This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 25 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
The Handbook of Communication Ethics
George Cheney, Steve May, Debashish Munshi
Ethics, Rhetoric, and Discourse
Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 Michael J. Hyde Published online on: 01 Dec 2010
How to cite :- Michael J. Hyde. 01 Dec 2010, Ethics, Rhetoric, and Discourse from: The Handbook of Communication Ethics Routledge Accessed on: 25 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203890400.ch3
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 collection ofthousandseBookspleasegotow.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. To purchaseyourowncopyofthisoranyTaylor&FrancisRoutledge’s ISBN 13:978-0-203-89040-0(ebk) ISBN 13:978-0-415-99465-1(pbk) ISBN 13:978-0-415-99464-4(hbk) ISBN 0-203-89040-XMastere-book ISBN 2010017324 175—dc22 P94.H353 2010 III. Munshi,Debashish. 1. Communication—Moralandethicalaspects.I.Cheney, George. II.May, Steve (Steve Kent), 1961– p. cm. The handbookofcommunicationethics/editedbyGeorge Cheney, Steve May, andDebashishMunshi. Library ofCongress Cataloging inPublicationData for identifi cationand explanation withoutintenttoinfringe. Trademark Notice:Productorcorporatenamesmaybetrademarksregistered trademarks,andareusedonly information storageorretrieval system,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublishers. mechanical, orothermeans,now known orhereafterinvented, includingphotocopying andrecording,orinany All rightsreserved. Nopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproducedutilisedinany formorbyany electronic, has beenassertedbytheminaccordancewithsections77and78oftheCopyright, DesignsandPatents Act 1988. The rightoftheeditorstobeidentifiedasauthorseditorialmaterial,andfortheirindividualchapters, © 2011 Taylor &Francis This editionpublishedintheTaylor&Francise-Library,2010. Routledge isanimprintofthe Taylor &Francis Group, aninformabusiness 2 Park Square,MiltonPark, Abingdon, OxonOX14 4RN by Routledge Simultaneously publishedintheUK 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY10016 by Routledge First published2011 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 arises whenSocratesandPlato(trans., workings ofthebodypolitic. The mostfamous philosophicalstartingpointoftheassessments the ancientGreeksandtheirconcernwithethicalfunctionofpublicmoralargument inthe Intellectual assessmentsoftherelationshipbetweenethics,rhetoric,anddiscoursedatebackto readily impededbythemanipulatinganddeceptive ways oftheorator’s art exception tohow thediscursive practiceofcomingtotermswith“thetruth”istooeasilyand discourse ismostcommonly associated withtherelatedprofessionaldivisions “Communication studies, arecasesinpoint. Within thislast mentionedfi literature, sociology, politicaltheory, law, economics,science, and, ofcourse,communication relationship’s necessary presenceinthemidstoftheirteachingandresearch interests. Theology, warrants theattentionofmany disciplinesbesides rhetoricandphilosophythatrecognizethe least, immenseandcomplex. Indeed,thescopeand functionoftherelationshipissuchthatit gains asensethattheliteratureonart’s relationshipwithethicsanddiscourseis,tosaythe composing collaborative deliberationaboutcontestablematters(Farrell, 1993). ent, thefi that gives expression toourabilitybepersuasive, tomake known theusefulandinexpedi- but wheresuch action,nevertheless, isrequired(Blumenberg, 1987). Rhetoricisacompetence fi about thecertaintyoftheiruncertainexistence. Itstandsreadytoanswerthecall ofthosewho tingent” (Aristotle, subject mattertocallitsown. Rather, itmakes itsliving bydealing“withwhatisinthemaincon- rhetoric’s “truenature”( ment ofthesoul. Aristotle modifi words, mustbecomescientifi understanding ofthesoulandany topicthatisdiscussedtoinfl veloping arationalunderstanding ofthebodyanditsdiseases,somustrhetoricdevelop arational 1967; Hyde,2001). ers andthosequackdoctorswhosepracticestilladmittedtheuseofmagicalcharms(Edelstein, sought todefi cians, forexample, had todealwiththisproblemwhenthesefi nd themselves insituationswhere“defi A historyofthe Western rhetorical traditionisdocumentedthroughoutthemany entries With theHippocraticsin mind,SocratesandPlatoargued thatasmedicineiscurrentlyde- tting andtheimproper, thejustandunjust,therebyenablingustoengageothersin Ethics, Rhetoric, and Discourse The EncylopediaofRhetoric ne anddefendtheir Rhetoric physis) , trans.,1357a15).Rhetoricistheretohelphumanbeingsdeliberate c inscopeandfunction;itmustknow itselftobeatruemedica- . For unlike medicine,rhetoricisnotascience;ithasnodefi es thisclaimsomewhat soasnottodestroy what hetakes tobe techne Michael J. Hyde Gorgias; Phaedrus;Sophist duringpublicdebatesagainsttraveling sophisticlectur- nitive evidence” thatcanguidemoralaction islacking, (Sloane,2001). With this837pagebookinhand,one 3 eld, rhetoric’s relationshipwithethicsand rst menofscientifi uence it.Rhetoric,inother ; 1973a,1973b,1973c)take . Hippocratic physi- c medicine c nite 31 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 knowing whatlanguageis. While thisattitude has begun tofade, theterm is noteworthy: “Knowing whatlanguagedoeshascommonlybeenthoughttobesuperfl Fairclough, 1999).Jacobs’s (2002)observation regarding thehistoryofthisresearchprocedure moral implicationsofthemediaincontemporarypubliclife(Chouliaraki,2006;Chouliaraki& duction ofmeaninginconversational encounters (Bavelas, Kenwood, &Phillips,2002)andthe rhetoric’s relationshipwithethicsintheirinvestigations oflanguage-in-use,theinteractive pro- 2008). & Whedbee, 2007a, 2007b; Arnett, Fritz,&Bell,2009;Cook &Holba,2008;Hyde,2004;Johannesen, Valde, and “PhilosophyofCommunication”(InternationalCommunication Association) (Arneson, Ethics” and“Rhetorical Theory andCommunication”(NationalCommunication Association) 32 presuppositions Iemphasizehereinclude:the“dwelling place” ( relationship’s existential presenceanddynamics(nomatterwhatdisciplinehasthefl to appreciatecertainontologicalpresuppositionsthatinformallelsecanbesaidaboutthe basis withthehelpofethics,rhetoric,anddiscourse. The assessmenttherebyalsoenablesus existence totheconstructed socialandpoliticaldomainsthatwecreateinhabitonadaily of thephenomenafrom“thegroundup”:fundamentalspatialandtemporalfabric of the phenomena’s relationship.Suchanassessmentallows ustoappreciatetheempiricalpresence purpose ofthisessayistoclarifyfact oflifebyoffering aphenomenologicalassessmentof admits anontologicalstatus.Ethics,rhetoric,anddiscourselieattheheartofhumanbeing. The involved parties(Sacks,Schegloff, &Jefferson, 1974;Schegloff &Sachs1973). in conversations affect theirevolving meaningandestablishpower relationshipsbetweenthe of rhetoricalscholarsbyattendingtohow, forexample, “turntaking”andcreating“openings” courages action(Farrell, 1993).Discourseanalystsdistinguishtheirresearchagendafromthose its discourseproducesunderstanding,attitudes,andbeliefs,callsforcriticaljudgment,en- with whatagiven text means,but alsoandprimarilywithhow itmeans:thevarious ways that sideration; forrhetoricalanalysis,astheancientGreeksfi in suchtransactionsnecessarilybringsarhetoricalperspective tothecircumstancesundercon- physician/patient/family relationship;seeBeach,2008).Focusing onhow languagefunctions is actuallyemployed instructuringspecifi use ofawholenew term: effort tostudytheusesoflanguageorstructuresbeyond thesentencerequires thoroughly appropriatedbythetechnicalstructuralinterestsofsentencegrammariansthatany that, asIhopetomake clearinwhat follows, arecrucialforthewell-beingofhumankind. and “otherness.” The relationshipofethics, rhetoric,anddiscoursecallstomindahostofmatters conscience,” “emotionandthehappeningoftruth,” “thelife-giving giftofacknowledgment,” (Isocrates, trans.,1982,p.278). argument whichismadebyaman’s lifeismore weightthanthatwhichisfurnishedbywords?” spoken bymenofgoodreputethanwhenspoken bymenwholive underacloud,andthatthe the natureoforator’s art:For “whodoes notknow thatwords carrygreater conviction when “moral character.” This secondsenseof The Greekforethicsis Ethics isadisciplinethatdealswithwhatgoodandbad andwithmoraldutyobligation.
