Communication: Ethical and Moral Issues

Lee Thayer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317367062
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This pioneering book, on the ethical and moral dimensions of communication and communication systems in the modern world, was originally published in 1974. It derived from an International Symposium on communication, consisting of world-class scholars ranging from philosophy and anthropology, to cybernetics and psychiatry, and from literary criticism to the social and behavioural sciences.

The uses of communication are ubiquitous. The breadth, depth, scope and reach of every human mind depends upon the communication experiences one has had, or is capable of having. How people confront one another depends upon the quality and reach of their individual minds – not solely on their words. This book provides an opportunity to explore with these far-ranging scholars the ethical, moral, and pragmatic communication dilemmas of our modern age. It is as pertinent today as it was when it was first published.

Part I
Lectures and Discussions

Ethical and Moral Issues in Communication

JURGEN RUESCH

Morality is an ancient humanistic term referring to the internal control system that guides man's perceptions, decision-making, and actions. This system is based in part on genetically determined, inborn information and in part on experientially determined, acquired information. The inborn information insures that behavior occurs within the range of adaptive choices of a given species; the acquired information reflects the external control system that regulates human interactions. Moral behavior is synonymous with good behavior, and what is good is defined as what insures the survival of the group. This definition may not coincide with the views of the great philosophers^[15], but it lends itself for a more scientific approach in which the analysis of morality is conveniently undertaken in terms of values—an abstraction that has a number of different meanings^[1].

Values and value theory

Definitions

The most frequent usage of the term value refers to preferential behavior, or with what Dewey^[5] has called "selective-rejective behavior." By watching people's behavior, the observer can obtain a good idea of these "operative values"^[17]. A second usage identifies value with anticipatory behavior^[11]—that is, with what is desired and esteemed. These "conceptual values" are studied by examining a person's symbolic expressions. A third meaning of the term refers to what is preferable for a given purpose. Here the notion of value is identified with excellence, efficiency, and fit—aspects that are defined by the social situation or the physical laws of nature^[2]. "Objective values" is a convenient term for describing this process. A fourth usage identifies the term with a numerical value ascribed to objects or actions. Employed in this sense, the term value does not pertain to a preferred action, a desirable ideal, or a fact born out of the circumstances; instead it refers to a magnitude which renders seemingly incomparable events comparable. "Price" is the most appropriate example of this aspect of valuation^[19].

Values and communication

Values have a time-binding and space-condensing function. When we talk about a person's attitudes, traits, and personality features, we really are referring to events that have occurred at different times and at different locations. In stating that a person "has an excellent command of the English language," we condense discontinuous events and treat these as if they corresponded to an ever-present feature in the person.

When shared by a group, values serve as normative propositions, which then are referred to as "cultural orientations"^[9]. The picture of the world as it is and as it should be, and the ways the individual might adjust to it, are contained in what is transmitted from parent to child and from teacher to pupil. A cultural orientation, of course, is the end result of cumulative experiences of many generations; it consists of a selection of preferred actions and symbols that have proven to be useful in the life of the group. A cultural value, therefore, can serve as an a priori decision, particularly when people are under stress. For example, the choice of the procedure to be employed on the occasion of rites de passage such as birth, coming of age, marriage, and death is taken out of the hands of the participants, as are the attitudes towards supernatural powers or members of the outgroup, with which the individual has had little contact.

In face-to-face communication, these a priori decisions or cultural values can be detected as assumptions which, in spite of all discussion, remain unmodifiable. In interpersonal communication they represent the parameters of the system or the rules of the game that control the interaction. Values underlying certain attitudes or beliefs which resist correction in the face of new information become a handicap for the creative and rational person; but for the person of lesser intellectual endowment these values are a great asset. Representing the internalized group judgment, such values can guide a person when his information processing is inadequate. The value orientation can be considered the individual's fail-safe device.

Cultural orientations and the reinforcement of values

Reinforcement and teaching of values becomes one of the basic processes upon which any culture is built. In a homogeneous social setting in which the vast majority of the population share the same norms, the task of reinforcement is easy because what is taught at home or in the classroom is corroborated everywhere else. But in a heterogeneous environment the values taught at home may be different from those experienced at school or on the street, and the child is exposed to multiple systems of evaluation. Under these circumstances, the installation of a dominant value system may become practically impossible unless reinforced by brute power.

