Review

Reviewed Work(s): Ethics in Human Communication by Richard L. Johannesen

Review by: Joseph Petraglia
Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly , Summer, 1991, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer, 1991), pp.
84-87
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3885430

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Rhetoric Society Quarterly

This content downloaded from

130.43.180.55 on Sun, 01 Jan 2023 18:56:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 84 Alan G. Gross

A second theoretical caveat. Meyers's choice of literary/rhetorical

exegesis leads, as inevitably it must, to the detailed analysis of very few
cases. Meyers is deeply worried about his small sample size-the n = 2
problem as he calls it. Given a statistical model, of course, he cannot make
even cautious generalizations, since the biologists he studies may be wholly
unrepresentative. Meyers is apparently unfamiliar with the rich
methodological and practical literature on case studies in theory building in
political science, particularly the work of Alexander George, Richard Betts
and Ariel Levite. Whatever the final judgement on this work, it is clear that
those studying cases and generalizing from them need no longer be apologetic
about their small n.
Finally, Meyers is concerned that a rhetorical/literary analysis of scientific
texts might support the status quo; as he puts it, it might "undermine effective
social action" (247). He need not worry. But the problem is not in the nature
of the analysis; it is in the nature of American society, its low valorization of
rhetorical studies, as opposed to science. Rhetorical analysis will be
politically effective when rhetoric is taken more, and science less, seriously.

Alan G. Gross
Department of Rhetoric
University of Minnesota

Ethics in Human Communication by Richard L. Johannesen.

3rd Edition. Waveland Press, 1990.

The relationship of ethics to rhetoric and communication has always been

intimate and pervasive. The authors of The Rhetoric of Western Thought note
succinctly that "not to be overlooked in our quest for a satisfactory definition
of rhetoric is the ... compelling fact that a rhetoric grounded in choice carries
with it a strong ethical dimension." As Richard Johannesen's third edition of
Ethics in Human Communication makes clear, in reading about the ethics of
communication, one is in essence reviewing the perennial concerns of rhetoric.
Appeals to reason, emotion, and credibility, the relationship of socially
constructed knowledge to truth, the centrality of audience adaptation, and
above all, choice are as much a part of being ethical as they are a part of
being persuasive.
For those familiar with EHC's earlier editions, it should be noted that
almost every chapter of the third edition has undergone revision. The first
edition's 150 pages were accompanied by a 10-page "for further reading"
section; the third edition is now almost 300 pages in length and contains a 24-
page bibliography listing over 500 references. The expansion is not so much in
depth as it is breadth; for instance, the third edition has been broadened to
include a chapter on ethics in organizational settings (chapter 9), and new sub-
topics are evident throughout, such as "ethics and personal character" and
"codes for political campaign communication."
The basic structure of EHC has remained the same, however. After an
introductory chapter that sets the tone for the rest of book, chapters 2-6 set out
what Johannesen suggests are the seven major "perpectives" on ethics:
political, religious, utilitarian, legal, human nature, dialogical, and situational.

This content downloaded from

130.43.180.55 on Sun, 01 Jan 2023 18:56:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review: Ethics in Human Communication 85