Communication scholarsinterestedin“discourseanalysis”alsospeaktotheimportanceof Ethics, rhetoric,anddiscourseshow themselves inoureveryday existence. Their display MICHAEL J.HYDE ethos discourse . This specifi . This Ethos THE ” (p.213).Discourseanalystsmake muchof isbothalegitimating sourcefor and apraiseworthy effect ETHOS ethos c interpersonalcommunicationtransactions(e.g.,the c termisalsocommonlyassociated withaperson’s iswhatIsocrateshasinmind whenconsidering OFETHICS rst madeclear, isconcernednotonly ethos ) ofethics,the“call language how has beenso oor). The oor). language uous to uous Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 the sameforgoodoftheircommunity(Hyde,2004,pp.xiii–xxviii;Hyde,2010,p.63). moral consciousnessandactionsofotherstherebyserves asapossiblecatalystforthemtodo orator’s presenceandrhetoricalcompetenceare adisplayof“principledself”thatinstructsthe of thepracticerhetoric.Heedingcallpublicserviceasaperson“goodrepute,” the understanding of attention away fromanunderstandingof to argue andtodeliberate therebytoinspiretrustinanaudience. Aristotle thusdirectsour constitutes anactive constructionofcharacter; the actualrhetoricalcompetencedisplayedinorator’s discourse. The practiceofrhetoric primarily associatedwiththeorator’s reputation forbeingawiseandhonestsoul,but ratherwith doctrine comesasignifi ethical practiceofrhetoricentails theconstructionofaspeaker’s orawriter’s company ofothers(Casey, 1993;Hyde,2006,pp.60–116;2010,243–279). ships andpublicopinionrequireasmuch.Indeed,itisdiscomforting tofeel“outofplace”inthe discussing thetruthofsomematterinterest. The genuineenrichmentofinterpersonal relation- heart” issupposetobeandwhereothersthusfeelwelcome andathomewhilethinkingabout accept theresponsibilityofbecoming encourage ustojudgethework asbeingpraiseworthy andpersuasive. ures, topics,arguments, narratives, emotions)toattractourattention,maintaininterest,and (ethos) takes formasthecommunication andrhetoricalarchitectusesmaterials(e.g.,tropes,fi Latin: aedifi tecture inmind,wemightalsospeakoftheconstruction asan“edifying”discourse(toedify, are stimulatingandaesthetically, psychologically, socially, andmorally instructive. With archi- “architecture[s] ofintersubjectivity” (Heritage,1984;Jacobs,2002;Rommetveit, 1974)—that inventive andsymboliccapacitytoconstructdwellingplaces—orwhat discourseanalyststerm be particularlyinviting and moving forsomeaudience. The of thoughtthat,dependingonhow theirspecifi materials ofarguments arenotonlytoolsoflogicbut alsomarkoutthe our surroundings. The its practicegrantssuch attention tothe“architectural”functionoforator’s art(McKeon, 1971):how, forexample, trained andmadehabitual(2.1.1103a17-30). in the Heidegger, 1977/1947;Miller, 1974). Aristotle develops thisparticularusageof This useof es,” “habitats,” and“haunts” ( transactions thatinformtheorator’s andhisaudience’s ongoing,communalexistence: the“plac- text isitselfcontextualized andtherebymadepossiblebypastsocial,political,rhetorical derstanding ofartfulethospresupposesthatthecharactertakes placeintheorator’s specifi ists amorefundamentalexistential andontologicalconnectionbetweenthetwo. Aristotle’s un- The samecanbesaidwhenever peopleareconstructing, deconstructing,andreconstructingtheir at work whenHippocraticphysiciansmadetheir casefortheimportanceofscientifi the constructionofadwelling placeforcollaborative andmoraldeliberation. The processwas Isocrates anticipatesthedoctrineof Although Isocratesand Aristotle emphasizedifferent sensesof In meetingthischallenge,people placetheirown charactersonthelineandintext. The As wedirectourcommunicative andrhetoricalcompetencetoward achieving thisgoal,we What Iamemphasizingabout Nicomachean Ethics care: aedes,“dwelling” +fi ethos ethos as “dwellingplace”datesbacktoHomerandHesiod(Chamberlain,1984; asanartisticaccomplishment(Garver, 1994). ethos living room cant changeinthetechnicaluseofterm.For Aristotle, , hediscusseshow, beginning inchildhood,“ethical”virtuescanbe ofrhetoricwould have oneappreciatehow the ethea; toourlives thatwemightfeelmore ethos pluralof care, “tomake” or“tobuild”) whosecommunal character home-makers anditsrelationshiptorhetoricaldiscoursedirectsour ethos ethos . TIS HTRC N ICUS ETHICS,RHETORIC, AND DISCOURSE 3. ethos asaperson’s well-lived existence andtoward an developed in Aristotle’s ethos c discoursesare takes formasaresultoftheorator’s abilities , builders of thosespecialplaceswhere“the ) whereinpeopledwellandbondtogether. ethos ofrhetoricmakes useofour designed ethos boundaries at home Rhetoric , therenevertheless ex- and premises ethos withothersand arranged , but withthis and ethos cmedicine. ethos aswell andother domains when, isnot , may g- 33 c
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 crete formsofwhatisbeingdefi 2000); forinadditiontowhatever elsecanbesaidabouttheirnature,organizations presentcon- temporal existence— future-oriented processofhumanbeing:theway theobjective uncertaintyofourspatialand open region inwhichman dwells”(p.233). This open region shows itselfintheongoingand humankind’s ethicalnature.Heemphasizesthat,initsmostprimordialform, tivated. Heidegger (1977) makes muchofthispointinhisontologicallyorienteddiscussion Ethics andmoralcharacterpresupposeadwellingplacewhereinthey cantake formandbecul- founding placeofresearchinorganizational communication(Cheney rhetorical criticsmake theirliving byanalyzingdatahousedinthesehabitats.Here,too,isthe ways ofbeingwithandevaluating others(Aune,1994;Fisher, 1987).Discourseanalystsand with itsguidingnarratives notionsofprogressandperfection,therebyencouragesspecifi worldview that,for“goodreasons,” commends certainhabitsofthinkingandacting,promotes social andpoliticalideologies. An ideologyis adwellingplace:discursive habitatoffering a 34 symbolically forotherstounderstand. The callofconscience isexistence disclosing itselftothe forth” ( human beingnever rests. with others.Comparedtoaparticular person’s conscience,thecallofconscience thatcomeswith ethical responsibility, freedomofchoice,thoughtfulaction,living ameaningfullife, andbeing 313–325). The ontologicalstructureofhumanexistence placesbeforeusthechallengingtasksof its dynamiccharacterasthemostoriginalandempirically verifi through thespatialandtemporalworkings ofhumanbeing,Heidegger (1927/1962)identifi judging hisorherown character, thoughts,andactions.Pointingtoitsoriginalrevelation inand person, onanintrapersonallevel, wespeakofitasan“actconscience,” wherebythepersonis and foremostinaccordancewithachallenge–responselogic. When thislogicoccurs“within”a calling usintoquestionanddemandingaresponse. The anything tosayaboutit,theopen-endeddwellingplaceofourspatial–temporalbeing isatwork cation, anevent ofdeconstruction-reconstructioninitsmostprimordialform.Before wehave known even whenweare allalone. row? Who cansayforsure?Othernessliesattheheartofhumanexistence; itmakes itspresence it—something whoseobjective uncertaintyisthebasisof“mystery.” What willhappentomor- thus hassomethingaboutitsnaturethatis 15 billionyearsagowithaBigBangandthatappeartobeinfi ating theoriginaldynamicsofourspatialandtemporalexistence thatcameaboutapproximately permeates thefabric ofourbeingbut that and responsibilitythatiscalledforbytheontologicalworkings ofhumanbeing(Hyde,2010). the fi with others. This ishow systemsofmorality(e.g.,institutionalizedreligion)comeintobeingin and actsuchthatwecanbringasenseofordermeaningtoourlives andtoourrelationships responsibility ofaffi forever openingandexposing ustotheunknown andthuschallengingustoassumetheethical
This calldefi Ontologically speaking,thisothernessofhumanexistence isitsown evocation andprovo- History istherecordedconsequencesofouransweringthischallengingcall—acallthat rst place. The perfectionistdriven languageofmoralityistheresponsiveness MICHAEL J.HYDE epi-deixis ) or“saying”( nes anepideictic display ofexistence in itsmostoriginalform:a“showing rming theburden ofourfreedomchoice. The challengecallsustothink before itisreducedtothemeasurementsofclocks,calendars,andmaps—is logos THE CALL OFCONSCIENCE ned hereasadwellingplace. ) ofthetruthsomethingthat isandthatcanberepresented is not more a humancreation. We hadnothingtodowithcre- andthus other ethos thanwhatwedecidetomake of nite. The nite. ofhumanbeingfunctionsfi able “callofconscience”(pp. , 1991; McMillan&Hyde, ethos ethos ofhumanbeing “namesthe rst es c Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 primordial state:theoriginalpresentingand“saying”ofallthatliesbeforeus. he oranyone elsehastosayaboutitandthatdefi mode ofkeeping silent”(p.318). “It doesnotputitselfintowords atall;…[c]onsciencediscoursessolelyandconstantlyinthe tion ofwhatis.“Thecalldispenseswithany kindofutterance,” writesHeidegger (1927/1962). fi Here, atthisontologicallevel ofexistence, the logosofthecall,itsdiscourse,isnotunderstood one whoisliving itandwhocanmustrespondtoitschallenge(Hyde,2001,pp.108–115). response logic,itscallofconscience. The logical structureofourexistence, withitsdeconstructive–reconstructive dynamics,itschallenge– evolutionary happening.“Inthebeginning was the Word”: Itsproclamationinformstheonto- are wiredtobeethicalandmoralcreatures. God won’t goaway” (Gazzaniga,2005;Hamer, 2004;Newberg, D’Aquili,&Rause,2001). We to accommodatetheimpulseatwork here,therebyexplaining, atleastforthetimebeing,“why are hereonearth(Eco,1993/1997).Cognitive scientistshave shown thatthebrainhasevolved toward spiritualrealmsinthehopethatwemaysomedayunderstandhow andwhyitisthatwe registers a“transcendence”ofmaterialrealitythatisknown tosendusmetaphysicalcreatures and thatspeakstousofsomethingotherthanourown making. fundamentally rhetoricalaboutthecallofconsciencethathappensathearthumanbeing defi before any suchassessment ismade.Recall,thedisclosingofourspatialandtemporalexistence discourse thatbestows praiseorblameontheactionsofothers,itsmostoriginalformtakes place lends ontologicalsupporttothisclaim. Although epideicticrhetoricistypicallyassociatedwith partment ofrhetoricinactualpractice”(2.1.10). The above assessmentofthecallconscience tilian (trans.,1921/1985)hassaid:“IndeedIamnotsurethatthisisthemostimportantde- most originalform. We are“voiced” beforewelearntospeak. The callofconscience(ofourbeinganditsotherness)isnonverbal communicationinitspurest, listen, tosubmitoneselfaclaimaddressedandcomplyrespondit”(p.215). means toshow andtolet[something]beseen.Itmeanscommunicateand,correspondingly, to ing thesaying/showing ofthecallconsciencewhenhenotes:“To speakmeanstosay, which This particularinterruptionserves acrucialrhetorical function:Itcallsforacknowledgment. together” ( ever-present happeningthatencouragesustoquestionwhat,why, andhow weareand“to know our everyday routines,ourhabitsofthinkingandacting, with God usesthespatialandtemporal structureofexistence tocallattentionItself.Godinterrupts design thatmotivates uswith itsmysterytopondertheOnewhobroughtthisdesigninto being. rst andforemostasacapacityofcommunicationbut ratherastheoriginalandsilentmanifesta- nesthemostprimordialformofepideicticspeechand“publicaddress.” There issomething Heidegger speakstousofadiscourse,silent“voice,” thatismoreoriginalthananything The rhetoricofreligionoffers itselfasaway ofunderstandingthe“true”originsthis The callofconscienceisanempiricalphenomenon,althoughtheothernessthatitannounces Regarding thegenreofrhetoric(epideictic)moststeepedinthisprimordialdiscourse,Quin- Elsewhere Heidegger (1987/2001) provides adescriptionofwhatheisdoingindescrib- 123) pointer, isprecededbyanindicationthatitwillletitselfbeshown. (Heidegger, 1959/1971,p. they canbesigns…. of any kind;rather, allsignsarisefromashowing withinwhoserealmandforpurposes The essentialbeingoflanguage isSayingasShowing. Even whenShowing isaccomplishedbyourhumansaying,even thenthisshowing, this con-scientia ) withGodandtherestofhumankind asmuchofthetruthpossible. ethos . TIS HTRC N ICUS ETHICS,RHETORIC, AND DISCOURSE 3. nes the“beingoflanguage”( ofhumanexistence exhibits aself-questioning Its showing characterisnotbasedonsigns the callofconscience,withan Logos) initsmost 35 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 the face ofscientifi is purelyanegative attitude,invoking ‘theGod-of-the-gaps’onlytoriskretreatatalaterdatein notes: “Ourignoranceoftheoriginlifeleaves plentyofscopefordivine explanations, but that “easy” suggestionraisedbythisquestion. As thephysicistandcosmologistPaul Davies (1983) enly sourceofethicalandmoralbehavior? Sciencerightlycautionsagainstacceptingthealltoo tion ofotherness,aproductGod’s will? What ismore“Other”thanthismostfamous heav- Is theempiricalandontologicalphenomenonofcallconscience,withitsvivid affi happen. Without acknowledgment, Godisarathervacuous concept. ated thedwellingplace—thecosmos;earth—whereallotheractsofacknowledgment could avowal isalsoknown asaninstanceofacknowledgment. Byway ofacknowledgment, Godcre- who declaresmostassuredly, openly, bluntly, andwithoutshame.Such anopendeclarationor ning” withaspecifi heard itscallofconscience. This callwas thereallalong—assoonasGodinitiatedthe“begin- light oftruthandtothereader’s spiritualprofi to confessyouthatIdonotknow” whichoftheseviews correspond“supremely”toboth“the He alsoconfesses:“Iwould notbeusingthelanguageofmyconfessions[appropriately]ifIfail of GodthatinspirestheScripturesis“richinmeaning,” allowing fora“diversity oftrueviews.” confi teri can andmustopenotherstotheteachingsof Almighty. The word rhetoric ofSt. Augustine’s art thou?”