Traditionally, the reinforcement of values occurs in two ways: through reinforcement of symbolic behavior and through reinforcement of action behavior^[22]. Formal control of symbolic behavior is exercised by the establishment—that is, by the state through its judicial branch; by the church through its teachings; by the labor unions, guilds, and professional associations through the setting of standards that determine inclusion or exclusion; by the academies (Academie Française, Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences) through election to membership as a reward for distinction; by the publishing houses through listing in rosters and through the choices exercised in the selection of articles and books for publication;* and by the television and radio industries through their choice of programs to be broadcast. Informal control is exerted by the older generation—that is, the heads of families, foremen on the job, and executives; by the teachers at the elementary, secondary, college, and postgraduate levels; and by the ruling class through setting the style in manner, comportment, dress, gesture, and speech. In the past, both the formal and the informal reinforcement procedures were geared to face-to-face encounters, stable role definition, interest in the community, and long-lasting personal relations^[20].

But human relations in the megalopolis are different^[4]. People live within ethnic, social class, religious, occupational, or neighborhood groups without having much contact with persons outside of their immediate circle; and the outside contact they do have is limited to an imitation or sharing of actions, not values. In New York, almost all people know how to use the subway or the bus, but their values are as varied as are their cultures. When action is the common denominator, reinforcement of values and symbolic behavior is irrelevant, while reinforcement of action becomes the focus of attention. Action control occurs in the home, where parents handle small children and relate to them through action; in hospitals, where nurses, caretakers, and other health personnel physically assist the disabled and the sick; in sports, where the participants engage in rule-controlled action; and in traffic, where functionaries or lights regulate the flow of vehicles and pedestrians. Finally, machines exert a control over human beings in that gadgets—for example, a bicycle—can be operated only in certain ways. In technological civilizations, familiarity with the technical procedures seems to establish a bond between people, resulting in the formation of groups whose common denominator is the ownership of a machine (automobile clubs) or the sharing of action (tennis club). The more heterogeneous the population becomes and the less the systems of belief and expression are shared, the more the communication systems rely upon the compelling influence of action. At the present time, confrontations in the form of sit-ins, demonstrations, and protest marches are examples of communication through action in the absence of shared values and homogeneous symbolic systems. Finally, when governments cannot reach the people by symbolic means, they rely on military or para-military organizations such as the police to control the undesirable actions of people.

Values of the post-industrial society

The standards that dominated moral behavior in the industrial era are crumbling and a new system of ethics begins to emerge. At present we are in a phase of transition, and the forces opposing each other appear as follows:

The old world was structured around individuals; space was organized to satisfy the human sense of territoriality; technology was subservient to immediate needs; laws defined personal responsibility; history was written in terms of the personalities of the leaders; and control consisted of making people do what those in power desired. The new world is structured around systems, and people are subordinated to these systems. Territoriality is collective and discontinuous in time and space; technology is largely subservient to the requirements of the machines; laws have been replaced by regulations defining collective responsibility; and control is oriented towards keeping the whole system working^[21].

If the old world was person-oriented, the new world is machine-oriented. Our dwellings, once surrounded by nature, now stand in the midst of masses of cement, brick, or asphalt; and vertical architecture has replaced the traditional horizontal building style. The dominance of the machine and its handmaiden, the human organization, changed man's view of himself. Thus psychological interpretations of human behavior gave way to the social emphasis, and personal leadership was replaced by impersonal administration. Life-long roles are giving way to time- and situation-bound roles; and the notion of personal identity has given way to the concept of organizational identity. From rugged individualism and emphasis upon personal experience we have moved to notions of group interdependence, popularity, and shared experiences. The former striving towards excellence has been replaced by an attitude of getting by; the solo operator is vanishing, and teamwork or machines are taking his place. As the person loses importance, laws that were based on the principle of individual responsibility become less relevant^[16]. From a world governed by principle we are moving to a world governed by contract and mutual agreement, always under the supervision of big brother—the government. This state of affairs introduces bureaucratic procedures into the life of business and the professions; individual responsibility is being replaced by collective responsibility; considerations of past tradition are sacrificed to technical planning; and truth is neglected in favor of the image^[3]. The modern era requires that the individual adopt an attitude of detachment and readiness for change which vividly contrasts with the older involvement in possessions, ownership, commitment to a task, and stable human relations. From survival of the fittest in the fight against man and nature we have moved to survival of the most adaptive to organization and machine.

