In chapters two and three of Arnett’s book on communication ethics, we are loaded with a large number of critical terms. While both chapters two and three had helpful knowledge on how we interact with society, I felt like the six approaches in chapter three were the most applicable to college students. Specifically, I connected with the codes, procedures, and standards approach to communication ethics. Arnett states that this is the idea that preconceived rules and standards dictate how society will act to maintain the good ( Arnett, 66). I would argue that this idea would apply to syllabus week for just about any college campus. For example, if we take our own class (COMM 3625), our syllabus is distinctly laid out in what students are expected to do. In addition, we were given procedures for assignments from our teacher and academic integrity rules from the university itself. Like Arnett mentions further on, the point of this communication approach is to maintain the idea of honesty and prosperity for the common “good”(Arnett,67). I found this topic especially interesting because we see this approach in all aspects of our lives without realizing it.
I wanted to briefly go over the topic of the contextual communication mentioned by Arnett. Arnett describes it as different approaches in the way people communicate and act based on their environment (Arnett, 67). The end goal of this concept is to maintain the “good” as well. I felt like this concept tied well into our week one lectures. In week one, I discussed how work has changed how I communicate. For example, in school, the goal is to be professional and put together. However, at work, slang and harsher language are common to be more efficient. The book seemed to focus more on cultural differences between groups of people, but I would argue workplace cultures can also influence contextual communication.
While the terms used in the book were distinctly different, I felt some of the terms worked together. I am curious if it is more common to have interactions based solely on one approach, or is it more likely to have multiple processes happening simultaneously? Overall, I found both chapters especially useful in how we can understand ourselves better when it comes to communication in the real world.
Hello! As you said the chapters do cover a lot of information that is relevant to societal interactions. I do agree the that codes and procedures are a very useful tool to recognize and understand as a college student. With the use of syllabi, student codes of conduct, and social understanding students have all the resource at their fingertips to succeed if they want to! I think being able to recognize these codes and guidelines is key to success in situation outside of just school. As I mentioned in class I worked at a financial firm and there were numerous codes to follow in order to maintain the privacy of the customers. Additionally there are certain expectations and guidelines that need to be followed by any job (think dress coded or attendance policies) or safety codes (think wearing a helmet while biking and while go karting). Recognizing these things is crucial to navigating the social world.
ReplyDeleteHello Keenan, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the common topic of honesty. It goes a long way especially in college or post college in the workplace. I'd like to respond to your question in your last paragraph, I think it is definitely more common to have interactions based solely on multiple processes happening simultaneously. Everyone thinks and works in different ways. Even the children of parents have different brains than them. So, some people may be able to interact based on one approach but in reality that is going to hurt those people more because everyone interacts in different ways. For example, you could say something to someone and they misinterpret the way you said it, so while you're happy they may be angry.
ReplyDelete