“HereIam!”(Hyde,2006). Hence, thememorablequestion–answersequencefoundthroughoutOld Testament: “Where 36 oneself (e.g.,“I aminacuriousmood”).Everyday existence defi for theworld. Attunement isa“stateofmind,” amoodfulway ofbeingwiththings,others,and pect ofourexistence. Itisaway oftakinganinterestin,beingattunedto,andshowing concern promote theevolution ofknowledge and moralconsciousness(p.39). “atoms withcuriosity”thatlook atthemselves, wonder whythey wonder, andtherebyhelpto essential toprogress”(pp.49–50).Opennessallows usto becomewhatFeynman describesas emphasizes how inscience“opennesstopossibilityisanopportunity. Doubtand discussion are The NobelPrizewinningphysicistRichardFeynman (1998) hasthisethicinmindwhenhe This ethicabidesbythe and foraslongpossible,remainopentothemateriality and dynamicsofthedatainquestion. completeness toencouragearushjudgmentandcorresponding “leapoffaith.” in disclosingthetruthofthesethingsbeforeweallow ourmetaphysicalimpulsesfororderand assessments anddescriptionsof“thethingsthemselves” shouldgoasfar asthey possiblycan
Still, for Augustine, thistruthexists. Inmomentsofexistential crisisandgreatemotion,he One ofthemostfamous Christianenactmentsofthesequenceisfoundininfl Although curiositycanhave itsdrawbacks, itnevertheless demonstratesanontologicalas- Science andphenomenologyshareaspecifi A phenomenologicalassessmentofthemattersideswiththis position.Empiricallyoriented cover abouttheworld, notwhatwefail todiscover. (Davies, 1983,pp.70,209) make Godthefriend ofignorance.IfGodistobefound,itmustsurelythroughwhatwedis- To invoke Godasablanket explanation oftheunexplained istoinvite eventual falsifi MICHAEL J.HYDE , meaning“toacknowledge.” Augustine (trans.1992)acknowledges that“thelanguage” c advance.”… Hence: c speechact,an“avowl”: “Lettherebe….” GodistheGreat Avower: theOne EMOTION AND THE HAPPENING OF TRUTH HAPPENING EMOTION ANDTHE ethos Confessions of humanbeing:itsopennesstootherness,callconscience. , withitsmany suggestionsabouthow theorator’s art t” (XII.xxx.41). c ethicofinquiry: With thegreatestdiligence nes arealmofemotional ori- confess isfromtheLatin cation, and uential rma- Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 world ofpeople,places,andthings sothatwecan“admit”(MiddleEnglish: in thesituation.Mattersmaybeassimple“1+1=2.” Orabitmore complicated:E=mc ness takes someinterestinanoriginalactofdisclosure.Emotionthusbecomesacrucialfactor process ofperceiving, interpreting,andunderstandingtakes placeonlytotheextent thatthewit- ing, however, ifitisnotperceived, interpreted,andunderstoodbyawitness. This hermeneutic available forinterpretationandunderstanding.Somethingmakingitselfavailable “means”noth- that shows someaspectofitselfintheopennesslightdayandtherebymakes itself itself asanevent ofdisclosure,anactrevelation, ofsomething“thatisthecase”—something ity ofthewitnesstodiscloseinsomesymbolicmannerthisoriginaldisclosure. Truth thusshows disclosure: (1)thepresenceofsomesubjectmatterdisclosingitselftoawitness,and(2)abil- knowing togetherwhat us andthat,inturn,canbedisclosed byustoothersinsomesymbolicmannerforthe purpose of fi establishing thetruthofanything andtheknowledge thatcomeswithit.Recalltruthhappens have gained andthatwebelieve isworth sharing. This entire“admission”processismandatory for into ourmindsandthen“admit”(MiddleEnglish: an empiricalassessmentofthephenomenonthatrelatesitto ethics,rhetoric,anddiscourse. metaphysical speculation(God-of-the-gapsthinking),however, isnotnecessaryinordertoadvance responding towhatheconsideredbethetrueandHoly source ofthecallconscience.Such The phenomenonofacknowledgment was mentionedpreviously inconjunctionwith Augustine’s personhood requiresadditionalemotionalandrhetoricaleffort. to understandandtreatthepathophysiologyofapatient’s disease. Acknowledging apatient’s at homebyseeingusasbeingmorethansomediseasedbodyinbed.Physiciansaretrained it isnicetobeinadwellingplacewherepeoplearewillinggooutoftheirway tomake usfeel sire intheirinterpersonalcommunicationwithphysicians(Charon,2006). When weareill, emotional orientationthattoooftendeadenstheheartfeltattentionpatientsareknown tode- commented onforyearsbyhealthcommunicationresearchers,itisthis“cold”and“calculating” state ofmind,aparticularway ofbeingattentive tothepresenceofsomeobjectorsubject. As existence. The scientistclaimstobea“disinterested” observer. Disinterestedness,however, isa of reason—asmadebyscience,forexample—can never escapetheemotionthatbegets their tion ofsomematterinterest,aconcernforbeing.Hence,theso-calleddispassionateclaims “facts”), itsannouncementswillalways berootedinwhatemotionmakes possible:aninterpreta- couched inthemostpositivistic language(suchthatitcanbe“objective” initsregistration of for comingtotermswiththetruth. truly is.Butinevery case someemotionalinvolvement withthemattersathandisaprerequisite Abraham Lincolntoshow uswhat,forexample, themeaningofa“wheatfi Sometimes thetruthofagiven disclosurerequirestheartisticgeniusofa Vincent Van Goghor serves a“truthful”purpose. capacity ofemotionisontologicallysignifi situations ofwhichweareapartandthatforever unfoldingbeforeoureyes. This disclosing entations andattachments(moods)thatareconstantlyattuningustohelpingdisclosethe rst andforemostasanactofdisclosure,epideicticdisplay ofsomethingthatshows itselfto Acknowledgment isacapacityofconsciousnessthatenables ustobeandremain The cognitive determining of“clearreason”posesnoexception here.Even whenreasonis The validity ofany truthclaim(e.g.,“Itisraining.”) presupposesatleasttwo specifi THE LIFE-GIVING GIFT OF THE LIFE-GIVINGGIFT ACKNOWLEDGMENT is thecaseregarding somematterofconcern. Acknowledgments initiate cant inthatitcallsattentiontohow thephenomenon . TIS HTRC N ICUS ETHICS,RHETORIC, AND DISCOURSE 3. knowlechen ) tootherstheunderstandingthatwe eld” ora“civil war” acknow ) itswonders open c actsof tothe 37 2 . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 and encouragethedoingofthisact. to do.Iknow ofnotheorycommunicationethicsworth thenamethatdoesnotacknowledge places thatmake usfeelwanted andneeded.Offering positive acknowledgment isamoralthing hope tobefoundwiththistransformationofspaceandtimeaspeoplework toconstructdwelling chance, wherebywemightimprove ourlotinlifeandfeelmoreathomewithothers. There is in ourlives. With thisaddedliving spacecomestheopportunityforanew beginning, asecond knowledging isaway ofattuningconsciousnesstoward othersinorder tomake roomforthem otherwise lefttolive ahellish existence thatdefaces thehumanspirit(Hyde,2006,2010). physical andmentaldisabilities;forcedtolive inabjectpoverty; refused decentmedicalcare;or tation; deniedequalrights,freedomofspeech,andeducationalopportunitiesbecausetheir people arevictimizedbyracism,ageism,andgenderinequality;mocked fortheirsexual orien- our lives solonely, miserable,andunbearable.Socialdeathispresent,forexample, whenever in theformofsuicideorretaliationagainstthosewhoarerightlywronglyaccusedmaking this stateofbeingisknown tobringaboutfear, anxiety, sadness,anger, andsometimeseven death forgotten byothers. They suffer thediseaseof“socialdeath.” The suffering thatcanaccompany personal relationshipsandthebodypoliticingeneral(Anderson,Baxter, &Cissna,2004). research focusesontheroleplayedby“dialogue”infosteringandsustaininghealthofinter- moral actthatisconsistentlyemphasizedbycommunicationscholarsandphilosopherswhose promotes “themiracleofmoving outofoneself,” ofegoism becomingaltruism(p.9).Itisthis argues thatacknowledgment ofothernessisamoralactthat“accomplisheshumansociety”asit Levinas (1990)stressestheimportanceofinterpersonalfunctionphenomenonwhenhe Ludwig Wittgenstein (1969/1972),“isintheendbasedonacknowledgments” (p.378).Emmanuel and continuetosustainourbeingopenthestatusofsometruthclaim.“Knowledge,” insists 38 of thesituation. The knowledging thisstudent’s situationattheappropriatetimeandplaceinitiatesatransformation signs ofdistressabouttheseminarorsomethingelse thatisgoingonintheirlives. Ac- ing myseminarin“CommunicationEthics”isforwhatever reasonduringclass showing some known before. of acknowledgment, however, entailsmorethanthementalprocessofidentifyingwhathasbeen ing whathasbeenknown before;thefact ofbeingthusknown oridentifi that something,person,etc.,isthesameasonepreviously known; thementalprocessofidentify- of “recognition”foundinthe one ofthemoreglaringmisdirectionsmodernepistemology”(pp.117–118). The defi minds us,“Theblurringofthegrammaracknowledgment withthegrammarofrecognitionis present discussion,however, theirdifference mustbekept inmind. As CalvinSchrag(2002)re- oftentimes speakofthesetwo phenomenaasifthey weresynonymous. For thepurposeof if, attimes,mattersbecomeboring ortroublesome. development ofrecognitionbyenablingustoremain opentowhatisotherthanourselves, even existential knowledge andpersonal understanding. and hisorherexpression ofaparticularconcerninorder tofacilitatethedevelopment ofsuch tion isonlyapreliminary stepinthisprocess ofattuningone’s consciousnesstoward another understanding ofthematter, andfeelmoreathomewitheachotheraswedeal it. I cantake thetime toknow togetherthereasonsfordistress,perhapsgainamoreauthentic
Notice thatmyremarksaboutacknowledgment donotcontaintheword Acknowledgment provides anopeningoutofsuchdistressfulsituations,fortheactac- Those whoremainunacknowledged ineveryday lifeareisolated,marginalized, ignored,and For example, itisoftenquiteeasytorecognizethatoneoftheeightgraduatestudentstak- The processshouldnotbetaken forgranted. What would yourlifebelike ifnooneacknowl- MICHAEL J.HYDE ethos ofacknowledgment establishesanenvironment wherethestudentand Oxford EnglishDictionary Acknowledgment makes possiblethemoral reads: “Theactionorfact ofperceiving ed.”phenomenon The recognition Recogni- . People nition Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 language isbeingemployed to entails risk(Hyde,2006). one thatmakes usvulnerableasitopenstothedeceptive practicesofothers. Acknowledgment of ourlearningtoestablishtrustfulrelationshipswiththem. This sameprocess,ofcourse,isalso presuppose theworkings ofacknowledgment, which,asthey openustoothers,begin theprocess cooperativeness, andtruthfulnessindiscourse”(Burgoon, 2005,p.5). These principles,however, totally destroyed. Trust, “isaccomplishedinnosmallmeasurethroughprinciplesofmutuality, us thatinsuchsituationsthe“bedrockofcivilized society”—thatis,“trust”—isweakened, ifnot being recognized;thepersondidnotreallycareaboutyourwelfare)? Researchindeceptiontells actually deceiving youwithhisorherinitialshow ofacknowledgment (atbest,youwereonly edged yourexistence? How would youfeeliffoundoutthatsomeassumedbenefactor was marily, byone’s “love oftruth and…[the]desiretocommunicateitwithoutloss”(pp.15, 228). one’s “power toconnect histhoughtwithitspropersymbol,andsotoutter it,” but also,andpri- of concern.For Emerson(2000/1836),theheroismof thetrueoratorismadepossiblenotonlyby a genuineunderstandingofwhat, fortheorator, isarguably thetruthofsomeimmediate matter attempting tomove itsmembersbeyond theblindersoftheir“commonsense”beliefsandtoward gibbet andthemob,” therageandretribution ofamisinformedandclosed-minded public,when the actualkillingofothers.Instead,thisattitudeisneeded bytheoratorwhowould “darethe of “war” emphasizeswhatheterms “amilitaryattitudeofthesoul”thatisnotdirectedtoward readily related. When speakingofthetrueorator’s heroism,however, Emerson’s understanding informs theeloquenceofEmerson’s claimlendsitfurtherforcefor, indeed,heroesandwar are than words”—that isfamous forits“put-down” ofthepracticerhetoric. And themetaphorthat in Whicher, 1957,p.306). from action.Itisaction,asthegeneral’s word ofcommandorshoutbattleisaction”(cited stand withforward foot,intheattitudeofadvancing.… Hisspeechisnottobedistinguished also noteworthy. “Certainlythereisno trueoratorwhoisnotahero.… The oratormustever (p. 121).Ralph Waldo Emerson’s way ofstatingthepointinhisdiscussion“eloquence”is heroic individual seizingthemomentbyvoicing immortalwords attheheightofgreatevents much ofthispointwhenhenotesthat“Therepublicanpoliticianachieves greatestgloryasthe such symbolicactivity admitsthepotentialofbeing“heroic.” RobertHariman(1995)makes way, tofavor thegoodandjust,and,ofcourse,tospeak“thetruth”what the humancapacitytobeinventive, toarrangematerialsinanappropriate,orderly, andbeautiful form andfunctioneffectively inthesocialandpoliticalarena.Rhetoricalcompetence displays to equip( developing hissocial,political,andmoraltheoryofcivic republicanism,instructs oneonhow providing dwellingplaces (openings)wherealife-giving giftcanbereceived. their interestsinsomemeaningfulway. Rhetoricalcompetencehasasignifi from someaudiencewhose“good”membersarealsowaiting forthespeaker toacknowledge ment happensassuchdealingtranspires. The “good”speaker isalways seekingacknowledgment interest amanbydealingwithhisinterests,” writesKenneth Burke (1954,p.37). Acknowledg- laborative deliberationcan take placewithouttheformationofthisjointemotionalinterest.“We members ofsomeaudiencewilltake aninterestinwhatisbeingsaid.Neitherpersuasionnorcol- forever attemptingtocreate theseopenings,forthisishow they maximizethechancethat understood, standareasonablechanceofgettingpeopletothinkandactwisely. Oratorsare Rhetorical discourseandacknowledgment gohandinhand.Rhetoricisatwork whenever Eloquence isbornofsuchpower, love, and desire.Kenneth Burke (1968)puts itsuccinctly: This claimcallsintoquestionawell-known maximofour culture—“Actions speaklouder Training inrhetoricalcompetence,orwhatCicerotermedthe“artofeloquence”( ornare ) knowledge ofasubjectinsuchway thatitcanassumeapubliclyaccessible open peopletoideas,positions,andcircumstancesthat,ifrightly . TIS HTRC N ICUS ETHICS,RHETORIC, AND DISCOURSE 3. cant roletoplayin
