The Communication Panacea supports my prior critiques in regards to openness and creating our identity. Postman speaks of honesty by stating, “civilization is impossible without inhibition…and how silence…and dishonesty are frequently necessary for people to work together harmoniously.” Postman suggesting that if we were all completely honest there would arguments and we intentionally do not tell the truth. “communication is most sensibly viewed as a means through which desirable ends may be achieved.”
As individuals we make decisions how much information to disclose to others out of respect. Grant2U writes, “When I look at how I communicated with my “interlockers” I feel that I was thoughtful, respectful, honest, but not totally honest.” ShinyGinger expressed her opinion that she would possibly be more forward or willing to begin a conversation with someone if they were in a face to face situation. “In the responses, I noticed that although I was respectful and tried to connect to other classmates over the common shards of ourselves that we shared, it was somewhat forced. It was polite conversation for the sake of making polite conversation. Because I had to choose people to respond to, I did. I think the situation would be very different if we were all in a room together, no longer classmates but in a different environment. It would be much easier (for some) to walk up and strike up a conversation, responding and going with the flow of what was being said. Even in that situation, I doubt I would be saying all that I was thinking or feeling, but would be much more likely to share.” She was not dishonest in the online discussions, she just did not feel the same openness to begin or peruse new conversations.
The lack of openness or disclosure , not dishonesty, can also be defined to a point as protecting ourselves. MemphisBurns wrote about that he “tailored my conversation to the individual.” Why do I do this? Is it to make the other person feel comfortable or is it to make ourselves feel safe? ShineyGinger agrees that she possibly tried to protect herself, “ I agree. What would have happened if I was more truthful in my introduction comments? In one, I mentioned an ongoing challenge I have had. What if I had been more straightforward and honest, explaining that I have Bipolar Disorder and that as a result, certain things are harder for me. I didn’t, partially because I didn’t want to make everyone uncomfortable. Mostly, because I wanted to protect myself from what I expect everyone else to say, think, or feel.”
August 20, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Very interesting – and as I read this I recall your first comment to the whole class (I think i a discussion thread) in which you said you’d tell us all about your blog identity, “bridge of ideas.”
We did not delve into the topic of dishonesty except for a brief touch near the end on deception, violence and betrayal. There is also a literature and arguments that actually argue FOR dishonesty – for actually making things up. I’m not very familiar with those theories, and definitely do not know the ins-and-outs of arguments for and against. But I have been struck (not only here, by other students’ comments too), as I was with the textbook’s presentation of how to express emotion, that there is a very strong ‘party line’ being drawn about what is right/wrong regarding honesty.
Please don’t misinterpret me, I am a firm believer in being honest as an essential element of a core integrity of being. I would simply say that “honesty” – just like “lying” – is a mutually constructed understanding about communication. In other words, being dis/honest is a label for a behavior that might appear differently at different times depending on many factors.