Liz Horgan COM 614 Reflection #5 - Dialogic Ethics October 7, 2010

! Reading the Dialogic Ethics chapter in our textbook, Communication Ethics

Literacy (2009), brought to mind the Mideast Peace Talks. Attempts at mediated dialog

between the Israelis and the Palestinians are hampered by issues outlined in this

chapter: the talks appear to me to be grounded in demand, and are many times

steeped in politics (both domestic and global) and actions that preclude a coming

together of listening and learning. It all seems so futile. And yet this conflict, and efforts

to find consensus and compromise, is one that many in the world (including the

opposing parties) want to resolve. At this moment in history, simply getting the two

sides to talk would be a step forward.

! When looking at the Israeli and Palestinian Peace Talks in the context of dialogic

communications ethics, the very first condition to possibility is missing: listening without

demand. Demands for land, water, fairness, settlement solutions and more are brought

as baggage to the talks. While the US and other allies over the years have stressed

talks with no preconditions (trying to sideline demands), the political realities that

leaders of the talks face are significant. Power, politics, economic gain and loss all

factor in to the narratives of both parties.

The media seems to inflame and exacerbate the “demands” that make listening

and learning impossible. The media frames the peace talks with headlines, interviews,

and commentary, all the while highlighting the differences and the demands of each

party. Media is powerful because of it’s influence on definitions of “common sense”, as

many times media simplifies and shapes narratives into polarized oppositions. Once
such positions are publicized and repeated by the media, they gain credibility and grow

to define various social groups. The need for individuals to belong to social groups sets

the stage for social group identification tied to the more extreme positions. Reflective

thinkers, those who question parts of a narrative or eschew moderation may find

themselves excluded from a group - giving power to a created “good” that seems to

silence the “common sense” of others. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have their

“truths”, their “common sense” built from experience and framed and inflamed by the

media. The both appear to feel that they have power, feel the need to show power, and

fight for the upper hand. Yet in dialog, “power equity must be in place before dialog can

take place” (p 87).

It will take a special group of negotiators to be willing to approach the talks as

learners and listeners, able to set aside judgement, image and power plays and attend

to the narratives of both self and Other. Add to this the difficulty of competing agendas,

priorities and objectives, making it hard to find a “place of communicative safety”.

Civility, which offers “the possibility of cooperation” (p. 91) seems missing in these talks.

A challenge Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Middle East leaders face is to find

that safe place for communication. Conditions change, parties to the talks shift in

allegiances and complexity, yet the basic tenets of communication ethics seem almost

impossible to meet with all of the problems faced in the Region. Can the sides be both

a learner and a listener? Can they ask, and not always tell? Can the focus be kept on

the learning, and not on power imbalance issues? Can there be a sharing of narratives

by both sides (through technical dialog and monologue), an attentiveness to the Other,

real dialog?
! It is my sense that Clinton and the encouraging parties for the Peace Talks are

hoping that a first step in this historic moment would be to get the opposing sides

talking. Possibilities can arise and grow from open contact when there is a desire to

learn of and from each other, dialog can emerge, and the potential for answers in

historical context can be discovered. It begins with listening...not shouting. So is this

the time for a break in the Mideast peace talks? While I wish the answer was “yes”, I

fear that weʼre not at a place, at a historic moment, of listening without demand. Yet.

References:

Arnett, R., Harden Fritz, J., & Bell, L., (2009). Communication ethics literacy. SAGE,

Los Angeles.