is . For Cicero, oratio ) in 39 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 humankind isrespectedandadvanced. Hence,Cicero’s (trans.1942)praisefortheart:For committed tothistaskofeloquence,constructingdwellingplaceswherethewell-being with therealityofwhichweareapart(p.167). The trueorator, therhetorashero,isaperson life intoitsmostthoroughverbal equivalent” inordertobetterunderstand,appreciate,anddeal “The primarypurposeofeloquenceisnottoenableuslive ourlives onpaper—itistoconvert 40 built into”thisactionandthattherebyassume a“transcendental”status(pp.99–100). Rather, heiscontenttodisclosethevalidity conditions ofcommunicative action thatare“already between theethosofhumanbeing, itscallofconscience,andourcapacityforacknowledgment. interested indeveloping aphenomenologicalandontological understandingoftherelationship this essaythatgrounding actuallygoesdeeperthanHabermasiswillingtodig.He isnot argumentation isnecessaryforadjudicatingsomecontestedmatter. Ihave suggestedthroughout workings oflanguage-use,especially asthey show themselves ininterpersonalcontexts where mutual understandinginlanguagefromthebeginning” (p.163). acknowledge that“moralityasgroundedbydiscourseethics isbasedonapatterninherentin with themaboutallthatcanbeunderstoodinoureveryday lives. Habermaswould thushave us tures distinguishedbyouruniqueandrelatedabilitiestoacknowledge othersandtocommunicate the very natureofhumanexistence, withour“given” ( these conditionsandtheopen-mindednessthatthey callfor. Rather, theseconditionscomewith tion, participantsareforcedtoacknowledge thisfact” (p.130).Indeed,wearenotthecreatorsof mative conditions—thereisnoalternative tothem.Simplybychoosingengageinargumenta- argumentation, accordingtoHabermas(1983/1990),“hasalreadyacceptedthesesubstantive nor- expression withrespect totherhetoricalsituationathand. Anyone whosincerelyparticipatesin to communicateatrueproposition,expressing intentionstruthfully, andchoosinganappropriate matter ofconcern. These conditionsinclude:choosingacomprehensibleexpression, intending open-mindedness ofitsparticipantstoward eachotherandtoward discovering thetruthofsome communication”—a communitythatthrives onthecapacityforacknowledgment andthusthe mative rules”or“validity conditions”ofargumentation thatpromote“theidealcommunityof course ethics.” Herehespeakstousof“thepragmaticpresuppositions,” “thesubstantive nor- of Jurgen Habermas’s (1981/1984)highlyinfl ( ing together, theseopenings defi the truthofsomematterconcernaswelltoeachothers’judgmentsaboutmatter. Work- The phenomenonofrhetoricalstyledisclosesitselfindiscoursededicatedtoopeningpeople for truereality:accuracy ( gle forstyle”—astrugglewhere“Concerntherightexpression isboundupwiththeconcern cultivate civic virtuewithwhatheterms“theceaselessheroismnecessaryinpursuingthestrug- the matterbyassociatingrhetoricalartistryneededtoacknowledge thetruth,others,andto theory ofcommunicationethics,Georges Gusdorf(1953/1965)expands onandfurtherclarifi ment andrhetoric.Inhisphenomenologicalstudyofthefunctionsspeechitscorresponding con-scientia
Habermas grantsusaway to“ground” thelife-giving giftofacknowledgment inthe“rational” These relatedgoalsofopen-mindedness,conscience-formation,andcivility lieattheheart Cicero’s words certainly speaktotheimportanceofrelationshipbetweenacknowledg- his own dignity, but thesafetyofcountlessindividuals andoftheentireState.” (1.8.32) their civil rights?… The wisecontrolofthecompleteoratoristhatwhichchiefl to raiseupthosewhoarecastdown, tobestow security, tosetfreefromperil,maintainmenin what functionissokingly, soworthy of thefree,sogenerous,astobringhelpsuppliant, MICHAEL J.HYDE ) and,atleasttosomeextent, experience thelife-giving giftofacknowledgment. justesse ne adwelling place,an ) andintegrity ( uential theoryof“communicative action”and“dis- justice es gibt ethos ) aretwo relatedvirtues”(pp.74–75). ) way ofbeing , wherepeoplecan“know-together” y upholdsnotonly homo loquens —crea- es Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 his theoryandwhatheterms“the mandment” uponwhichallmoral systemsarebased. The commandmentcallsfora respecting self. This showing andcallingforthoughtresoluteaction defi who exist insuchaway thatwe make adwellingplaceforBeing toshow andcallattentiontoit- damental relationshipthatholds betweenBeingandhumanbeing( they are.Derrida’s above description ofthisvocation echoesHeidegger’s assessmentofthefun- toward thingsandotherssothatthey canbeacknowledged andrespectedforwhat,who,how (1978) offers thefollowing descriptionofthisvocation: stands beforeus.Itisavocation thatrequiresethicalandrhetorical fi of tryingtoknow together(byway ofdiscussion,argument, andpersuasion)thetruthofallthat The giving ofthisgiftdefi and civility becomepossible. Acknowledgment isalife-giving gift. create thedwellingplacesoropeningswherecollaborative deliberation,conscience-formation, propriate, truthful,andeffective manner. Byway ofthisheroicprocessacknowledgment, we and otherformsofcommunicative andrhetoricalknow-how inordertobeexpressed inanap- discourse analyst: the issue.Hethusendsupmarginalizing amajorempiricalconcernoftherhetoricalcriticand are afar morecomplicatedmatterthanwhatPlatohadtosayaboutthem.Habermasavoids should never betaken forgrantedandforgotten. Buttheactualworkings ofrhetoricaldiscourse demned inhiscritiqueofrhetoric. The importanceofthiscritiqueandallthatitwarns against trast, Ispeakof cooperation andthestabilityisdeterminedbyinterestpositionsofparticipants.Bycon- actions dependsontheextent towhichtheiregocentric utilitycalculationsmesh. The degree of enticements. Suchactorstreateachother and thushisdecisionsormotives, throughexternal meansbyusingweaponsorgoods,threats they willtrytoreachtheirobjectives byinfl If theactorsareinterestedsolelyin With theseconditionsinmind,Habermas(1983/1990)makes acrucialdistinctionbetween We aresaved fromanall-encompassingviolencebyourabilitytoattuneconsciousness appear andbenamed.