In this new world, communication has no spatial or temporal limitations. The networks are spread over the planetary system; the participants may be separated by thousands of miles; and the reply still is instantaneous. The functions of perception, decision-making, and action are no longer contiguous in one individual but are distributed among many people and machines. Perhaps the most revolutionary innovation that governs modern communication systems is the separation of the message from the person. Before the invention of writing, man and his message were inseparable^[20]. The human voice carried a few hundred feet and could not be preserved. With the advent of writing, a manuscript could be separated from the scribe, but it still retained the personal imprint of its author—the signature. With the invention of electronic tape, the separation of man from his message became complete. Once information was spatially and temporally independent of its source and its eventual destination, it became possible to store messages and to manipulate them at will. As a result, the information no longer could be checked by tracing it to the person from whom it originated. Because information now may be worked over by dozens of people, its integrity is suspect and no one expects a statement emanating from an organization or institution to be accurate or truthful. The credibility gap is here to stay.

From intellectual to affective communication

Symbolic representation serves the purpose of providing a small-scale model of ongoing events. Therefore, the more accurate a rendition can be achieved, the better. The term "truth," then, refers to a reliable and valid relationship between the original event and its symbolic representation^[24]. However, symbols also may be employed to provoke an emotional reaction in the listener. In this case, they serve as trigger mechanisms to produce an impact, and the truth problem recedes into the background. In human situations, therefore, a diagnosis has to be made whether a message is intended to be representational or whether it is meant to be an action that forces a response. Sometimes both purposes are combined, and the situation gets complicated.

People communicate in order to influence others. In enlightening and representational communication the listener is offered information that enables him to cope with whatever situation he is confronted with. The influence here is built into the content. This type of communication, however, is based upon the assumption that both the speaker and the listener have acquired symbolic mastery^[10]. If one of them is illiterate, influence cannot be built into the message and communication has to revert to the action level, and ultimately to the reflex level. In this situation, the sender relies on the fact that his bodily movements will provoke a response. In action communication, then, the influence is built into the provoking movement, which necessitates a predictable defensive response.

The most significant influencing through content today occurs in the mass media, which utilize a combination of informative procedures whereby the choice of the program is turned over to public relations experts. These men shape values, manipulate symbols, and subtly steer public opinion with the aim of achieving a specific effect—usually to sell a product or propagandize a viewpoint. To justify these partisan manipulative actions, a new morality has been created. What is technically possible and what is economically feasible have come to be identified as good. Efficiency and cost accounting thus have replaced human ideals. "Right," then, is what authorizes expenditures, increases sales, builds more machines, and elects to office; but nobody feels responsible* for any untoward effects that such activities may have upon people. Thus promotional schemes and gimmicks have distracted people from seeking the goals that are significant and relevant for their lives and our symbolic systems have been diverted from their original purpose of providing better forms of representation to having become commodities manipulated for profit.

This development did not occur all of a sudden. As long as man's contact with the environment was relatively simple, a vocabulary of a few thousand words was adequate to represent his experiences. But with the expansion of science into the atomic and astrophysical fields, vocabularies and forms of codification arose that had no direct counterpart in man's experience. The need for accurate digital and verbal symbolic representation of the dangerous processes unleashed by science and engineering shifted the control away from the symbols of daily life to the symbols of technology. Today, then, we cannot conceive of any system that is more rigidly controlled than the sym...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Dedication
• Editor’s Preface
• Contents
• PART I Lectures and Discussions
• PART II Conversations
• PART III Contributed Articles
• PART IV An Overview
• PART V Dedicatory Essay