Toward a Personal Philosophy of Communication

Dr. John  Caputo, in his unpublished notes uploaded in the COML 508 Module One folder on Blackboard, provides a five-part definition of “philosophy” first as “love of, or the search for, wisdom or knowledge;” second as “theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe;” third as “the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge or activity;” fourth as “a particular system of principles for the conduct of life;” and fifth as “a study of human morals, character, and behavior.” Combining Dr. Caputo’s definition of philosophy and Em Griffin’s (2009) working definition of communication, namely that communication is “the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (p. 6), one might construct a working definition of the “philosophy of communication” as the purposeful examination of one’s  communicative relational processes in order to derive a theory of those same relational processes from which specific personal, bedrock communication principles of behavior and general ethical and moral  guiding  communication principles of behavior can be developed.

As fledgling graduate students in the field of communication, we should not underestimate the importance of exploring our methods of communication, the underlying principles we use to form these methods, and the ethical and moral implications these methods hold for the world at large because we are the future communication leaders—the ones who will investigate, evaluate, and cultivate how the world goes about the business of ethical communication. Consequently, the following paper explores my methods of communication, the underlying principles I use to form these methods, and ethical and moral implications these principles hold for the world at large.

Investigating one’s methods of communication is vital to the understanding of the underlying principles one uses to develop those methods. Ever since I was very young, I have been a verbal person. I recall an instance when I was eight, while sitting at table with my family, my father remarked at how “smart” I sounded for an eight year old. Years later, an ACT score of twenty-one would challenge my father’s assessment of my native intelligence; however, the keen insight my father communicated that day was a realization that the part of my brain responsible for verbal communication is and has been developed for quite a long time. Teachers would frequently call on me to answer questions or to summarize other students’ responses because of my facility for verbal synthesis.

This native ability for verbal synthesis cultivated a desire to investigate future careers in two helping professions. The first of these helping professions was a seven-year training program for becoming a Catholic priest. The second of these helping professions was my current thirteen year career as a high school public speaking and English teacher. Both of these professions provided me with opportunities to practice methods of communication guided by the phenomenological principles of congruence (being transparent and authentic with people including colleagues, students and their parents),  unconditional positive regard (treating people including colleagues, students and parents with dignity and respect), and empathic understanding (actively listening with an open mind and open heart to people including colleagues, students and parents) made famous by psychologist Carl Rogers (Griffin, pp. 49-50).  

The reasons for choosing such methods of communication in the careers I chose are clear, and at first glance may not need further explanation; however, for the purposes of this paper, we need to investigate the underlying principles we used to choose these methods.  Carl Rogers did not “pop” into my head as I attempted to be an effective listener and an effective teacher throughout the years. Rather, I was blessed with an intuitive grasp of the necessity for active listening to be an effective counselor and teacher. Texas State University communication scholars Steven A. Beebe, and Susan J. Beebe (2006) define an active listener as one who “remains alert and mentally re-sorts, rephrases, and repeats key information” (p. 67).  As I teach and counsel students and communicate with my colleagues and with my students’ parents, I am daily challenged to remain alert, to re-sort or synthesize what I see and hear, and to repeat in my own words and from my own context key information I see and hear. However, the dialogue doesn’t stop at the local level.

            The world is in need of people who are equipped to critique its methods of communication. By focusing on one’s personal methods of communication and underlying principles used to form these methods, one becomes better able to investigate, evaluate, and cultivate how the world goes about the business of ethical communication. In other words, we may start our investigation of communication with ourselves, but the call is always global. We need to be aware of individuals, organizations, and local, state, and federal governments whose goal is to manipulate, rather than to ethically communicate. Redford University communication scholar George L. Grice, and San Antonio College communication scholar John F. Skinner (2007) quote scholars Allan Cohen and David Bradford as they define manipulation as “actions to achieve influence that would be rendered less effective if the target knew your actual intentions” (p. 25).  We need to be able to practice a global communication ethic that challenges such instances of manipulation and provides a more Rogerian model of inclusion, acceptance, and common good.

            When we start with a theoretical definition of philosophy, such as Dr. Caputo’s, articulated at the very beginning of this paper, we must put “flesh” on the theory to see how it works in the real world. This is the work of theorizing communication, the very title of this course. This paper has been an attempt to accomplish that task. In so doing, the paper explored my methods of communication, the underlying principles I use to form these methods, and ethical and moral implications these principles hold for the world at large. We are the future leaders in communication. No greater responsibility exists than to offer ethical communication models that challenge the myriad manipulative models currently at work in our world.

References

Beebe, S. A., & Beebe, S. J. (2006). Public speaking: An audience-centered
            approach (2006 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. (Original work
            published 1991).

Grice, G. L., & Skinner, J. F. (2007). Mastering public speaking (2007 ed.).
            Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. (Original work published 1993).

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A first look at communication (7th ed.).
            Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1991).