(p.138) itself tofreedom. Violence would reigntosuchadegree thatitwould nolongereven beableto be possible,andfi tence; andthatwhichistheBeingthey bothpresuppose. Without this,noletting-bewould to thought,or(and)whatthoughtgainsaccessto,isthatwhich essenceandthatwhichisexis- possible.… To lettheotherbeinitsexistence andessenceasothermeansthatwhatgainsaccess ing outsidemeintheessenceofwhatitis(fi not aknowledge, orletussaywithout this “letting-be”ofanexistent (Other)assomethingexist- It conditionstherespectforotheraswhatitis:other. Without thisacknowledgment, whichis Clearly, Habermas’s conceptionofstrategic communicationharkens back towhatPlatocon- agreement…about defi through internalmeans,committingthemselves topursuingtheirgoalsonlyontheconditionofan communicative how rst ofall,thelettingberespectandethicalcommandmentaddressing discourseisspecifi nitions ofthesituationandprospective outcomes.(pp.133–134) nes amoralvocation, oneoflearningto“letbeingsbe”and,inturn, OTHERNESS:MORAL VOCATION A actionwhenactorsarepreparedtoharmonizetheirplansof model ofstrategic action” success strategically cally invented andarranged withstyle,eloquence, rst initsalterity [or“otherness”]),noethicswould be uencing theiropponent’s defi , i.e.,the . TIS HTRC N ICUS ETHICS,RHETORIC, AND DISCOURSE 3. . Insuchcases,coordinationofthesubject’s consequences : ne theprimordial “ethical com- or Dasein outcomes nition ofthesituation, tness. Jacques Derrida Jacques tness. ): wearethosebeings of theiractions, 41 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 123). The ethicalchallengeisimmense. reconcile nothing. We mustkeep opentheothernessofforms,disparity betweenterms”(p. incomparable, anddoesnotenterintotheplayofdifference, mustbeexterminated…. We must would have usplacenolimitsontheenactmentofsuchrespect:“All thatseekstobesingularand of theother, whichcalls foracknowledgment. The cultural theoristJeanBaudrillard(1995/2008) system’s functioning. This actofrhetoricalintervention isdoneoutofrespectforthe“otherness” these systemsandthataretoooftentaken forgrantedandforgotten when“alliswell”withthe systems inordertocallattentionthepotentialpitfalls thataccompany ourstrictadherenceto does somethingofwhatexistence tellsittodo:isacriticalactivity; it“ ness ofwhatever human beingscreateinordertomake theirlives meaningful.Deconstruction temporal opennessofthisbeing’s existence andthatcontinuallycalls intoquestionthetruthful- to thatdeconstructive dimensionofthemoralvocation ofhumanbeingthatshows forthinthe codes ofgoverning reality”(pp.116,120).Deconstruction, inotherwords, isespeciallyattuned ferent, somethingotherandperhaps“better”thanwhatitpresentlyisunderthe“offi gation andofdistancefromitself,ifitistotransformitself”therebybecomesomethingdif- others asaway ofhelpingthemtorealizethat“every cultureneedsanelementofself-interro- a call”(p.118).Moreover, Derridawould have usunderstandthatdeconstructionoffers itselfto necessarily calls,summonsormotivates it.Deconstructionisthereforevocation—a responseto swering thiscall.Hewrites:“…deconstructionis,initself,apositive responsetoanalteritywhich thus is“other”thantheconsciousnessthatperceives it. of theBeingbeings,foraletting-bewhatgives andshows itselftoandforthoughtthat 42 Arneson, P. (Ed.).(2007a). Aristotle. (1954). Aristotle (1984). Anderson, R.,Baxter, L. A., &Cissna,K.N.(Eds).(2004). possible andwherealife-giving giftcanbesharedwithothers. habitats oropeningswherecollaborative deliberation,moralconsciousness,and civility become places wheremoralconsciousnesscanbecultivated. Itisa heroic thingforustodo:createthose Faced withtheawesomeness ofthisuncertainty, wearecalledtothink,act,andconstructdwelling everyday existence, stimulatesemotions,andopensustotheobjective uncertaintyofourexistence. presence ofthisabsence,disclosingitselfasacallconscience thatintervenes inand interruptsour without absence. The empiricalrelationshipbetweenethics,rhetoric,anddiscourseoriginatesinthe Taken alltogether, theothernessthatpermeateshumanbeingisanawesome presencethatisnever ics ofourvery being. This lastinstanceofotherness isknown tocallmind“God’s presence.” that arealreadybuilt intocommunicative action,andthefundamentalspatialtemporaldynam- It shows itselfinthepresenceofotherthings,people,validity conditionsofargumentation We arebacktothebeginning: The othernessoftheotherisanontologicalfeaturehumanexistence.
versity Press. Derrida (1984)alignshis“deconstructive” way ofdoingcriticismwiththenecessityan- complete worksof Aristotle tion studies. MICHAEL J.HYDE Nicomachean ethics London: Sage. Rhetoric (W. R.Roberts, Trans.). New York: ModernLibrary. Perspectives onphilosophyofcommunication (Vol. 2).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity Press. . (W. D.Ross, Trans., revised byJ.O. Urmson).InJ.Barnes(Ed.), REFERENCES CONCLUSION Dialogue: Theorizing difference incommunica- . West Lafayette, IN:Purdue Uni- intervenes cial political ” inmeaning The Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 Burgoon, J.K.(2005). Blumenberg, H.(1987). An anthropologicalapproach tothecontemporarysignifi Burke, K.(1968). Burke, K.(1954). Beach, W.(2008). A. Bavelas, J.B.,Kenwood, C.,&Phillips,B.(2002).Discourseanalysis.InM.L.KnappJ. A. Daly(Eds.), Chamberlain, C.(1984).From“haunts”to“character”: The meaningofethosanditsrelationtoethics. Casey, E.S.(1993). Cheney, G.(1991). Charon, R.(2006). Baudrillard, J.(2008). Aune, J. A. (1994). Augustine. (1992). Arnett, R.C.,Fritz,J.M.H.,&Bell,L.(2009). Arneson, P. (Ed.).(2007b). Cook, M. A., &Holba, A. N.(2008). Cicero. (1942). Chouliaraki, L.,&Fairclough, N.(1999). Chouliaraki, L.(2006). Eco, U.(1997). Derrida, J.(1984).Deconstructionandtheother:Interview withRichardKearney. InR.Kearney (Ed.), Derrida, J.(1978). Davies, P. (1983). Habermas, J.(1984). Gusdorf, G.(1965). Gazzaniga, M.S.(2005). Garver, E.(1994). Fisher, W. R.(1987). Feynman, R.(1998). Farrell, T. B.(1993). Emerson, R. W. (2000). Edelstein, L.(1967). mation? Wallace, Trans.). InK.Baynes,J.Bohman,& T. McCarthy(Eds.), Cresskill, NJ:HamptonPress. Pearson/Allyn &Bacon. Handbook ofinterpersonal communication 1995) Helios ington: IndianaUniversity Press. Sage. fi eld. University Press. sity ofSouthCarolinaPress. Manchester, UK:ManchesterUniversity Press. Dialogues withcontemporary continental thinkers: The phenomenological heritage New York:Lang. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston,MA:Beacon Press. (Originalwork published1981) sity Press.