Each perspective is introduced by some general comments and is then broken

down into brief sections centering on prominent issues and/or particular
contributions within the perspective. Chapters 7-10, which focus on identifying
basic ethical issues and across perspectives and the special nature of small
group and organizational contexts, are also introduced and divided into sub-
topics. The final third of the book (chapter 11) provides a new selection of
ethical analyses of communication by Johanessen, Clifford G. Christian, and J.
Vernon Jensen.
Johannesen makes the point early on that it is his intention to present only
a few "starting points" that "should stimulate our thinking and encourage
reflective judgment"(19). Nevertheless, the occasional blur of names,
references, and concepts are bound to strike some readers as alternately "too
much" or "not enough." A typical "whirlwind tour" is the 34-page chapter on
"Basic Issues" which covers no less than 17 topics including "absolute and
relative standards," "the end as justification of means," "ethics and ethos,"
"ethics and non-verbal communication," "different male and female ethical
stances," and "ethics and propaganda." The section on the differences
between male and female ethical stances illustrates what I see as the
seemingly uneven choice of information. These two pages briefly cover Carol
Gilligan's central thesis in In a Different Voice and summarize Anne Wilson
Schaef's White Male system/Female system dichotomy. And that's about it -
time to move on to the next section on "ethics and tastefulness." The brevity
of such sections is often distracting, making it difficult to build a cohesive
representation of each chapter's overall topic. The lack of any hierarchical
structuring of sub-topics creates a sense that Johannesen is choosing, cafeteria-
style, from a broad and varied selection of ethical issues having little to do
with one another apart from a broad conceptual relatedness.
Some omissions stand out as well. Two major perspectives on ethics of
special interest to academics have been all but ignored: emotivism and
developmentalism. Although neither of these perspectives has much appeal to
professional ethicists, I would argue that they are the source of many ethical
commonplaces many academics tacitly accept. The central tenet of emotivist
ethics, reflecting its positivist roots, is that ethics are meaningless; not
unimportant, but pointless to debate as they lack "substance." An emotivist
argues that moral judgments are based entirely on the way one feels about an
issue rather than on any verifiably "true" principles. A developmental
perspective, on the other hand, suggests that ethics are not learned, but "grown
into." As individuals mature, we gain capacities for higher-order moral and
intellectual understanding similar to our gains in cognitive capacity. Many
people in rhetoric-related fields are familiar with the work of intellectual and
moral developmentalists such as William Perry, Lawrence Kohlberg, their
supporters and their critics. One might argue that many of our pedagogical
agendas can be traced to either an emotivist perspective that refuses to engage
in arguments of valorization or to a developmental perspective that posits
innate moral capacities that require facilitation rather than formation.
Johannesen's failure to clearly identify these as perspectives is one I find
difficult to reconcile with the book's overall comprehensiveness.
Scattered throughout the book and thus difficult to grasp, are the important
ethical issues associated with diverse political and cultural values.
Johannesen's focus on the "political perspective" is limited to that of western-

This content downloaded from

130.43.180.55 on Sun, 01 Jan 2023 18:56:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86 Joseph Petraglia

liberal government. Under the rubric 'political systems,' Nazi, Soviet, and
Burundian (an exemplar of pre-industrial) political contexts are given a
paragraph each. Contemporary leftist and feminist perspectives are not spoken
of as political, though they seem to be fundamental to most contemporary
discussions of political ethics with which most readers are likely to be familiar.
Similarly, I would not be the first to argue that ethics across cultures, inter-
and intra-nationally, are a major source of the ethical dilemmas we face and
merit some discussion in any survey of communications.
Apart from these few-but important-omisions, most of what I've
presented as shortcomings of EHC center on the book's rapid-fire, eclectic, and
sometimes sketchy treatment of the many ethical aspects of communication.
On the other hand, those same traits could also be positively cast as usually
successful attempts at comprehensiveness, interdisciplinarity, and
succinctness. Considering that Johanessen is providing an overview of a huge
and often fuzzy domain, it is this second view that most closely reflects my
feelings. Johanessen suggests that the book seeks to examine the "attempts of
some scholars to specify the ethical criteria they feel are necessary to promote
healthy human communication"(3). The book does not argue for a structured
and theoretically clean conception of ethics in communication but, rather,
pulls together diverse sources of theory and empirical research that have ethics
as a common denominator.
The chapters which present the seven ethical perspectives and ethical
contexts are perhaps the most useful with the discussions drawn from a variety
of disciplines, including philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, speech
communication, politics, and law. Johannesen brings such interdisciplinary to
bear on each perspective effortlessly, reinforcing by example his message that
ethics is not the province of any single field. Though usually comprehensive,
Johannesen is, at the same time, careful in his choice of authorities and
citations. Turn to the pages of any topic and, with few exceptions, you are
assured that the canonical bases have been covered-an important
consideration for the non-expert. The group of essays on rhetoric in Chap
intended to illustrate how ethical perspectives serve as a basis for analysis,
does not seem quite at home with the encylopedic breadth of the preceding
sections. Nevertheless, I think most readers would benefit from reading these
fine analyses, in particular Johannessen's own critique of "Haigspeak" and
Christian's discussion of social reponsibility and new technology.
As I have suggested, EHC's comprehensiveness has a certain double-
edged sword quality; while we learn a little about a lot of subjects, reading the
book cover to cover can be frustrating. My personal recommendation is similar
to the punchline of the old doctor joke: "well, then don't read it from cover to
cover." Instead of as a textbook, I find its real value as a supplementary
reference. The depth of Johanessen's scholarship is evident, impressive and
authoritative. As a reference book I have found it invaluable and am aware of
no other work that approaches its scope in dealing with ethics in rhetoric or
communication. A third edition in almost any field is practically a certifiable
classic; in an area as prone to shifting mores, topicality, and political
correctness as ethics, EHC's 15-year popularity is nothing short of remarkable.

