WEB, ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION

Aarticle by Massimo Berlingozzi – “WEB, ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION“ – WORLD TRAINING – April 2019_HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

Among the many contributions of the Canadian sociologist Marshall McLuhan, the phrase ‘The medium is the message’ has remained particularly famous, according to which the real message of a medium is the filter change it imposes on our perception of reality, changing the patterns, times and spaces of relationships between people. Facts’ were happening even before the invention of the telegraph, says McLuhan, but the telegraph transforms them into ‘news’ and makes them travel at previously unimaginable speeds: the idea of the ‘global village’ was born.

The Web has given everyone the possibility of transforming a fact into ‘news’; if the purpose of ethics is to question the meaning of our actions, never before has it seemed so important to question the meaning of our communicative actions.

In this regard, it is significant to note that network communication, since its origins, has felt the need to create certain principles of good behaviour defined as ‘netiquette’, a neologism born from the fusion of the English word network with the French term étiquette. The one approved by the Italian Registration Authority is a set of rules and norms largely oriented towards good manners and common sense; in some statements, however, one glimpses an attempt to define an ethics of communication on the web inspired by common values: an invitation to reflection that should precede any intervention, respect for privacy, the importance of being clear, accurate and precise, as well as some specific indications concerning the management of relationships. However, we are well aware of how these assumptions are completely disregarded in practice in many situations, and how much the social media phenomenon has amplified this.

The origin of studies on the ethics of communication is linked to the name of Karl Otto Apel: the German philosopher founded his research on the need to construct a universal rational ethics. Thought, says Apel, is always connected to an intersubjective claim to meaning, and for this reason he believes that every argumentation implies a minimum set of rules that he identifies in four fundamental principles:

1. A claim to meaning: each person in arguing is required to give a meaning that is comprehensible between the communicating subjects

2. A claim to truth: a correct semantic relationship between what is asserted and reality

3. A claim to truthfulness: anyone who argues seriously accepts to be persuaded of what they say

4. A claim to rightness: every person is obliged to respect the norms of the community, group or context in which they find themselves.

The principles expressed by netiquette and Apel’s rules are important and could, if respected, guarantee a good quality of communication on the net. However, they suffer the limitation of being little known and of representing a vision that is probably considered too formal. A more concrete approach, aimed at laying the foundations for the development of training projects on the subject, must be able to identify and clarify guidelines and reference principles. Let us therefore try to delve into a few key concepts to try to understand their real value.

The idea of responsibility: stems from an awareness of the complexity of the communication process. Abandoning the static or merely informative vision of interaction, the systemic vision of communication sees the subject within a circular and recursive model characterised by a bond of interdependence: our communicative action influences and depends on the communicative action of the other. Any attempt to evade this level of complexity leads to reductive and partial views of what happens in the interaction, preventing, even before an ethical attitude, a conscious approach to communication.

The importance of the informational aspect: defining an informational objective, pursuing it with simplicity and clarity through one’s own argumentative scheme, implementing a control capable of containing possible errors and misunderstandings, constitute a set of elements of great importance (regardless of individual capabilities) for an ethical approach to managing information flows.

The value of listening: much has been said about listening as a ‘gesture’ of attention and availability to the other, as well as its importance for a full understanding of what has been communicated. Questioning the ethical implications of listening, it is important to go beyond a ‘formal’ dimension, the one observable from the outside, to explore an ‘internal’ dimension. Listening then becomes an exercise capable of drawing a distinction between ‘understanding and sharing’, characterised by an attitude oriented towards trying to understand the ‘world of the other’. Every behaviour, in fact, seen from the side of the person who produces it, makes sense.

The relational dimension: communication is a relational process. Awareness of the importance and value of the relationship is an indispensable prerequisite for an approach geared towards enhancing the intersubjective dimension of the ‘construction of meaning’. But what goes on in the relationship is little known: the study of the pragmatics of communication teaches us that it is not possible to speak of responsibility and an ethical approach to communication without an adequate awareness of the relational dynamic.

The negotiation idea: accepting the complexity of communication inevitably opens up the possibility of having to deal with and resolve conflicts. Negotiation is the only confrontation coordination mechanism capable of resolving conflicts by creating value, a ‘method’ that civilisation has invented to try to replace physical confrontation with words. But if this is to happen, certain rules must be shared, and the main one is: the mutual recognition of the individuals or groups involved in the negotiating confrontation, each of which is called upon to respect the other’s representation of its own identity. In short, one may not agree with the other, one may not share his or her thoughts and ideas, but one can never deny the other the right to express and represent himself or herself for what he or she thinks of him or herself.

Individual freedom: there is no idea of freedom that is independent of a constraint, of a system of relationships to which we are in some way bound. One is always free with respect to something, and one is never free with respect to what one does not know. The risk, therefore, that communication ethics will be seen as a static set of norms only concerns those who have not yet understood the complex nature of communication. An ethical approach to communication can, on the other hand, coexist with maximum freedom of individual expression; for this to be possible, however, in-depth reflection on these issues leading to greater competence and awareness is required.