but the problem I see is when the verbal factor of communication in a group setting gets underway some cultures may not take the same venue in communicating.

I have experienced this first hand when I was co-chair of accreditation for student support services. We had weekly meetings and there were some members who would barely speak in the meetings. As co-chair I tried to encourage them to engage in the conversation because their ideas needed to be heard. I realize that their cultural background and upbringing were factors of their lack of participation. The only way that I could get them to engage is if I met with them one on one and directly asked them their opinion. I saw that it was hard for them to open up to me. The fact that I had to take them out of the group setting to communicate didn’t seem like we were functioning well as group. We did get the report done and I took with it experience and lessons that I will carry out throughout my career.

Communication = Content + Relationship

In chapter 13, The Interactional View of Paul Watzlawick, the part of the chapter that focused on content and relationship. This portion of the chapter popped out at me because I have been working on a paper focused on metacommunication. Griffin (2008) defines this term as, “communication about communication” (p. 172).

The chart on page 172 demonstrates the relationship between content and relationship. Griffin (2008) states, “Report, or content, is what is said. Command, or relationship, is how it’s said” (p. 172). An example would be when my husband states, “What were you thinking when you park across the street?” this would be the content. The relational view would be the remark implied a form of incompetence on my selection of parking spots. It was interpreted as a negative remark which in turn created a relationship message that was not effective.

Another example of content and relationship is verbal channel and nonverbal channel. Focusing on the same statement made my husband (verbal channel) had his hands in the air with his lips tight together and a frown from his brow. The nonverbal channel of communication assisted in the interpretation of the remark being negative.

References

Griffin, E. (2008). A First Look At Communication Theory. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Three Dialectics That Affect Relationships

In chapter 12 focusing on Baxter’s and Montgomery’s relational dialectics there are three dialectics that affect relationships. This caught my attention because it somewhat adds to Roger’s phenomenological approach, Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory, and Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory (Griffin, 2008). The three dialectics are integration-separation, stability-change, and expression-nonexpression. There is a chart on page 157 that shows how these dialectics in internal and external conditions affect within the relationship and between the couple and community. It makes me think of a comment that Dr. Coopman wrote regarding my post on social penetration theory regarding personality structure. She commented that relationships are more complicated and referred to them as a puzzle. This completely makes sense to me now that I see how some the theories we have studied are only part of the entire picture.

Social Information Processing

In chapter 11 the theory of social information processing had an interesting aspect that caught my attention. It is referred as extended time – the crucial variable in CMC (computer-mediated communication). This is where Joseph Walther determined that it is the length of time the communication takes (typing the message) that allows CMC users to achieve the same level of intimacy as others do in person. I have a friend that I met online. She and I have become the best of friends yet we have never met in person. We met online through a business encounter and communicated for the past 2 years. I have to say that she probably knows more about me than some of my friends that I see every week. So I can see how the extended time can be equal to face to face relationships. I also want to mention the reduction of uncertainty with CMC. This might be why my online friend and I are such good friends and why I consider her a closer friend than most of the people I interact with in my social circle.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory (AUM)

In chapter 10 Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory (AUM) is discussed applying intercultural settings with some of the axioms and theorems of uncertainty reduction theory. Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory caused me to question if intercultural attributes were factored in. Griffin (2008) defines AUM theory as, “an intercultural theory that claims high levels of uncertainty and anxiety lead to greater misunderstanding when strangers don’t communicate mindfully” (p. 132). The text goes on to state the AUM theory differs in 5 different ways. They are anxiety, effective communication, multiple causes of anxiety/uncertainty, lower and upper thresholds for fear and doubt, and mindfulness.

Mindfulness is a term I have come across a lot in my studies. It makes sense that if you are open minded and don’t stereotype regarding gender, ethnicity, and/or other factors such as age. When being mindful it makes sense that anxiety and uncertainty will be reduced. But I have to say that Berger’s theory of uncertainty reduction also makes sense. It is like I am caught in between and couldn’t choose a theory if I had too. In my opinion Berger’s theory can be used to predict in western cultures and Gudykunst theory could be used to be an effective communicator in diverse environments.

Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

I found the axioms in chapter 10 quite interesting. They are all part of Berger’s Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory. You can find this on page 128 -129. There is a chart labeled Figure 10-1, where you can determine the correlation of two axioms at intersection. For instance, axiom 3 (Information Seeking) and axiom 4 (Self-Disclosure) intersect at a minus sign. This means that as one increases the other will decrease. So I interpret this to mean if someone shows an increased interest (Information Seeking), that person tends to disclose (Self-Disclosure) very little about themselves. I can find that true if axiom 7 (Liking) doesn’t become a factor. If I reflect on my own life experience Self-Disclosure will increase if Liking increases and it shows that on the chart as being true. This chart really helped me understand the correlation between axioms of Berger's Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory.

Personality Structure: A Multilayered Onion

Social Penetration Theory of Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor is defined as, “the process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability” (Griffin, 2008, p. 114). The one aspect of this theory that caught my attention was Personality Structure: A Multilayered Onion. The example of the layers of an onion and how they represent the way we disclose personal information to those we encounter was an excellent example. This theory rings true to the experiences I have had throughout my life.

The personality structure is define as, “Onion-like layers of beliefs and feelings about self, others, and the world; deeper layers are more vulnerable, protected, and central to self-image” Griffin, 2008, p. 114). When I first meet someone I disclose very little about my beliefs, fears, goals, and preferences. As I get to know them I will share more information. So if you asked someone I just met to describe the type of person I am they would have a different description of me than say someone who has known me for several years.

References

Griffin, E. (2008). A First Look At Communication Theory. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.