angelastalcup.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewChildren are born in corporate hospitals...

Running Head: FIREFLY AS DWELLING PLACE 1

“Have no place that I can be”: Organizational Dwelling Place in Josh Whedon’s Firefly

Angela Stalcup

Queens University of Charlotte

April 27, 2014

DRAFT: FIREFLY AS DWELLING PLACE 2

We live our lives in organizations. We are born in organizations, and organizations attend

us all the way to our end. Stanely Deetz (1991) describes a womb-to-tomb experience of

corporations in the life of a typical Westerner:

Children are born in corporate hospitals environmentally structured with corporate

values…, go to corporate sites with their parents to participate in corporate-run daycare,

and from there go to schools where they primarily learn positive work-related skills and

attitudes. (p. 15)

In the middle of it all, in our working life, studies indicate that 58% of high earning individuals

work 70 hours or more a week (Hewlett & Luce, 2006). Throw in time spent checking email in

the evenings and weekends, we spend vast quantities of time and energy in organizational

activities. Given the amount of time we spend in workplace settings, perhaps more time than we

spend at home or in personal pursuits, we don’t just spend time in organizations—we live there.

Organizational communication ethics addresses issues of life in organizations, in

particular with the concept of dwelling place. Dwelling place suggests that organizations are

more than physical structures; “dwellings are integrally intertwined with the human experience

that occurs in them” (Lollar, 2013, p. 24), and that organizations must protect and promote the

nature of their dwelling place as “a communicative home” (Arnett, Harden-Fritz, & Bell, 2009,

p. 138). What is the responsibility of an organization to make the workplace a dwelling place?

How does an organization navigate the multiplicity of difference among its members to create an

organizational dwelling place that serves its members as well as is congruent with the purpose

and mission of the organization?


I propose to explore these questions and this communication ethic of dwelling place

through an analysis of a fictional organization, the crew of the space freighter Serenity, as occurs

in the television series Firefly (2002) and the subsequent film Serenity (2005), designed as the

television series’ finale. The series explores classic Western archetypes (the Preacher, the

Doctor, the Gunslinger, the Whore with a Heart of Gold, etc.) in a science fiction landscape. A

ragtag band of diverse people is brought together and must learn to navigate differences to

survive. Not only do these characters experience a physical element of organizational place (a

space ship), they also develop into a community over the course of the series.

I will examine the text of the series through the theoretical frameworks of dwelling place

and dialogic communication ethic to examine how dwelling place is created in an organization

through its communicative practices and discuss how the example of a fictional organization can

apply to real-world organizations today.

Literature Review

Communication ethics traces its roots from Aristotle to contemporary thought (Arnett,

1988; Arnett et al, 2009; Jaksa & Pritchard, 1994; Jenson, 1997; Makau & Arnett, 1997). Arnett

et al. (2009) describe communication ethics as an approach related to navigating relationships

with “the Other,” other human beings with their own values, assumptions, and views, their own

idea of the “the Good… what is most important and held in highest regard [that] finds protection

and promotion in our communicative practices” (p. 3). Jaksa and Pritchard (1994) emphasize

ethics as “discerning what values are worthy of our acceptance” (p.4). Jensen (1997) defines

ethics as “the moral responsibility to choose, intentionally and voluntarily, oughtness in values…

which may in a communicative transaction significantly affect ourselves and others” (p. 4).

Makau (2002) emphasizes ethics as an act of care for the Other, and Makau and Arnett (1997)


call attention to the effect of the postmodern moment in communication ethics. Drawing on

Jaksa and Pritchard, Jenson, Makau, and Makau and Arnett, Arnett et al. situate communication

ethics “as a creative juncture between… philosophy of communication and applied

communication… [such that] we take a given philosophy of communication, and understanding

of the good, and apply it in interaction with others” (p. 32).

Once such interaction of philosophy and applied communication is dialogic ethics. Arnett

et al. (2009) propose that in “today’s postmodern moment, multiple goods compete for

allegiance, and learning and dialogue are keys to communication ethics in this historical

moment” (p. 21). Lollar (2013) suggests that “ethical relationships are formed in dialogue, a

specific type of utterance” (p. 23). In dialogic ethics, dialogue is more than simply “telling” or

exchanging information (Arnett et al., 2009; Buber, 1955; Lollar, 2013). Buber (as cited in

Arnett et al., 2009) differentiates between the “telling” of monologue and technical dialogue

(sharing of facts) and genuine dialogue, dialogue that “emerges as a by-product, not planned or

engineered, but ever so responsive to the unexpected moments of communicative moments” (p.

84). Arnett et al. expand on Buber’s genuine dialogue “as the communicative exchange of agents

embedded in a particular historical moment, a particular sociocultural standpoint, and a particular

set of experiences, [that] requires us to stand on our own ground while being open to the Other’s

standpoint” (p. 55). Lollar sees dialogue as more than a spoken or written act: “we experience the

Other through a total communication—verbal and nonverbal—experience: seeing, hearing,

touching, tasting, and smelling” (p. 27).

Communications ethics has been explored in the literature in the context of organizations.

Arnett et al. (2009) and Lollar (2013) focus on the Good of dwelling place as central to

organizational communication ethics. Lepper, (2007) and Mattson and Buzzanell (1999) explore


organizational communication ethics through the lens of feminist theory. Lepper proposes that

organizational communication ethics has a practical use in organizations, particularly related to

issues of race. Mattson and Buzzanell use organizational communication ethics to address

“feminist ethical concerns to messages and message-related practices” (p. 49). Thus

organizational communication ethics stands as its own ethic.

Within the theory of organizational communication ethic, certain scholars have applied

French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’ concept of dwelling place to the Good protected and

promoted by this ethic (Arnett et al., 2009; Lollar, 2013; Xu, 2013). Arnett et al. (2009) propose

that dwelling place is the central Good of organizational communication ethics. Lollar (2013)

suggests that organizations should apply Levinas’ dwelling place to creating a sense of “home”

in organizations, “to extend the possibilities of hospitable communication and shelter that

promotes peaceful relationships with the other” (p. 26). Xu (2013) extends dwelling place to the

application of intercultural ethic within organizations, suggesting that the dwelling place concept

supports the navigation of difference by creating a Good that “celebrate[s] difference, otherness,

and plurality” (p. 379). Therefore, the theoretic framework of dwelling place has an application

in the practice of organizational communication ethics.

There is already a small body of academic research on the texts of Firefly (2002) and

Serenity (2005), primarily related to media studies, with some analysis of the philosophy of the

series. Jones (2011), Amy-Chinn (2009), and Espenson (2004, 2006) explore the series through

the lens of media studies. Jones and Espenson examine a range of themes related to media

studies, where Amy-Chinn (2006) focuses on feminist media studies and gender roles in fiction.