(Originalwork published1953) tion. Modern Library. (Originalwork published1836) Eds., C.L. Temkin, Trans.). Baltimore,MD:JohnHopkinsUniversity Press. work published1993) New York: Lang. Columbia: University ofSouthCarolinaPress. , 11 (pp. 429–458).Cambridge,MA:MITPress. , 99–103. De oratore The search forthe perfectlanguage Counter-statement Permanence andchange God andthenew physics. Aristotle’s rhetoric: An artofcharacter. Writing anddifference Narrative medicine:Honoringstoriesofillness. Confessions Rhetoric inanorganizational society:Managing multipleidentities. Rhetoric andMarxism. Getting back intoplace: Toward arenewed understanding oftheplace-world. Speaking (LaParole) Norms ofrhetoricalculture The meaningofitall: Thoughts ofacitizen-scientist. The theoryofcommunicativeaction: Vol. 1.Reasonandtherationalization ofsociety Ancient medicine:Selectedpapers ofLudwigEdelstein Human communicationasnarration: Toward aphilosophy ofreason, value, andac- Truth, lies,andvirtualworlds A natural historyoffamilycancer:Interactional resources formanaging illness. The perfectcrime The spectatorship ofsuffering. The essentialwritingsofRalph Waldo Emerson The ethicalbrain. (H.Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press. Exploring communicationethics:Interviews withinfl uentialscholars inthe (H. Chadwick, Trans.). New York: OxfordUniversity Press. Philosophies ofcommunication:Implicationsforeveryday experience . Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. (C. Turner, Trans.). New York: Verso. (Originalwork published (A.Bass, Trans.). Chicago,IL:University ofChicagoPress. (P. T. Brockelman, Trans.). Evanston, IL:NorthwesternUniver- (2ndrev. ed.).New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. New York: DanaPress. Discourse inlate modernity New York: Simon&Schuster. (3rded.,pp.102–129).London:Sage. . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. . TIS HTRC N ICUS ETHICS,RHETORIC, AND DISCOURSE 3. (J. Fentress, Trans.). Oxford,UK:Blackwell.(Original (CarrollC. Arnold DistinguishedLecture).New York: New York:Sage. Communication ethicsliteracy. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. Oxford, UK:OxfordUniversity Press. After philosophy:Endortransfor- . Edinburgh, Scotland:Edinburgh (B. Atkinson, Ed.).New York: Reading, MA:PereusBooks. (O. Temkin &C.L Temkin, cance ofrhetoric(R.M. Los Angeles, CA: Columbia: Univer- (pp.107–126). Bloom- 43 .
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 23:13 25 Sep 2021; For: 9780203890400, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203890400.ch3 Plato. (1973c). Plato. (1973b). Plato. (1973a). Newberg, A., D’Aquili,E.,&Rause, V. (2001). Miller, A. B.(1974). Aristotle onhabitandcharacter. McMillan, J.,&Hyde,M.J.(2000). Technological innovation andchange: A casestudy intheformationof McKeon, R.(1971). The usesofrhetoricinatechnologicalage: Architectonic productive arts.InL.F. Bitzer Heidegger, M.(1971). Heidegger, M.(1962). Hariman, R.(1995). Hamer, D.(2004). Hyde, M.J.(2006). Hyde, M.J.(Ed.)(2004). Hyde, M.J.(2001). Habermas, J.(1990). 44 Quintilian. (1985). Levinas, E.(1990). Johannesen, R.L., Valde, K.S.,& Whedbee, K.E.(2008). Jacobs, S.(2002).Languageandinterpersonalcommunication.InM.L.Knapp&J. A. Daly(Eds.), Isocrates (1982). Hyde, M.J.(2010). Hyde, M.J.(2008). Heritage, J.(1984). Heidegger, M.(2001). Heidegger, M.(1977).Letteronhumanism.InD.F. Krell(Ed.), Wittgenstein, L.(1972). Whicher, S. W. (Ed.).(1957). Sloane, T. O.(Ed.).(2001). Sacks, H.,Schegloff, E. A., &Jefferson, G.(1974). A simplestsystematicsfortheorganization ofturn- Rommetveit, R.(1974). Schrag, C.O.(2002). Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks,H.(1973).Openingupclosings.
Trans.) (pp.957–1017).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity Press. Trans.) (pp.475–525).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity Press. Trans.) (pp.229–307).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversity Press. belief. organizational conscience. & E.Black(Eds.), University Press.(Originalwork published1963) (Original work published1927) Trans.). Cambridge:MITPress.(Originalwork published1983) Columbia: University ofSouthCarolinaPress. Grove, IL: Waveland Press. book ofinterpersonal communication Distinguished Lecture,2007).New York: Pearson/Allyn&Bacon. Boss, Ed.).Evanston, IL:NorthwesternUniversity. (Originalwork published1987) Harper &Row. (Originalwork published1947) work published1959) Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Harper&Row. (Originalwork published1972) western University Press. taking forconversation. Press. (Originalwork published1921) MICHAEL J.HYDE New York: BallantineBooks. Phaedrus. Gorgias. Sophist. Antidosis The godgene: Howfaithishardwired intoourgenes. Institutio oratoria. Diffi cultfreedom: Essayson Judaism. Garfi nkel and ethnomethodology. The life-givinggiftofacknowledgment. Perfection: Comingtotermswithbeinghuman Perfection, postmodernculture, andthebiotechnology debate Political style: The artistry ofpower. The callofconscience:Heidegger andLevinas, rhetoricandtheeuthanasiadebate Moral consciousnessandcommunicativeaction God asotherwisethanbeing: Toward asemanticsofthegift. Zollikon seminars: Protocols-conversations-letters On thewaytolanguage Being andtime The prospect ofrhetoric. On message structure. In E.Hamilton&H.Cairns(Eds.), On certainty In E.Hamilton&H.Cairns(Eds.), The ethosofrhetoric In E.Hamilton&H.Cairns(Eds.), (G.Norlin, Trans.). Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press. Encyclopedia ofrhetoric Langu Selections from Ralph Waldo Emerson Quarterly Journal ofSpeech age, (G. E.M. Anscombe &G.H.von Wright, Eds.,D.Paul &G.E.M. (H. E.Butler, Trans.). 4vols. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University (E. Robinson&J.Macquarrie, Trans.). New York: Harper&Row. 50, (3rded.,pp.213–239).London:Sage. 696–735. . Columbia:University ofSouthCarolinaPress. London: John Wiley. (P. D.Hertz, Trans.). New York: Harper&Row. (Original Why Godwon’t goaway:Brain scienceandthebiology of (pp.45–52). . New York: OxfordUniversity Press. Speech Monographs, 41 Cambridge, UK:Polity. Chicago,IL:University ofChicagoPress. (S. Hand, Trans.). Baltimore,MD:JohnHopkins Ethics inhumancommunication Semiotica West Lafayette, IN:PurdueUniversity Press. , Plato: The collecteddialogues Plato: The collecteddialogues
86 Plato: The collecteddialogues Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. , 20–48. Basic writings . Waco, TX: BaylorUniversity Press. . Boston,MA:HoughtonMiffl , 7 , 289–327. (C. Lenhardt&S. W. Nicholsen, New York:Doubleday. (F. Mayr&R. Askay, Trans., M. , 309–316. (pp.189–242).New York: (The CarrollC. Arnold Evanston, IL:North- (6thed.).Long (R. Hackford, (R. Hackford, (R. Hackford, in. Hand- .