Fundamental Issues
3. How can you apply any of the material in this chapter to cyberbullying?
In interpersonal communication, the destructive side of communication also may be evidenced, perhaps more benignly, through excessive talking.
Some individuals, known as talkaholics, can actually inhibit communication.
Jim McCroskey and Virginia Richmond (1995) point out that compulsive Victims of cyberbullying are unable to hide, and they can be
targeted at any time and in any place.
Cyberbullying usually involves a relatively wide audience because of the reach of the internet.
Those who cyberbully others do so in relative anonymity which can safeguard them from punishment or retaliation.
Those who cyberbully do not usually see the response of their victim(s), which allows them to be relatively immune to the harm they cause, but also may deny them the satisfaction bullies often receive from their behaviors.
communicators may talk more than they should and talk when they know they should be quiet. Further, McCroskey and Richmond contend that talkaholics are aware that their talking is seen as excessive but they don’t change their behaviors. We suggest that these people are engaging in destructive discourse, because they choose to talk compulsively and ignore others’ needs. In this way they demonstrate scant understanding of the value of listening (a topic we discuss in Chapter 5).
As you read the material in this book, keep in mind that communication is a tool, and people can use it for both productive and destructive ends. We need to understand those moments when communication is employed improperly or inappropriately. Further, it’s also the case that a single communication encounter can incorporate both positive and negative aspects.
For example, when Zoe helps an international student, Dylan, learn English, she is expressing support, which is a positive use of communication. But in their conversations, Zoe may also be trying to manipulate Dylan so that he will dislike the same people she does, and she’ll have an ally in her conflicts.
Our discussion of the destructive side of communication points to the need for ethical guidelines for communication encounters. We now turn our attention toward three ethical systems that guide us toward making constructive communication choices. If you can recognize what is ethical and what is not, you are well on your way to using communication appropriately, effectively, and thoughtfully.
Ethical Systems of Communication
According to communication ethicist Richard Johannesen (2000) “ethical issues may arise in human behavior whenever that behavior could have a significant impact on other persons, when the behavior involves conscious choice of means and ends, and when the behavior can be judged by standards of right and wrong” (p. 1). In almost every communication encounter, ethical questions arise. It’s not an overstatement to conclude that a consideration of ethics is critical to all communication. Thinking back to Sofia’s situation from the beginning of this chapter it’s clear that the email instructing her to write to HR puts her in an ethical quandary. What are some communication encounters in your own life that have had ethical implications?
Ethics can be defined as the perceived rightness or wrongness of an action or behavior, and it involves moral decision making (Pfeiffer &
Forsberg, 2005). As Raymond Pfeiffer and Ralph Forsberg concluded: “To act ethically is, at the very least, to strive to act in ways that do not hurt other people, that respect their dignity, individuality, and unique moral value, and that treat others as equally important to oneself” (p. 7). You can see how acting ethically is fundamental to being a competent communicator, and you can probably also see that it’s not always easy to make ethical communication decisions.
When confronted with ethical decisions, we are acting in a cultural context, and what’s perceived as right in one culture may not be universally accepted by all cultures. As Pfeiffer and Forsberg (2005) observe, ethics are woven into “our society’s cultural, religious, literary, and moral traditions.
Our values have emerged from and are deeply enmeshed in these traditions”
(p. 8). Making sense of the world and of our communication encounters requires us to understand cultural values. When communication scholars discuss ethics in this way, they concentrate on the rightness or wrongness of specific communication decisions or practices. This approach is different from how philosophers study theories of ethics.
There are many ways to make value judgments in communication encounters. Scholars and researchers have discussed a number of different ethical systems (e.g., Andersen, 1996; Englehardt, 2001; Jensen, 1997). We will briefly overview three of them here:
Each of these systems attempts to provide us with a road map for ethical communication.
Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative is based on the work of eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant (Kuehn, 2001) and advances that acting ethically refers to following moral absolutes. According to this system, the key question to ask when you are confronted with an ethical decision is: What is the ethical principle governing this situation? Your answer will guide you in making your decision. Further, Kant believed that the consequences of actions are not important; what matters is the logical soundness of the rule or ethical principle people use to guide their actions. In this system, rationality, not consequences, drives moral goodness.
the categorical imperative utilitarianism
the ethic of care
For example, let’s say that Rick confides to his co-worker, Sasha, that he might want to get another job. Occasionally he has called in sick so he can go to interviews at other companies. Rick asks Sasha not to mention anything to anyone at work because he isn’t 100 percent sure that he is going to leave the company. Lenora, the supervisor, asks Sasha if she knows what’s happening with Rick because he has missed several days of work. The categorical imperative dictates that Sasha tell her boss the truth, despite the fact that she’s promised Rick she wouldn’t tell anyone. If Sasha tells Lenora about Rick she might be affecting Rick’s job, his future with the company, and the relationship she has with him. But the categorical imperative requires us to tell the truth because Kant believed that truth telling is a rational approach, and upholding rationality is more important than the possible negative short- term consequences that might arise from telling the truth.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, a theory of ethics developed by the nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill (Capaldi, 2004), states that ethics are governed by what will bring the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Mill differed from Kant (in the categorical imperative) because he believed the consequences of actions were more important than the moral principle motivating the actions. For example, think again about Sasha’s dilemma. In this case, using utilitarianism as a guide, Sasha might not tell Lenora about Rick’s job search reasoning that she, Rick, and the members of Rick’s large extended family, who all depend on his salary, might be harmed if she tells the truth. Using utilitarianism, Sasha could reason that because Rick might
not even take another job, it’s difficult to see who is directly being harmed at the moment.
Making a decision based on utilitarianism, or what is best for the greater good, means you have to weigh the harms and benefits to the many people who might be touched by your decision. In this approach, principles are not important because they are rational, but rather because they produce the most good or happiness in a given situation.
Ethic of Care
Developing an ethic of care, means making ethical decisions based on connection or relationships. In the twentieth century Carol Gilligan (1982) first conceptualized the ethic of care by examining women’s ways of making ethical decisions. Gilligan observed that women tend to make moral choices based on relational considerations. For instance, using the ethic of care might guide Sasha to remain silent because of her concern for her relationship with Rick. However, Gilligan also found that people implementing an ethic of care often reconstructed the moral dilemma so they didn’t have to make an either- or decision. If she were using an ethic of care, perhaps Sasha would tell Rick that Lenora is asking about his absences and suggest that Rick tell Lenora himself.
Although most of Gilligan’s work showed that women employed the ethic of care, she did note that an ethic of care isn’t exclusive to women, nor is it the case that all women employ it as an ethical system (Gilligan, 2011).
Some men adopt the ethic of care, and some women do not. Like utilitarianism, and in contrast to the categorical imperative, the ethic of care is
concerned with consequences of decisions, specifically those consequences that affect a relationship with others.
Communication encounters offer many opportunities for us to practice ethical decision-making practices. How do you talk to a former friend or former partner in future encounters? Is it ever okay to lie to protect a friend?
Is it right to make a commercial for a product you don’t believe to be worthwhile? How far should you go to persuade someone to do something that you think is good? Is it okay to use unattributed sources in a public speech? These kinds of questions challenge us to bring some type of ethical standards to our communication encounters.
In this chapter, we presented a comprehensive look at the communication process.
We articulated a definition of communication and examined its central elements: process, transaction, symbols, and (shared) meaning. We also examined the debate pertaining to intentionality. We introduced the linear, interactional, transactional, and holistic models of communication. We briefly reviewed the history of the field of communication to gain an understanding of how its diverse origins in rhetoric, psychology, and elocution support the diversity we find in the field today. Because not all communication is positive, the ways in which communication can be destructive were noted. Finally, because of these destructive results, communication can never be discussed without an examination of ethics and consequently, three ethical systems, the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, and the ethic of care, were provided as guidelines for determining the “right”
course of action when we’re deciding how to communicate. As you read the rest of this text, we hope you’ll keep these foundational elements in mind to aid you in understanding what happens in communication encounters.