Wilcox and Cochran (2008) and Kreider and Kowalski (2011) explore artistic and philosophical

elements of the series, with Kreider and Kowalski dedicating an essay to Aristotelian and


Kantian ethics as expressed in the series. Hill (2009) explores the series as an example of post-

9/11 literature exploring the cultural trauma of loss.

While there is much in the literature related to organizational communication and

organizational ethics, there is not as much related to organizational communication ethics in

general, and to the idea of dwelling place specifically. Further, there is no literature researching

how organizations might strategically use the concept of dwelling place to navigate difference in

organizational members. And, while there is existing literature on the series Firefly (2002) and

ethics, there is no current research on Firefly and organizational communication ethics. Thus,

there is a gap in the literature allowing for investigation of my proposed topic.

Before exploring the methodology and data of the project, I will present a more in-depth

exploration of the theoretical framework for the project, dwelling place and dialogic ethic.

Theoretical Framework

We live our lives in organizations. It is impossible to consider communication ethics

without considering those ethics related to organizations. Dwelling place is an essential element

of organizational communication ethics. The notion of organizations as a dwelling place is drawn

from the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1969, 1997). While human beings may live

in physical spaces, a “dwelling” means more than a building or physical space. Karen Lollar

(2013), a Levinas scholar, describes his approach:

According to Levinas (1969), humans live an embodied existence in physical places

where we eat, enjoy, and suffer the natural elements. We construct homes and dwellings,

carrying on social and economic activities in daily life. But our dwelling is more than a


physical structure; dwellings are integrally intertwined with the human experience that

occurs in them. (p. 24)

In organizational communication ethics, the dwelling place is not only shaped by the discourse

of the organization, “organizational communication ethics represents the ‘dwelling’ place

(Levinas, 1969, p. 152) of communicative practices that form our life together (Bonhoeffer,

1978)” (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 137).

Organizational communication ethics, unlike some other forms of ethical context, does

not favor one single Good; rather, each organization protects and promotes its version of Good

that it uses as part of its identity, as part of its DNA that makes it different from all similar

organizations. Thus, the underlying good of organizational communication ethics is the

protection and promotion of the nature of its dwelling place, “a communicative home … a

gathering of communicative practices and stories that gives an organization a sense of

uniqueness” (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 138). A particular good will define an organizational

dwelling place, and this good “then shapes communicative practices and our interpretive

engagement with a community of memory” (p. 141).

The ethics of dwelling place are not about “good” versus “bad,” nor are they about

creating a space of ethical neutrality. Rather, “each organization constructs a particular sense of

dwelling that welcomes some and dismisses others” (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 141). Individual

members of organizations bring their own “petite narratives” (p. 38) of the Good, and the

organization must balance internal goods as it carries out its work in the world. This requires a

constant navigation of competing goods, with the life of the organization hanging in the balance

based on the success of this navigation. In particular, two competing positions must be balanced:

the “true believer” or “settler” of the organization, who never questions the organization, and the


uninformed member or critic, who constantly criticizes. The danger, according to Arnett et al.

(2009) is the “dwelling place loses its vitality and declines because of smugness of mission or

utter disrespect for the organization, with both actions taking the future of the place for granted”

(p.141).

Organizational identity, and the nature of the dwelling place, rests in what Levinas (1998)

describes as the dialectic between the Saying and the Said. The Saying refers to “the current

living practices that manifest a given good” while “the ‘said’ refers to memories of past and

current public practices that form a substrate for future communicative action” (Arnett et al.,

2009. p. 142). In other words, on one hand there is what an organization says they hold as the

Good (the Said), while on the other hand, there is what the organization is actually doing in the

current moment (the Saying). The Said, the public story of the organization, is essential for

stability; however, the Said cannot remain static. The Saying “the attentive response to a

changing historical moment” (p. 143) allows the organization to adapt to challenges and

opportunities.

The Saying and the Said are grounded in the dialectic between institutions and

organizations. The two work together, as “Institutions provide the ‘background’ and

organizations provide the ‘foreground’” for identity (Arnett et. al,. 2009, p. 144). Institutions

provide organizations with a recognizable sense of identity, while the nature of the dwelling

place of the individual organization gives the organization a unique identity in comparison to

other organizations belonging to the same institution. The sum of organizations in an institution,

in turn, shape the identity of the institution. Thus, while “Organizations find their identity within

the shadow of an institution” (p. 144) institutions owe their identities to their component


organizations. Thus, from the perspective of organizational communication, “identity does not

happen alone or in a vacuum” (p. 144), and all identity is formed through discourse and dialogue.

While individual organizational members will engage in many forms of communication

(telling, sharing information, dialogue), the nature of the organizational dwelling place rests with

the “communicative social practices that shape and drive the structures and functions of a given

organization (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 148). In defining the nature of the dwelling, “an

organization’s structured manner of inviting and discouraging certain communicative practices

and functions announces what good a given organization seeks to promote and protect.”

However, the unstructured communicative practices, most likely seen in the Saying, often reflect

the actual Good an organization is protecting, in spite of the official Said.

To use the theory of dwelling place thoughtfully and purposely in an organizational setting,

Arnett et al. (2009) propose a Dialogic Model of Organizational Communication Ethics. The

general Dialogic Model, which they apply to many ethics contexts, is as follows:

1. Listening without demand. What is happening in a given moment? Whether we like or

dislike that moment, we must engage the question(s) of a given moment.

2. Attentiveness: What are the coordinating grounds upon which stand the self, the Other,

and the historical moment?

a. The ground of self (the ethical/narrative commitments that guide us) and

b. The ground of Other (the ethical/narrative commitments that that guide the

Other).

c. The ground of the historical moment (elements of the time in which we live,

including “relational time” of the persons in conversation.


3. Dialogic negotiation: What temporal communicative ethics answers emerge “between”

persons, pointing to communicative options for action, belief, and understanding?

4. Listening, attentiveness, and dialogic negotiation constitute temporal dialogic ethical

competence. What worked, and what changes might now assist?

a. Evaluation/self-reflection (reflection upon one’s own ethical/narrative

commitments).

b. From knowledge to learning (the key is not to “tell,” but to learn from the Other,

the historical moment, and reflective understanding of communicative action).

5. Dialogic ethics listens to what is before organizational members, attends to the historical

moment, and seeks to negotiate new possibilities. Dialogic ethics is a conceptual form of

marketplace engagement, ever attentive to conversational partners and their “ground,” the

historical moment, and emerging “possible” that takes place in the “between” of human

meeting. (pp. 151-153)

When applied to organizational communication, the following specifics apply:

1. Listening without demand involves “attentiveness to what constitutes a given dwelling

place” (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 151).

2. Attentiveness to the coordinating grounds of the self, the Other, and the historical

moment relates to an attentiveness to the “character of a given dwelling place” (p. 151)

such that the ethical/narrative commitments that guide self, Other, and historical moment

indicate an awareness of something beyond the individual members, an awareness of the

relationship of all elements to their “communicative life together in organizational

settings” (pp. 151-152).


3. Dialogic negotiation requires that the “organizational understanding of a dwelling place

must be negotiated again and again” (p. 152).

4. Temporal dialogic ethical competence, the combination of listening, attentiveness, and

dialogic negation, involves evaluation and a move from “knowledge to learning.” This is

reflected in organizations as:

a. Reflection on the Good of the dwelling place and what “changes in

communicative practice are needed in the historical moment” (p. 152).

b. An ongoing engagement in dialogue on communicative practices essential to the

inevitably changing nature of the nature of the dwelling place.

5. The emerging “possible” in organizational ethics involves “connecting one’s

responsibility to a particular dwelling place, not demanding that the organization do

things “my way” (p, 153).

I will now describe the method I will use in applying dwelling place and dialogic ethic to the

text of Firefly (2002) and Serenity (2005).

Methodology

For this investigation of dwelling place as ethic, I will conduct an ethical analysis of the

text of the organization of the crew of the spaceship Serenity in the television series Firefly

(2002) and the subsequent film Serenity (2005).

Arnett et al. (2009) propose six “metaphors of communication ethics praxis”: democratic;

universal-humanitarian; codes, procedures, and standards; contextual; narrative; dialogic (pp. 44-

45). For this analysis I have chosen to focus on dialogic communications ethics, "the protector

and the promoter of the emergent, the unexpected, and the unforeseen--it is the communicative


home of hope for an idea, a viewpoint, or an action that has not yet been apparent" (p. 55). There

is something almost magical about the idea of "the unexpected revelation that emerges between

and among persons, a revelation owned by no one and meaningfully important to many."

While the narrative paradigm can function as its own communication ethic, I am

choosing to focus on the role of narrative as the “communicative background that offers

interpretive guidance for decision making” in all communication ethics approaches (Arnett et al.,

2009, p. 38). Narrative particularly relates to the notion of organizational dwelling place, as it

serves as “a location for values… a dwelling place (italics added) from which the good is

articulated and then brought into persuasive engagement… to protect and promote a given sense

of the good” (p. 38). The narrative approach seems particularly appropriate to a textual analysis

of a fictional story, with that story based on archetypal roles. That which is typically located in

the background of communicative action, the narrative, is brought to the foreground for the

viewer/reader of a story. What the characters cannot see, the viewer can.

Using these theoretical frameworks of dwelling place and narrative, I will identify the

background narrative of the organization comprised of the crew of Serenity. I will then identify

communicative social practices, structured and unstructured, and examine what practices are

encouraged and discouraged. I will then explore how the dialectic of institutions and

organizations contributes to the nature of the dwelling place that is Serenity as an organization,

and then I will explore how the organization navigates competing Goods to determine its unique

Good in any minimally agreed-upon Goods.

I will conclude with an analysis of the text for evidence (or absence) of Arnett et al.’s

(2009) Dialogic Model of Organizational Communication Ethics and using this model propose

alternate resolutions.


Data

For this project, I will analyze portions of Josh Whedon’s television series Firefly (2002)

and the film Serenity (2005), a film designed as the Firefly series wrap-up. For the purposes of

this analysis, I will consider the television series and film together as one complete text. Short-

lived in its first run, with only 14 episodes filmed, the show has become a cult classic. In a genre

scramble, Firefly is a combination science fiction/Western, a space Western, set 500 years from

the present in a dystopian future where the Earth has been destroyed and a new set of planets

repopulated by humankind. The story focuses on the adventures of the crew of the space

freighter, Serenity. As Matthew Hill (2009) describes, “Whedon’s is the story of the defeated,

survivors who linger at the margins of a dominant culture and must find a way to survive in the

wake of traumatic defeat” (p. 489).

From nearly 17 hours of television and film material, I have selected specific content to

represent the major themes associated with dwelling place. The text includes: the lyrics to the

series theme “The Ballad of Serenity Valley,” the background of “The ‘Verse”, the storyline, the

character narratives, the crew origin story, and selected scenes.

“The Ballad of Serenity Valley”

The lyrics to the theme song:

Take my love.Take my land.Take me where I cannot stand.I don't care,I'm still free.You can't take the sky from me.

Take me out to the black.Tell them I ain't comin' back.Burn the land


And boil the sea.You can't take the sky from me.Have no place I can beSince I found Serenity.But you can't take the sky from me. (Whedon, 2002)

The ‘Verse

The backstory of this world, known as “The ‘Verse,” is contained in the voice over of the

opening credits of most episodes:

Here's how it is: Earth got used up, so we terraformed a whole new galaxy of Earths, some rich and flush with new technologies, some not so much. Central Planets, them as formed the Alliance, waged war to bring everyone under their rule; a few idiots tried to fight it, among them myself. I'm Malcolm Reynolds, captain of Serenity. She's a transport ship, Firefly class. Got a good crew: fighters, pilot, mechanic. We even picked up a preacher for some reason, and a bona fide companion. There's a doctor, too, took his genius sister from some Alliance camp, so they're keeping a low profile, (you understand). You got a job, we can do it. Don't much care what it is (Whedon, 2002).

The ‘Verse is a cosmic mash-up of horseback shootouts and starships battling in the vastness of

space. Old style six shooters coexist with futuristic laser weapons, and barroom brawls break out

over holographic pool tables. The culture is also a mash-up; China-meets-United States, the

remaining superpowers at the end of the old Earth. Characters speak English, but curse in

Chinese.

Storyline

The central characters of the story, as described in the voice over, fall into two categories,

crew and passengers. The crew consists of: Captain Malcom (Mal) Reynolds; Zoe Washburne,

first mate; “Wash” Washburne, pilot and Zoe’s husband; Kaylee Frye, ship’s mechanic; Jayne

Cobb, hired gun. The passengers consist of: Inara Serra, Companion, a type of courtesan or

geisha; Shepherd Book, a Christian minister; Simon Tam, a doctor; River Tam, his sister, a


fugitive from the Alliance. Together, this disparate group must navigate the challenges and

dangers of The ‘Verse.

They face multiple levels of challenge. First, the crew must earn a living while existing

outside the formal structures of the Alliance. To that end they engage in both legal and illegal

activities, staying mostly on the outer edges of the Central Planets, in the futuristic equivalent of

“the Wild West.” In the midst of trying to earn a living, they must try to avoid capture by the

authorities and must outwit other “outlaws” they encounter. Further, those on the edges of The

‘Verse must face the threat of the Reavers, cannibalistic, nomadic, pirates who execute the worst

of atrocities against any who cross their path.

The central tension of the series involves the presence of the Tams on the ship. River

Tam is a psychically-gifted child prodigy, held captive and subjected to mind-control

experiments by Alliance agents. Simon Tam sacrifices his privileged station as a doctor to rescue

his sister and go on the run. River’s background is a mystery, even to herself. She is so

psychologically and emotionally damaged by the Alliance experimentation on her that she

cannot express what has happened to her. Many episodes deal with internal disputes and external

threats caused by the presence of River Tam and her pursuit by Alliance authorities.

The Firefly (2002) series concludes with the motion picture Serenity (2005). The film

resolves the mystery of River Tam, revealing that she has been programmed to be a human

weapon by the Alliance. As a result of her psychic abilities, she became privy to (yet consciously

unaware of) the Alliance’s darkest secret: mind control experiments on human populations have

led to the creation of the Reavers. The series concludes with the crew exposing the secret of the

origin of the Reavers to The ‘Verse, thereby freeing the Tams by rendering River no longer a


threat. However, this freedom comes at a high cost, as Shepherd Book and Wash are killed in

battles with the Alliance.

Character Narratives

In flashbacks throughout the series, we learn the backstories of the characters. Mal is a

former Sergeant in the Independents’ army (the “Browncoats”), a veteran of the Unification War,

who fought (and lost) in the war’s divisive battle of Serenity Valley. Zoe served with Mal as a

Corporal in the war, and was also present at the battle of Serenity Valley. Rather than live under

the control of the Alliance, he decides to make his own way by purchasing a ship and becoming

a freelance transportation company. He invites Zoe to join him in this endeavor:

MAL:

I tell ya, Zoe, we find ourselves a mechanic, get her running again. Hire on a good

pilot. Maybe even a cook. Live like people. Small crew, them as feel the need to be

free. Take jobs as they come –and we’ll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.

No matter how long the arm of the Alliance might get . . . we’ll just get us a little further.

(Minear & Solomon, 2002)

From there they hire a crew and sets about the business of business. They hire Wash as pilot,

who later marries Zoe, and Kaylee joins later as mechanic. Jayne Cobb rounds out the official

crew, a hired gun who is always on the lookout for a better offer.

Inara Serra, is a Companion, a type of courtesan or geisha. Companions are part of the

elite of the Alliance culture, and operate under a license. Inara, a Companion in good standing,

leaves a life of privilege and prestige for the life of a freelancer on the fringes. Late in the series,

we learn from a former Companion that Inara’s choice to leave her former station is unusual:

“And I'll tell you, it was a shock, her leaving. She was special. There's forty women in House


Madrassa and you'd pick her out in a second. Coulda been House Priestess, few years’ time”

(Matthews & Wright, 2003). At the end of the Firefly (2002) series Inara leaves Serenity to

return to the House Madrassa; however, she returns early in the film Serenity (2005) and rejoins

the crew.

The Tams are the children of wealth and privilege, pinnacles of the Alliance destroyed by

the Alliance. River, identified as a psychic genius as a teenager, is recruited to a special school,

only to become the victim of mind control experiments. Simon Tam, a prominent surgeon in the

heart of the Central Planets, rejects his life and family to save his sister. In a telling flashback, we

learn that when Simon has become convinced that River is in danger, he is arrested attempting to

contact her. His father, who is called to bail him out, chastises Simon for causing trouble to the

family by opposing the Alliance, and threatens to disown him if he continues in this path. Thus,

the Tams arrive to Serenity as fugitives abandoned by government and family.

The background of Shepherd book remains a mystery throughout the series. We know

that he spent an extended period of time at Southdown Abbey, as he tells Kaylee in the first

episode, “Been out of the world for a spell... like to walk it a while. Maybe bring the word to

them as need it told” (Whedon & Minear, 2002). Later we learn he had a life before the Abbey as

he reveals “I wasn’t always a Shepherd” (Minear, 2002). The Shepherd questions his decision to

join an outlaw crew, but he remains with the crew until the beginning of the series finale, when

he leaves to operate a mission called Haven.

Serenity Crew Origin Story

The crew is formed after Mal’s purchase of Serenity. Zoe and Wash are original crew

members. Kaylee and Jayne join later. While Kaylee is the ship’s mechanic for the duration of


the series, we learn that she is not the ship’s original mechanic—she was the paramour of the

original mechanic, and she proves in a moment of discovery that she is able to diagnose and

repair the ship’s engine better than the existing mechanic. Mal immediately fires the first

mechanic and hires Kaylee. Jayne is also a late addition—Jayne is converted from captor to crew

member by a job offer by Mal.

Inara bridges the line between crew member and passenger. Inara rents a shuttle craft for

use as a freelance Companion. While Inara’s primary residence is with the crew of Serenity, she

is still identified as among the passengers in the voice over. Companions are part of the elite of

the Alliance culture, and operate under a license. Even though she financially contributes to the

crew, and gives the ship a level of credibility (the crew calls her “The Ambassador”), she does

not participate in the active operations of the ship; therefore, at least at the beginning of the

series, she is not considered an “official” crew member.

The other passengers did not enter Serenity with the intention of becoming crew

members. In the series opener, Mal has decided to take on passengers in an attempt to earn extra

money. Three people, Shepherd Book, Dr. Simon Tam, and Dodson (background unknown),

book passage to a planet (we find later that a fourth passenger, River Tam, has been smuggled

aboard). The trip is interrupted when it is revealed that the Tams are fugitives and Dodson is

Federal (Alliance) agent seeking their arrest. The agent is killed, and the Tams are no longer able

to proceed to their destination. When Mal learns the story of the Tams, he is moved by Simon’s

devotion to his sister, and as someone who despises the Alliance, chooses to help the Tams by

inviting the Simon to become the ship’s doctor, thus moving him from passenger to crew.

Shepherd Book remains onboard to become ship’s cook and general moral counsel for the crew.

Thus is born the new crew of Serenity as we enter the Firefly (2002) narrative.


Selected Scenes

Scene: Why take in the Tams? In the series opener, “Serenity,” Shepherd Books asks

Mal why he had decided to take in the Tams, knowing the danger they posed.

BOOKNot many would take them in, either. Why did you?

MALSame reason I took you on board, Shepherd. I need the fare.

BOOKThere's neither of can pay a tenth what your crew makes on one of your "jobs".

MALAre you referring to our perfectly legitimate business enterprises?

BOOKI'm wondering why a man so anxious to fly under Alliance radar would house known fugitives. The Alliance had her in that institution for a purpose, whatever it was, and they will want her back. You're not overly fond of the boy, so why risk it?

MALOnly cause it's the right thing to do. (Whedon, 2002)

In another scene, Jayne asks a similar question:

JAYNEThe lawman said they'd keep looking for her. Something about her brain being all special. Important to the Alliance brass. Sooner we dump them two, the better.

MALSuppose so. (Whedon, 2002)

Scene: “You’re on my crew.” In the episode “Safe,” the Tams are kidnapped, and it

appears they have been abandoned by Serenity. However, at the last minute, Serenity sweeps in

and saves them.


SIMONCaptain... why did you come back for us?

MALYou're on my crew.

SIMONYeah, but you don't even like me. Why'd you come back?

MALYou're on my crew. Why we still talking about this? (Greenberg & Grossman, 2002)

Scene: “Guests?” In the opening scenes of the film Serenity (2005), Simon Tam tries to

oppose the Captains decision to take River on a “job.”

SIMONShe's not going with you. That’s final.

MALI hear the words "that's final" come out of your mouth ever again, they truly will be. This is my boat. Y'all are guests on it.

SIMONGuests? I earn my passage, Captain --

MALAnd it's time your little sister learned from your fine example.

SIMONI've earned my passage treating bullet holes, knife wounds, laser burns...

[…]

SIMONDo you understand what I've gone through to keep River away from the Alliance?

MALI do, and it's a fact me and mine have been courteous enough to keep to our own selves.

SIMONAre you threatening to --

MAL


I got one purpose here: keep this boat in the air. I take the jobs I get -- which is less and less, case you ain't been keeping track. Every year since the war the Alliance pushes just a little further out towards the rim. Makes it a chore for naughty men like us to slip about – and keeping you two on board means working twice as hard to avoid the law. Means turning down a score of honest jobs. (Whedon, 2005)

Scene: The train job. In “The Train Job,” Mal and the crew take on a contract to rob

an Alliance train on a remote mining planet. However, they discover that the booty is medicine

needed to treat the sick miners of the planet:

MALWe're not going.

WASHNot? What? Not why?

ZOEWe're bringin' the cargo back....

WASHWhat are you talking about? What about Niska? Won't this put him in more or less a killing mood?

MALThere's others need this more. (Whedon & Minear, 2002)

Scene: “Keep your money.” In the episode “Heart of Gold,” Inara asks Mal to help her

friend, Nandi, a former Companion who has become madam of a brothel. Nandi and her staff are

being threatened by a corrupt and powerful man.

INARA

If you agree to do this, you'll be compensated. I'll see to it. I've put a little aside...

MAL

You can keep your money. Won’t be needing no payment. (Matthews & Wright, 2003)


Scene: “No one’s gonna force you.” In the same episode as the scene “Keep your

money,” Zoe tells the crew there is no guarantee of payment on this job:

ZOEThose who have a mind are welcome to join. Those who just as soon stay on the ship can do that, too.

JAYNEHmm. Don't much see the benefit in getting involved in strangers' troubles without a upfront price negotiated.

BOOKThese people need assistance. The benefit wouldn't necessarily be for you.

JAYNES'what I'm sayin'

ZOENo one's gonna force you to go, Jayne. As has been stated -- this job is strictly speculative. (Matthews & Wright, 2003)

Scene: “I ain’t takin’ orders." In this scene from the film Serenity (2005), Jayne

questions Mal’s order to the crew:

JAYNEI ain't takin' orders from a man has lost his brainstem --...

MALThis is how it works. Anybody doesn't wanna fly with me anymore, this is your port of harbor.... So I hear a word out of any of you that ain't helping me out or taking your leave I will fucking shoot you. (Whedon, 2005)

Scene: The report. In the follow up to the shocking reveal in Serenity (2005) that the

Reavers are the products of an Alliance experiment and that this is the secret River carries, Mal

addresses the crew:

MALThis report is maybe twelve years old. Parliament buried it, and it stayed buried til River dug it up. This is what they feared she knew. And they were right to fear, 'cause there's a


universe of folk that are gonna know it too. They're gonna see it. Somebody has to speak for these people.

You all got on this boat for different reasons, but you all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. 'Cause as sure as I know anything I know this: They will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave.

JAYNEMy grandma always told me: if you can't do something smart, do something right. (Whedon, 2005)

Analysis

For the analysis, I will begin with an examination “place-ness” and of the narrative of the

story as a “location of values” (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 38). Next, I will examine the organizational

identity of Serenity as the “dialectic dance” of institutions versus organizations, both as impacts

the crew as a whole and the individual crew members. From there I will identify the

communicative practices that contribute to the “linguist architecture” (Hyde, 2006, as cited in

Lollar, 2013, p. 25) of Serenity as a dwelling place. I will then identify the Saying and the Said,

and analysis how these work (or do not) in the “dialect dance.” From the Saying and the Said, I

will identify the competing Goods of the organization, and identify any minimally agreed upon

Good that arises. Finally, I will examine the text for evidence or absence of Arnett et al.’s (2009)

Dialogic Model of Organizational Communication Ethics (pp. 151-153).

Place-ness in Firefly

The idea of place is central to the world of Firefly (2002). The lyrics of the theme song

speak to a loss of physical dwelling place: “Love” and “land” are destroyed, and the only safe

dwelling place that remains is “the sky.” Thus, the backdrop of the series, space, constitutes a

physical dwelling place. A second dwelling place, mentioned in the show theme, is the physical


domain of the space ship Serenity. To dwell in the sky requires some sort of space craft, and

Serenity is the home of those who have fled the burning of the land and the boiling of the sea.

However, the dwelling place of organizational communication ethics is more than a

physical space. It is “the location of values,” an organizational identity shaped by communicative

practices. We get an indication of the nature of the values of those who are drawn to life aboard

Serenity in the lyric “Have no place that I can be/Since I found Serenity” (Whedon, 2002). Those

who have come to Serenity are seeking freedom; yet is this enough to make the physical

dwelling place of the sky and the ship an organizational dwelling place? The series explores this

central question.

Narrative as “location of values”

While narrative is backgrounded and, at times, unrecognized in real-world

communicative environments, the narrative of a fictional story is foregrounded by the author for

the benefit of the reader/viewer. The background narrative of the world of Firefly (2002) is

contained in the voice over at beginning of most episodes in the series. The series begins with an

existing organizational structure, the crew of the ship Serenity. The crew, is comprised of

“fighters [Zoe, Jayne], pilot [Walsh], mechanic [Kaylee]” (Whedon, 2002). The purpose of the

organization is clear: “You got a job, we can do it, don’t much care what it is) (Whedon, 2002),

and these crew members server the organizational mission of making money through

transporting goods and people, As an additional revenue stream, Mal rents a shuttle craft to the

companion Inara, She financially contributes to the crew and gives the ship a level of credibility

as a Companion (the crew calls her “The Ambassador”). By the series start, this group has

navigated differences to form a coherent organizational group. The Good of their dwelling place

is “live like people,… take jobs as they come…, . and … never be under the heel of nobody ever


again” (Minear & Solomon, 2002). The viewer enters the storyline at a time when the existing

Good of dwelling place is challenged and faces renegotiation with the addition of new

organizational members and a new organizational imperative.

With the addition of the fugitives Simon and River Tam, the organization is forced to

renegotiate the Saying and the Said. To this point, the Said promotes and protects the primary

Good of the safety of the ship and the crew. The presence of high profile Alliance fugitives puts

this Good at risk. As Jayne asserts, “The lawman said they'd keep looking for her. Something

about her brain being all special. Important to the Alliance brass. Sooner we dump them two, the

better” (Whedon, 2002). As the crew navigates this challenge, the core question becomes: Who

really is a crew member? Who really belongs to this organization?

Simple presence on the ship does not qualify one as a crew member. The passengers did

not enter Serenity with the intention of becoming crew members. The Tams and Shepherd Book

boarded the ship as passengers. However, as a result of the death of the Alliance agent and the

reveal of the Tam’s situation, Mal adds Simon to the crew as ship’s medic. Shepherd Book,

perhaps seeing himself as needed on the ship, stays on as ship’s cook and general moral counsel.

Repeatedly the question arises as to who is a member of the crew. In the episode “Safe,” Simon

and River are kidnapped and the Shepherd is seriously wounded. In the scene, “You’re on my

crew,” Mal reassures Simon that he is a member of the crew; however, only a few months later,

Captain calls the Tams “guests,” to which Simon replies, “Guests? I earn my passage, Captain --

…I've earned my passage treating, bullet holes, knife wounds, laser burns...” (Whedon, 2005).

The question of who is a rightful member of the organization and not simply a customer of the

organization is in constant question.

Institutions and Organizations


The archetypal nature of the character foregrounds the idea of institutions and

organizations, a key element of organizational identity in the dwelling place framework. The

primary institution of the world of Firefly (2002) is the Alliance. This creates an overarching

institutional dialectic of the Central Planets and those outside the direct control of the Alliance.

Within the greater institution of the Alliance, organizations, themselves institutions exist, either

in cooperation with or in opposition to Alliance control. Characters represent these institutions.

The Shepherd represents an accepted spiritual institution, the Christian church, within the

Alliance system. Inara, represents another sanctioned institution within the Alliance,

Companions, part of the elite of the Alliance culture, and operate under a license which much be

renewed periodically. The presence of a “bona fide Companion” elevates the status of Serenity.

The Tams represent another form of Alliance elite, the wealthy, professional, class.

The primary institutions in opposition to the Alliance are three-fold. The first group are

those who come from planets outside the Central Planets, and these are typically of a lower class

with less access to education and wealth. Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic, and Jayne, the gunslinger,

come from outside this system. They operate outside traditional organizations to make their way

in The ‘Verse. Mal and Zoe, represent a group that function in direct opposition to the Alliance,

former “Browncoats,” soldiers from the losing side of the Unification War. Organizations within

this institution would include smugglers, traders, outlaws, etc., anyone operating without

“official” sanction from the Alliance. The third institution, in opposition to all other human

institutions in the ‘Verse, are the Reavers, the enemy of all, no matter the institution.

The identity of Serenity and the Good it protects and promotes are based its association

with and its opposition to the institutions of The ‘Verse. Serenity clearly exists in opposition to

the Alliance. Mal purchases the ship after the fall of the Independents in the Unification War. He


names the ship Serenity after the defining battle of the war, the battle of Serenity Valley. The

battle is widely known, and characters repeatedly remark on the connection to the ship’s name

and this battle. Thus, the organization clearly identifies itself as existing in opposition to the

Alliance. However, the organizational identity exists in opposition to other non-Alliance

organizations. Though the story begins with the Said of “doing any job, don’t much care what it

is,” the Saying proves this to be untrue. As illustrated in “The Train Job,” the crew members are

not without some level of morals and values, as most other outlaws appear to be. They refuse to

steal medicine from sick miners, and return the money they accepted to do so. They risk their

lives to right the situation with both the miners and the kingpin that hired them. Further, they are

not Reavers, and have no problem working with their enemies to defeat Reavers.

The choice of the individual organizational members to join the crew is influenced by

their own identities in relation to institutions. The Tams are forced to become fugitives based on

their rejection of the control of the Alliance. Simon chooses to lose his family, his prestige, and

his career opposing the institution of the Alliance. He joins the Serenity crew as it provides a

dwelling place with the Good of resistance to the Alliance. The Shepherd chooses to leave the

Abbey and take up with a crew of outlaws. His reasoning is never fully explained, but we he

reveal in one encounter, “I wasn’t always a Shepherd” (Minear, 2002), creating the feeling that

he didn’t fully belong to this religious institution. Inara, a Companion in good standing, left a life

of privilege and prestige for the life of a freelancer on the fringes. Even though Shepherd Book

and Inara are in good standing with the Alliance and its institutions, they reject the official

organizations representing these institutions. For the Tams, the Shepherd, and the Companion,

organizational membership in Serenity is as an act of opposition to institutions.


While we see a rejection of institutions and organizations in the characters of Firefly

(2002), we also observe a need for belonging to an organization. The passengers ostensibly leave

organizations to “go it alone;” however, they find themselves wanting and needing an

organizational dwelling place. As Mal points out, “You all got on this boat for different reasons,

but you all come to the same place” (Whedon, 2005). While the place in question was a moment

of truth, the place also reflected the connection to a community that had grown out of the

dwelling place of Serenity. There was “no [other] place” for the crew to be once they found the

dwelling place of Serenity.

Communicative Practices: The Saying and The Said

Dwelling place grows from the communicative social practices of an organization. Some

of these are structured while others are unstructured. Serenity has three structured

communicative practices that “that shape and drive its structures and functions” (Arnett et al.,

2009, p.148): meetings with the entire crew before a job, meetings with the core crew (Zoe,

Jayne, Kaylee, Wash), and shared meals. In meetings before the entire crew, very little dialogue

is encouraged. This is often where the Captain is telling the crew his decisions. However, in the

meetings with the core crew, Mal entertains suggestion and input from others. A more relaxed,

yet still structured, communicative practice involves shared meals, where crew members are

more open with communication. In this communicative practice, crew members are invited to

share their concerns, ideas, and personal stories. However, they are always reminded of the Said

that the Captain has the final say in decision making in these communicative spaces.

However, much real dialogue happens in the unstructured communicative practices of the

crew. These tend to occur during work conversations in dyads and triads, or in times of rest in

private spaces. In these communicative acts, the emergent is allowed to unfold. Crew members


come to connect with one another by learning more about the details of their lives, and

individuals have the opportunity to express opinions. While push back from the crew is

discouraged in the structured communicative practices of Serenity, the crew is comfortable

approach the Captain in the unstructured communicative spaces to express themselves with little

fear of reprisal.

The organization of Serenity constantly faces the balancing of the Saying and the Said.

The Said, the official mission and policies for the organization, come directly from the Captain.

There is no written code; rather, the captain’s word is the official policy. As illustrated in the

scene “Guests?,” Mal tolerates no push back from the crew.

SIMON She's not going with you. That’s final.

MAL I hear the words "that's final" come out of your mouth ever again, they truly will be. (Whedon, 2005)

And when the entire crew challenges Mal’s orders in the scene “I ain’t takin’ orders,” he is even

more direct about the official policy when he threatens, “I hear a word out of any of you that ain't

helping me out or taking your leave I will fucking shoot you” (Whedon, 2005). According to the

Said of the organization, the Captain’s word is law. There is no room for discussion or input

from the crew.

The Said Good of the organization is the protection of the ship and its crew. Mal states

this directly: “I got one purpose here: keep this boat in the air” (Whedon, 2005). To that end, the

organization’s stated mission is in the opening credits, “You got a job, we can do it, don't much

care what it is,” (Whedon, 2002), stating again, more simply, “I take the jobs I get” (Whedon,

2005). However, the Saying of the organization is quite different.


Though the story begins with the Said of “doing any job, don’t much care what it is,” the

Saying proves this to be untrue. The Said indicates that the purpose of the organization is earning

money; however, there are times when the Captain chooses to favor other Goods. Mal refuses to

steal from sick miners, and refuse to take payment for a job they did not complete. Mal refuses to

take payment from Inara when her friend is threatened by a corrupt local official: “You can keep

your money. Won’t be needing no payment” (Matthews & Wright, 2002). And he allows the

crew members to choose whether or not to participate in the task. With Zoe representing the

Captain, saying, “Those who have a mind are welcome to join. Those who just as soon stay on

the ship can do that, too…. No one's gonna force you to go.”

The most obvious contradiction between the Said and the Saying is the decision to keep the

Tams onboard ship. Time and time again throughout the series, the Captain must face the

question of the safety of the ship and crew versus the safety of the Tams. Jayne asks, even

Simon asks, why Mal acts in opposition to his own Said. Shepherd Book confronts Mal with this

central question, why did the Captain take in fugitives that threaten the stated Good and purpose

of the organization?

BOOKI'm wondering why a man so anxious to fly under Alliance radar would house known fugitives. The Alliance had her in that institution for a purpose, whatever it was, and they will want her back. You're not overly fond of the boy, so why risk it?

MALOnly cause it's the right thing to do. (Whedon, 2002)

For the organization, the Saying displaces the Said to become a shared Said of the crew

members. The Good of “the right thing to do” anchors the actions of the climax of the series as

portrayed in the film Serenity (2005) when Mal encourages the crew to risk their lives, not for

the Good of the safety of the ship and crew, but for the greater good, the Good of “the right thing


to do.” In making the decision to expose the Alliance as the creators of the Reavers, the

organization is asked to act in opposition to the Said of protecting the ship and crew and to act in

opposition to their own personal Good of self-preservation, to save the Tams, and to expose

wrongdoing. Jayne, the most self-focused organizational member, and the most amoral,

expresses the true shared Good of the organization and answers Arnett et al.’s (2009) questions,

What does this organization stand for? What is the purpose of our work together?

JAYNE My grandma always told me: if you can't do something smart, do something right. (Whedon, 2005)

Self-preservation has been replaced openly with doing something right, even if it’s not smart.

Dialogic Analysis

The background narrative, the communicative practices, the Saying and the Said, and the

unique Good of the organization are all components of a dialogic analysis. To tie these elements

together, I will examine the text for evidence or absence of Arnett et al.’s (2009) Dialogic Model of

Organizational Communication Ethics, focusing on the key practices of listening, attentiveness, and

negotiation:

1. Listening without demand involves “attentiveness to what constitutes a given dwelling

place” (Arnett et al., 2009, p. 151).

The organization of Serenity as represented by the Captain struggles with listening without

demand. Every order is a demand for which he officially tolerates no push back. Further, he

seems resistant to balancing the Saying and the Said. He returns again and again to the Said,

previous nature of the dwelling place, “live like people,… take jobs as they come…, . and …

never be under the heel of nobody ever again” (Minear & Solomon, 2002), when the Saying is


revealing a new nature to the dwelling place of “doing the right thing” and protecting those

organizational members facing danger.

2. Attentiveness to the coordinating grounds of the self, the Other, and the historical

moment relates to an attentiveness to the “character of a given dwelling place” (p. 151)

such that the ethical/narrative commitments that guide self, Other, and historical moment

indicate an awareness of something beyond the individual members, an awareness of the

relationship of all elements to their “communicative life together in organizational

settings” (pp. 151-152).

The structured communicative practices of the organization give little evidence of an awareness

of the “communicative life together in organizational settings;” however, the unstructured

communicative practices lend themselves to an attentiveness and negotiation of the

ethical/narrative commitments of self and the Other. As the historical moment shifts, first with

the addition of new organizational members, next with the shift in organizational imperative

(exposing the corruption of the Alliance), the individual members show by their actions (a

willingness to risk their lives on behalf of other organizational members) that they are attentive

to the relationship of all three elements, self, the Other, and the historical moment.

3. Dialogic negotiation requires that the “organizational understanding of a dwelling place

must be negotiated again and again” (p. 152).

The story begins with Serenity as an organization with an existing notion of dwelling place.

However, the addition of new organizational members (the fugitive Tams) and a new

organizational challenge (protecting the Tams from the Alliance) forces the organizational

understanding of dwelling place to be negotiated repeatedly. Individual organizational members


question themselves and the organizational leadership (the Captain) as to who constitutes an

organizational member and what the obligations of the members are to each other and the

organization. The Captain, too, must (re)negotiate his own concept of Serenity as dwelling place,

moving from “doing any job” and avoiding the Alliance to risking the existence of the

organization for the greater good.

4. Temporal dialogic ethical competence, the combination of listening, attentiveness, and

dialogic negation, involves evaluation and a move from “knowledge to learning.” This is

reflected in organizations as:

a. Reflection on the Good of the dwelling place and what “changes in

communicative practice are needed in the historical moment” (p. 152).

b. An ongoing engagement in dialogue on communicative practices essential to the

inevitably changing nature of the nature of the dwelling place.

The organization experiences challenges in moving from knowledge to learning. As the nature of

the dwelling place shifts, the “settlers,” the original crew members, experience resistance to a

change in the Good of the organization and the nature of the crew. As demonstrated in the

Captain’s changing position on the role of Simon Tam (from passenger to crew member to

guest), the leadership of the organization did not encourage dialogic engagement. However,

through the Saying, the living of life in the organization, especially as experienced in the

unstructured communicative moments of the crew members, a shift occurs in the Good of the

dwelling place suited to its changing nature.

5. The emerging “possible” in organizational ethics involves “connecting one’s

responsibility to a particular dwelling place, not demanding that the organization do

things “my way” (p. 153).


Repeatedly the crew faces the decision to look out for their own interests or put their

responsibility to the dwelling place above their own demands. The organizational members do

not always observe this ethic. Members threaten to leave and some actually do leave (Inara,

Shepherd Book). However, by the conclusion of the story, all of the organizational members

make the decision to put responsibility to the nature of the dwelling place, a place that seeks to

protect and promote a greater good, above their own personal safety. This is summed up in the

words of the most self-centered crew member, the least open to learning, Jayne Cobb, when he

responds to the Captain’s call to action in the scene “The report” with, “If you can’t do

something smart, do something right” (Whedon, 2005). Through a tenuous experience of

listening, attentiveness, and negotiation, the crew as an organization learns how to navigate their

differences and competing Goods to accomplish the Good of the dwelling place, saving the Tams

and serving the greater good of humankind.

Conclusion

Even though the organization represented by the crew of Serenity is fictional, the challenges

faced by the organization correspond to real world issues. Firefly (2002) is about an organization

facing a change in the nature of its dwelling place. A change in organizational membership and

changing organizational imperative create the need for a new definition of the Good of dwelling

place. Even though the organization has few structured dialogic communication practices, the

unstructured communicative actions of the organizational members, through verbal and

nonverbal dialogic engagement, lead to the transformation of the nature of the dwelling place.

Contemporary organizations face issues of working with diverse teams, navigating

difference, and changing organizational purpose. Actively creating a dwelling place through

structured and unstructured communicative practices provides a roadmap for creating stronger


more productive organizations, organizations where members will want to live. The organization

of Serenity struggles with the dialogic principles of listening without demand, attentiveness, and

negotiation; however, they are still able to navigate the inevitably changing nature of the

dwelling place through an accidental dialogic practice. This being the case, organizations that

actively use the tools of the dialogic ethic can better navigate the “linguistic architecture” (Hyde,

2006, as cited in Lollar, 2013, p. 25) that leads to the (re)construction of dwelling place.

The analysis of communicative practices in Firefly (2002) shines a light on the importance of

unstructured communication in facilitating a dialogic communication ethic among organizational

members. Listening without demand, a key element of the dialogic ethic, means that dialogue

cannot be forced, “planned or engineered” (Buber, 1955, as cited in Arnett et al., 2009, p. 84).

Serenity is an organization with few structured communicative practices, but that doesn’t prevent

a dialogic ethic from emerging. When the leadership of the organization finally embraced the

changing nature of the dwelling place, the organizational members followed suit.

Further research is needed into real-world applications of dwelling place, especially

examining how unstructured communicative practices can be encouraged as a means to support

the given Good of the organizational dwelling place.

References

Amy-Chinn, D. (2006). ‘Tis pity she's a whore. Feminist Media Studies, 6(2), 175-189.

doi:10.1080/14680770600645143

Arnett, R. C. (1988). A choice-making ethic for organizational communication: The work of Ian

I. Mitroff. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(3), 151-161.


Arnett, R.C., Harden-Fritz, J.M., & Bell, L.M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue

and difference. Los Angeles, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Buber, M. (1955). Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Deetz, S. (1991). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in

communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press. Chapter 1.

Espenson, J. (Ed.). (2004). Finding Serenity: anti-heroes, lost shepherds and space hookers in

Joss Whedon’s Firefly (2002). Dallas, TX: Benbella Books.

Espenson, J. (Ed.). (2007). Serenity Found: more unauthorized essays on Joss Whedon’s Firefly

(2002) universe. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books.

Greenberg, D. (Writer), & Grossman, M. (Director). (2002). Safe [Television series episode]. In

J. Whedon & T. Minear (Executive producers) Firefly. USA: 20th Century Fox

Television.

Hewlett, S., & Luce, C. (2006). Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70-hour workweek.

Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 49-59.

Hill, M. B. (2009). I am a leaf on the wind": Cultural trauma and mobility in Joss Whedon's

"Firefly (2002).” Extrapolation (University Of Texas At Brownsville), 50(3), 484-511.

Jaksa, J. A. & Pritchard, M. S. (1994). Communication ethics: Methods of analysis (2nd ed).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jenson, J. V. (1997). Ethical issues in the communication process. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.


Jones, H. A. (2011). 'Them as feel the need to be free': Reworking the frontier myth. Southern

Communication Journal, 76(3), 230-247. doi:10.1080/1041794x.2010.507109

Kreider, S., & Kowalski, D. A. (2011). The Philosophy of Joss Whedon. Lexington, Ky:

University Press of Kentucky.

Lepper, T. (2007). "So, is she White?": Making organizational communication ethics relevant to

middle America. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh,

PA: Duquesne University Press.

Levinas, E. (1998). Otherwise than being or beyond essence (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA:

Duquesne University Press.

Lollar, K. (2013). Dialogic ethics: Leadership and the face of the Other. Journal of the

Association For Communication Administration, 32(1/2), 15-28.

Mattson, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (1999). Traditional and feminist organizational communication

ethical analyses of messages and issues. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 27(1), 49.

Makau, J. M. (2002). Preface: In S. Bracci & C. G. Christians (Eds.), Moral engagement in

public life: Theorists for contemporary ethics (pp. vii-x). New York: Peter Lang.

Makau, J. M., & Arnett, R. C. (Eds.). (1997). Communication ethics in the age of diversity.

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.


Matthews, B. (Writer), & Wright, T. (Director). (2003). Heart of gold [Television series

epidsode]. In J. Whedon & T. Minear (Executive producers) Firefly. USA: 20th Century

Fox Television.

Minear, T. (Writer & Director). (2002). Bushwhacked [Television series epidsode]. In J. Whedon

& T. Minear (Executive producers) Firefly. USA: 20th Century Fox Television.

Minear, T. (Writer), & Solomon, D. (Director). (2002). Out of gas [Television series epidsode].

In J. Whedon & T. Minear (Executive producers) Firefly. USA: 20th Century Fox

Television.

Whedon, J. (Writer & Director). (2002). Serenity [Television episode] in J. Whedon & T. Minear

(Executive producers) Firefly. USA: 20th Century Fox Television.

Whedon, J. (Writer & Director). (2005). Serenity [Motion picture]. USA: Universal Pictures.

Whedon, J., & Minear, T. (Writers), & Whedon, J. (Director). (2002). The train job [Television

series episode]. In J. Whedon & T. Minear (Executive producers) Firefly. USA: 20th

Century Fox Television.

Wilcox, R., & Cochran, T. R. (Eds.). (2008). Investigating Firefly (2002) and Serenity science

fiction on the frontier. London: I.B. Tauris.

Xu, K. (2013). Theorizing difference in intercultural communication: A critical dialogic

perspective. Communication Monographs, 80(3), 379-397.

doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.788250

angelastalcup.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewChildren are born in corporate hospitals...

Documents

Transcript of angelastalcup.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewChildren are born in corporate hospitals...