An Interpersonal Ethic for Communication

Abstract

A modern rhetoric has developed concerning itself with considerably more dimensions of speech than was the case with traditional rhetoric's concentration on persuasion and public address. Indeed, this modern rhetoric has expanded its domain to include the whole range of types of oral communication. But while this very basic kind of evolution has been taking place, it appears that a corresponding ethic ( a n interpersonal one) has not emerged. The authors make bold to try to stimulate that study.The interpersonal ethic proposed in the article can be stated as follows: A's communication is ethical to the extent that it accepts B's responses; it is unethical to the extent to which it develops hostility toward B's responses, or in some way tries to subjugate B. The ethic can be observed best, the authors believe, when A discovers that B rejects the message A is sending.Such an ethic springs from the following assumptions: (1) By virtue of the very nature of the communicative act, the two parties to a communication exercise control over each other. Both the listener and the speaker are, in part, at the other's mercy.( 2 ) One of the highest values in a democratic culture is that conditions be created and maintained in which the potential of the individual is best realized. ( 3) The individual will be able to realize his potential to the extent that psychological freedom can be increased for him.An interpersonal ethic, the article suggests, may have more to do with the attitude of the speaker and listener toward each other than with elements of the message (as in the more traditional rhetoric). It may concern itself more with loyalty to the person with whom one is in communication than to rationality or cosmic truth.

Maintaining nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: an investigation into the use of distancing behaviors

“…From Fromm's (1956) theory of love to the therapeutic ethics of interpersonal communication popular in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Keller & Brown, 1968), Bell and Daly's (1984) affinity-seeking theory of communication, and the extensive line of research on immediacy in student-teacher relationships (e.g., Andersen, 1979;Christensen & Menzel, 1998;Gorham, 1988), relational communication theory has largely focused on getting closer. By and large, the literature and theory in inter-personal communication assumes that relationships are on a trajectory toward greater intimacy and that being closer is what people are trying to achieve with their personal relationships.…”

An Interdisciplinary Dialog About Teaching and Learning Dialogically

“…Second, we set the stage for a free dialog though our own attitude of "unconditional positive regard" (Rogers, 1961) that created the atmosphere for "engagement and response" (Keller & Brown, 1968). We listened carefully to what each student said in class, showed we were listening by nodding our heads, making eye contact, smiling (when appropriate), leaning toward the speaker, never interrupting, and acknowledging each contribution through reflective responses.…”

Accidental Dialogue

“…Rogers (1961, 1980) writes of “unconditional positive regard” and places it as an empathic, other‐centered praxis. Keller and Brown (1968) propose that we set the stage for it through listening and availability that enhance freedom of engagement and response. Gadamer (1975) would have us “fall into” it, absorbed and dedicated and deeply involved in the flow of spirit present in the moment.…”