This content downloaded from

130.43.180.55 on Sun, 01 Jan 2023 18:56:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review: Ethics in Human Communication 87

From the post-Vietnam era through the "me generation" and into the "kinder
and gentler" decade, longevity itself is perhaps sufficient testament to
Johannesen's accomplishment.
Joseph Petraglia
Bowling Green State University

Work Cited

Golden, James L., Goodwin F, Berquist and William Coleman. The Rhetoric of
Western Thought. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1976.

Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action by

James V. Wertsch. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1991. 147 pp. +
references and name and subject index.

It has now been thirty years since Vygotsky's Thought and Language (1962
abridged) was translated into English. Although Thought and Language seems
to be cited more often now than in the past, it remains, I think, a somewhat
confusing book for many of its readers. Wertsch's earlier Vygotsky and the
Social Formation of Mind (VSFM) helped to clarify and give shape to many of
Vygotsky's ideas, illustrating that our humaneness is a complex interaction of
biology, history, experience, and social customs-especially language:
"Vygotsky managed to tie various strands of inquiry together into a unique
approach that does not separate individuals from the socio-cultural setting in
which they function" (VSFM 16). In Voices of the Mind, Wertsch continues
this project, but develops a theoretical and methodological framework that
draws on Bakhtin's notion of voices and Vygotsky's concept of mediated
action. For the new reader to Vygotsky and Wertsch, I would recommend
Wertsch's earlier Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind and Vygotsky's
Thought and Language (1986) and Mind in Society (1978) as excellent
background reading. New readers, however, need not fear. Voices of the Mind
is an approachable text. As I read VoicesA it became apparent that this book
would have helped me a few years ago not only to understand Vygotsky's and
Bakhtin's ideas but also to understand how they can effectively work together.
Bakhtin supplements Vygotsky's underdeveloped notion of social mediation by
showing us many of the social characteristics of language.
Using Vygotsky's and Bakhtin's theories to develop his overall framework
for a sociocultural approach to mind, Wertsch's text becomes useful for
research and methodology courses in composition studies. Having used Daiker
and Morenberg's The Writing Teacher as Researcher, Lauer and Asher's
Composition and Research, and North's The Making of Knowledge in
Composition in a graduate research and methodology seminar made me realize
that compositionists need not set up the debate between an atomistic scientific
approach and the varied approaches they presently employ, e.g., ethnographic,
clinical. Wertsch's book, as I discuss below, has a strong alternative research
perspective that the above mentioned texts do not discuss. Daiker and
Morenberg concentrate on valuable teacher-generated research, Lauer and

This content downloaded from

130.43.180.55 on Sun, 01 Jan 2023 18:56:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms