ablogbywendi.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewMy work will use the dialogic approach to...

Running head: NEGOTIATING DISTANCE THROUGH 1

Negotiating Distance Through Dialogic Communication Ethics

Wendi Muhonen

MACOMM/616

Dr. Leanne Pupchek

April 27, 2014

NEGOTIATING DISTANCE THROUGH DIALOGIC 2

Negotiating Distance Through Dialogic Communication Ethics

Parenting is difficult. Many mothers agree raising their children is “the toughest and yet

most rewarding occupation” of their life (Flamank, 1993, para. 15). Adolescence is particularly

challenging because children experience dramatic physical and emotional changes. Among the

changes is the process of negotiating an agreement on the interpersonal distance appropriate for

the parent-child relationship as the child grows older. According to Pratt, (2005) parents should

guide their children through managing their emotions and expanding their critical thinking skills,

but often become perplexed by the rapid mood changes, dishonesty, confrontation, and silence

resulting from the physical, social, hormonal, and emotional changes of early adolescence. As

Pollack (1998) explains, boys struggle with self-confidence and identity like their female

counterparts, but tend to exhibit braggadocio because they find it difficult to reveal their genuine

feelings. Therefore, I believe it is important to examine each gender independently, and focus on

boys for this study. I will examine the changing distance demands in my own interpersonal

relationship with my 12-year-old son to support my contention that viewing, understanding, and

embracing the importance of distance through a dialogic communication ethics lens can improve

the relationships of mothers and their adolescent sons.

Theoretical Framework

Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) discuss the importance of distance as it relates to ethics in

interpersonal communication, and note a prevalent problem of individuals misusing interpersonal

skills to decrease distance with other individuals. One diminishes the unique contributions of

others in doing so. Moreover, without distance, one forces homogenous interpersonal

relationships with others. Mothers, in particular, who form close bonds with their sons during

early childhood must reinvent their relationship as their sons reach puberty. Maintaining the


close bonds is important because, as Pollack (1999) suggests, “empowered mothers are a key to

resolving society’s confusion about masculinity” and a close relationship with mothers helps

boys grow “stronger emotionally and psychologically” (p. 81). Nevertheless, mothers struggle

with what develops as alternating closeness and distance in their relationships with their children,

and must go through a period of separation anxiety followed by assuming individual behaviors

known as separation-individualization process (Dunbar, 2008). Both a mother’s and her son’s

expectations about what to discuss and how to discuss it can shift hourly, making the task of

maintaining closeness daunting. Family systems vary in their level of involvement with high

involvement, communication, and concern leading to permeable interpersonal boundaries on one

end of the continuum, and lack of engagement or responsiveness on the other end (Bell,

Ericksen, Cornwell, & Bell, 1991). For example, an enmeshed family on the high involvement

extreme would live in close proximity, converse multiple times daily, and share the most private

details of each family member’s life during a meal. A family on the low involvement end of the

spectrum would engage in infrequent dialogue, possess “rigid interpersonal boundaries,” (p. 232)

keep secrets, and demonstrate a lack of interest in engaging with other members of the family. A

middle ground, or balance, of clear but permeable boundaries is ideal.

Pollack (1999) discusses balance, or interdependence, situated within the context of a

mother and son relationship:

In healthy mother-son relationships, there simply does not seem to be anything as too

much love. Yes, some mothers and sons can potentially fall into a relationship in which

parent and child vacillate between extremes of dependence and independence in an

unhealthy way. But [sic] I believe most mothers and their sons are capable of creating

strong, healthy, relationships based instead on interdependence, the recognition that each


of us has ties to and relies on other people but that each of us is also responsible for our

own actions and selves. Parents simply need to be careful not to put their own needs and

desires ahead of their son’s and not to attempt to manipulate his emotions – to guilt or

shame him into doing what they want. (p. 99)

Arnett et al. (2009) support Pollack’s warning to mothers by acknowledging the tendency to

“misuse interpersonal skills to decrease distance” (Kindle Location 1731) with their sons. I plan

to explore the problem of people improperly using interpersonal skills to decrease distance

deeper by examining my relationship with my 12-year-old son and the changes in the distance

demands of our relationship as he approaches his teenage years. My work will use the dialogic

approach to communication ethics coupled with the theories of Carl Rogers and Martin Buber to

suggest ways that mothers can improve their interpersonal relationships with pre-teen, or

“tween” sons by ethically managing distance. I maintain that instead of decreasing distance in

interpersonal relationships, mothers should use a dialogic approach to communication ethics to

start an ongoing conversation with their sons and with other parents to gain new understanding

of how distance can foster a healthy and loving relationship.

Literature Review

To understand how dialogic communication ethics can help strengthen mother-son

relationships in the face of increasing distance, it is important to understand the concept of

distance in the context of interpersonal communication. According to Arnett et al., (2009)

distance provides the space necessary for each individual in a relationship to contribute to that

relationship. Carl Rogers (cited in Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 251) maintains that an individual’s

self cannot exist separately from his or her relationships. Rogers further asserts that individuals

seek a sense of autonomy and growth as the self develops, a predisposition he refers to as the


“actualizing tendency” (p. 252). Family therapists apply Rogers’ theories by guiding clients in a

“mutually transforming dialogue” that helps them both express themselves and listen to others

with empathy and “unconditional positive regard” (Snyder, 2002, p. 318). Like Rogers, Martin

Buber (cited in Littlejohn & Foss, 2011) discusses the importance of dialogue. Buber maintains

that dialogue creates a relationship in which an individual acknowledges the life experiences of

others and allows the others to express topics of importance. A connection between the

autonomous self, the relationships, and dialogue is important to the concept of distance, because

it calls attention to the implicit notion of embracing the uniqueness of others, allowing it to guide

a conversation rather than force it. Arnett et al., (2009) warn that all communication episodes and

contexts are different, and so demanding a consistent or particular type of communication is

inappropriate and unethical. This framework of distance allows researchers to expand the

discussion of relational distance to examine the mother and son relationship.

Scholars apply interpersonal distance in different contexts. Bell et al. (1991) explore

distance and closeness along a continuum of emotional involvement among families. They

maintain that the ideal balance exists away from both extremes: a high permeability with extreme

closeness and a complete lack of involvement. They further assert that the appropriate degree of

emotional involvement and interpersonal distance shifts over time. I agree with this contention

and see the evidence in what Mahler (as cited in Dunbar 2008) calls the “separation-

individualization process” (p. 78). While Dunbar applies the separation-individualization process

to mothers of toddlers, I extend this concept to exploring the relationships of mothers of tweens.

Roger Silverstone (as cited in Chouliaraki & Orgad, 2011) proposes the notion of “proper

distance” (p. 341) at which each individual can imagine the other on his or her own terms.

Silverstone (as cited in Frosh, 2011) also describes “proper distance” as understanding the


proximity required for interpersonal relationships, and argues that “proper distance preserves the

other through difference as well as through shared identity” (p. 383). Chouliaraki and Orgad

(2011) situate Silverstone’s concept of proper distance within a larger context of competing

discourses comparing the notion of “common humanity” to universal familiarity, or closeness,

and “strangeness” to difference, or distance (p. 342). The influence of strangeness, or distance, in

a mediated technological context advances understanding of difference. On the other hand,

Sylvia Maatta (2006) builds on Rogers’ and Buber’s ideas of empathy within the context of

phenomenology and extends them to examine Edith Stein’s concepts of empathy applied to

healthcare communication. Stein (as cited in Maatta, 2006) suggests that when one person

attempts to clarify another person’s emotional state, a parallel personal experience results

through which the individual feels happy or sad about the same event, and “the empathizer

experiences the other’s state of mind as if it were his or her own” (p. 6).

Although Pollack (1999) addresses the mother-son relationship, his work focuses on male

stereotypes associated with raising boys. Lack of published research specifically applying

distance to the relationship of mothers and their adolescent sons implies an abundance of

opportunity in this area. Like the second group of authors, I intend to use the works of Rogers

and Buber to focus on empathy and distance, but to extend their ideas by marrying them with a

dialogic approach to communication ethics to show how an understanding of distance can

improve the relationship of mothers and their tween sons.

Methodology

I will use the theories of Rogers and Buber as the basis of my analysis. The works of

these two scholars stem from the phenomenological tradition of communication theory.

Phenomenology “focuses on the internal, conscious experience of the person” and how


individuals give meaning to life events on their sense of self (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 251). I

will use textual analysis as the methodology for my research. “Textual analysis is a method of

data analysis that closely examines either the content and meaning of texts or their structure and

discourse,” and research focusing on analyzing textual content typically adopts content analysis,

semiotics, phenomenology, or hermeneutics (Lockyer & Given, 2008, p. 3). I analyze specific

conversations and interactions with my son as the text for this research using a dialogic approach

to communication ethics. According to Arnett et al., (2009) a dialogic approach to

communication ethics acknowledges the significance of meaning that emerges in discourse

between two people. As Arnett, Arneson, and Bell (2006) suggest, The crucial element of

dialogic ethics is the choice to learn… dialogue requires one to know one’s own position and

that of the other person” (p. 81). I will examine specific interactions to learn from my exchanges

with my son and enhance my understanding of how distance affects their outcomes.

I examine two separate interpersonal interactions for my analysis. The first is a

conversation that took place during a mother-and-son outing. I use notes taken during the outing,

and analyze the interaction through a Buberian lens by engaging in a dialogue with my son about

a topic that is important to him and a topic that is important to me. One must “acknowledge the

full life experience of others and allow them to express what is important to them” (Littlejohn &

Foss, 2011, p. 254). I ask questions without preconceived ideas of an appropriate response and

without judgment. I also apply Rogers’ principles by acknowledging my son’s sense of

autonomy and growth. Each of us introduces a topic we think is important. Following each

discussion, I ascertain the following: (a) whether each person actively listened to the other, (b)

whether each person fully expressed his or her ideas, and (c) whether either person placed

demands on the other in discussing the topic of importance. I maintain appropriate distance


during the interaction and the subsequent analysis. I use my son’s responses to a questionnaire

about his communication preferences and feelings about our relationship to arrive at the

definition of “appropriate” distance for my analysis.

The second interaction I will analyze is an argument with my son. I examine criteria such

as: (a) whether either person misused interpersonal skills to decrease distance, (b) whether each

person viewed the other’s unique perspective, (c) whether each person maintained his or her own

view while seeking to understand the other person’s view, (d) whether either person

monopolized the conversation, privileging his or her own ideas and interests, and (e) whether

both individuals engaged each other in disguised monologue, or avoided engaging each other

directly (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). My son and I discuss each interaction and the subsequent

analysis, and I document the significant points of agreement or disagreement with an explanation

of why each person agrees or disagrees. Finally, using the dialogic approach, we identify

anything either of us learns from the dialogue.

Data

Interaction 1: Mother-Son Outing

On Monday, April 21, my son Joseph and I went on a planned mother-son outing. Pollack

(1999) suggests “many mothers find that if they engage in action-oriented activities with their

sons, their boys begin to open up and talk (p. 101). Joseph is an avid baseball player, and wanted

to find two baseball parks he had never visited. We used the time in the car and visiting the parks

to talk. My son knew ahead of time that I would conduct research, and we both agreed to discuss

our feelings about something important to each of us.

First, I shared my feelings of sadness, confusion, and frustration because an old friend

committed suicide the previous week. I focused on describing my feelings rather than discussing


the death in detail. My son listened to me, and expressed empathy for my loss by telling me he

was sorry. He has experienced loss several times, and seemed to understand why I wanted to talk

about my feelings over my friend’s unexpected death.

Next, Joseph shared his feelings about getting cut from a well-known, winning, local

baseball team in March after playing in only one tournament with the team. He shared that he

was disappointed, but focused on telling me about his hard work to improve his batting success.

He also talked about how proud and confident he feels after working so hard to overcome a

disappointing situation by playing well on another team. Finally, he told me about some local 14-

year-old players he admires because of the pitching and hitting skills as well as their height. I felt

tempted to make a joke about his apparent “man crush” on the other boys, but instead, listened

intently, and tried to understand my son’s point of view.

Interaction 2: Argument

On April 17, 2014, Joseph and I argued when I asked about the details of a school field

trip. My son has a girlfriend and sat with her on the bus during the seventh grade field trip. I

asked if he held her hand or if they snuggled while they sat together on the bus. He responded in

an argumentative tone. The argument escalated into shouting, and each of us retreated to separate

rooms.

After a 45 minute cooling off period, I went into my son’s room to talk to him about the

argument. He told me he became angry because of the types of questions I asked and the

approach I took when I asked them. Joseph explained that he is embarrassed I know he has a

girlfriend. He told me he becomes uncomfortable when I ask him the types of questions a friend

might ask. He remarked, “I’m not your little gossip girl” (J. Muhonen, personal communication,

April 17, 2014). Moreover, my son said he felt as if I teased him and failed to act with empathy.


Each of us maintained our positions. I contended that, as his mother, I am responsible for

his well-being. My responsibility includes being aware of his friendships and activities. Joseph

asserts his view that his mother should not know the details of his friendships or romantic

relationships, and therefore, should not ask about his girlfriend.

Analysis

Interaction 1: Mother-Son Outing

The analysis of the mother and son outing to the baseball parks through the lens of the

theories of Rogers and Buber shows ethical and unethical behavior. My son and I listened

intently to each other. Neither of us interrupted the other, made jokes, or challenged what the

other said. I listened to Joseph without judgment and without attempting to force my own views

or opinions on him. He listened to me as well. Each of us allowed the other to speak without

monopolizing the conversation.

I committed the ethical infraction during the outing when I discussed the death of my

friend. My son listened to me express my feelings without judging or interrupting me.

Nevertheless, death is a serious and sometimes upsetting topic. I made an assumption that

discussing death would be an acceptable topic for my son. Therefore, I placed demands on him

by bringing up death without first asking him if he minded discussing it with me. On the other

hand, the premise of the outing and the research is a discussion of topics of relative importance

to each of us. Talking about my feelings of loss was important to me, and my son did not raise

any objections while he listened to me.

The dialogue with my son during our outing paved the way for a discussion to re-

negotiate the distance in our relationship and communication with each other. Although he

maintained he still wants a close relationship with me, he also said he no longer depends on me


as he did when he was younger. He desires closeness with me and displays of affection, but

wants me to treat him more like an adult than a toddler. According to Rogers, (as cited in

Littlejohn & Foss, 2011) “as the self develops, you [sic] seek autonomy and growth, a sense of

self-development” (p. 252). Likewise, my son wants me to acknowledge him as an individual

rather than an extension of myself. I should find ways to talk to him about his social life without

being pushy or aggressive.

Interaction 2: Argument

The analysis of the argument using Rogers’ and Buber’s theories reveals several ethical

infractions enacted by both my son and me. First, I misused interpersonal skills in an attempt to

decrease distance. I made my son feel uncomfortable when I asked him personal questions in an

attempt to entice him to disclose the details of his class trip and his feelings about them. Buber

(as cited in Arnett et al., 2009) warns of overrunning reality or attempting to be closer than time

or circumstances require. By asking my son personal questions about the details of sitting with

his girlfriend on the bus I overran reality. I interacted with him as a friend instead of as his

mother. I used humor to lighten the mood, but my son perceived my attempts to introduce humor

into the conversation as my teasing him.

Both my son and I failed to acknowledge the other person’s perspective. I dismissed my

son’s need for privacy and his perception of the communication boundaries in a mother-son

relationship. My son suggested my position as parent no longer deserved the kind of respect it

deserved when he was in elementary school, and did not understand my reasons for asking about

his activities and relationships. Both of us maintained our own position, but neither of us

articulated our position while maintaining distance or showing empathy toward each other until

after the discussion escalated. Although we engaged in a productive discussion in the wake of the


argument, neither of us actively sought to understand the other’s point of view. I admit to

monopolizing the conversation during the argument in an attempt to exert my dominant parental

position. Nevertheless, my son and I engaged in a mutual dialogue following the heated portion

of the argument, and neither of us privileged our own interests. Finally, we engaged in what

Littlejohn and Foss (2011) call “disguised monologue” at times during the argument. That is,

neither person directly engaged the other or addressed the complexity of the issue until after the

argument had escalated.

Conclusion

Arnett et al. (2009) argue individuals must honor distance, because it allows us to

perceive others with clarity. The interactions disclosed in this analysis demonstrate the need for a

dialogue to re-negotiate distance expectations in my relationship with my 12-year-old son. My

son and I were extremely close throughout his early childhood and elementary school years. The

line between parent and child was clear, and the relationship entailed mutual trust and

admiration. Nevertheless, he is growing up. As Dunbar (2008) suggests, mothers must

understand the separation-individualization process. I extend this contention to propose a

continual evaluation and negotiation through to the adolescent years rather than limiting the

focus to the toddler years. Perhaps, another scholar can extend it throughout the child’s life.

Viewing a mother-son relationship as a fluid, dynamic pairing instead of a fixed, consistent bond

will improve the quality of communicative events and the relationship. Relationships, regardless

of how close, require distance and distinctiveness (Arnett et al.,2009). Engaging in an ongoing

dialogue will create new knowledge and foster learning that will strengthen the relationship.

The most compelling revelation of this research is, as Arnett et al. (2009) maintain

distance is an ethical responsibility rather than a flaw. Before I decided to examine the distance


in my relationship with my son, I perceived distance as a “negative.” As Pollack (1999) suggests,

“mothers learn to distrust their best instincts, curb the natural flow of love and empathy they

feel” (p. 88). I correlated distance with a lack of love or empathy for my son. Rather than

understanding its nurturing power, I feared the increased distance in my relationship with my

son. The analysis reveals the benefits of distance in a relationship when each individual

maintains an awareness of distance, and the negative influence of distance when an individual in

the relationship disregards distance as a relevant factor. For example, viewing and embracing my

son as a unique, autonomous individual yields a positive response. Imposing my personal

demands regarding the types of details we should discuss or how, when, and where we should

discuss them, yields a negative response. The analysis also reveals my ethical responsibility to

negotiate distance in my relationship with my son. Partners in a healthy relationship should be

free to explore new avenues of development, and allowed to have high regard for both self and

other (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). To maintain a healthy relationship with my son, I must honor his

autonomy and grant him the freedom to grow, learn, and explore life independent of me.

Future Research

The topic of the way distance influences an evolving relationship between a parent and

child, studied by examining it through a dialogic approach to communication ethics, is open to

additional exploration. According to Littlejohn and Foss, (2011) the theories of Buber and

Rogers “provide a relatively unified view of the dialogic relationship” (p.253). The emphasis

both scholars place on empathy toward others and active listening lend to an insightful discourse

on distance, and further research in this area can enhance existing understanding.

One potential area for future research is examining the concept of distance by applying

Rogers’ principles of helping relationships. Rogers identifies 10 qualities that characterize a


healthy interpersonal relationship. These qualities include: (a) perception of both communicators

as trustworthy or dependable, (b) communicators express themselves unambiguously, (c)

communicators possess reciprocal attitudes of warmth and caring, (d) each partner maintains a

separate identity, (e) each partner permits the other to maintain a separate identity, (f) each

person shows empathy, and attempts to understand the other, (g) each person accepts the other’s

experiences exactly as the other communicates them, (h) each partner creates a safe environment

by responding with sensitivity, (i) each communicator feels as if he or she is free from judgment

or evaluation, and (j) each person recognizes the other is changing, and remains flexible while

permitting the other to change (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). I apply portions of these qualities to my

study. Future analysis focused only on these characteristics might determine how each lends to

ethical distance in a relationship.

Further, a future researcher might consider a different methodological approach. This

pilot study suggests the topic of ethical communication in mother-son relationships is rich and

ready for a closer look. For instance, a survey of a group of mothers and their sons, ages 11

through 14 would illuminate my research further. This approach would broaden the scope of the

research and provide a larger sample. Researchers could broaden the research even further by

extending it to include both boys and girls of various ages and their distance needs.

Ethical Considerations

A mother conducting research on her own son, as I have done in this paper, entails

inherent ethical problems. For instance, I possess the power in my position as the adult in my

relationship with my son. The power relationship can raise questions regarding whether I

represent my son’s voice sufficiently in this paper. Another ethical consideration is informed

consent. My son is a bright and insightful boy, and agreed to his role in my research.


Nevertheless, his age could raise questions about his ability to understand the implications of

being the focus of research examining a personal relationship or his understanding of what

“distance” means in this context. Finally, the close familial bond between a mother and son

could raise ethical questions about bias in my research or findings.


Works Cited

Arnett, R., Arneson, P., & Bell, L. (2006). Communication ethics: The dialogic turn. Review Of

Communication, 6(1/2), 62-92. doi:10.1080/15358590600763334

Arnett, R., Fritz, J., & Bell, L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference.

Los Angeles, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Kindle Edition.

Bell, L. G., Ericksen, L., Cornwell, C., & Bell, D. C. (1991). Experienced closeness and distance

among family members. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 13(3),

231-245.

Chouliaraki, L., & Orgad, S. (2011). Proper distance: Mediation, ethics, otherness. International

Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(4), 341-345. doi:10.1177/1367877911403245

Dunbar, L. (2008). A conflict between distance and closeness: the mother's bittersweet

experience of becoming separate from her toddler. Infant Observation, 11(1), 77-88.

doi:10.1080/13698030801945160

Flamank, K. (1993, May 12). Full-time motherhood a challenging, rewarding career, homemaker

finds. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com

Frosh, P. (2011). Phatic morality: Television and proper distance. International Journal of

Cultural Studies, 14(4), 383-400. doi:10.1177/1367877911403248

Littlejohn, S., & Foss, K. (2011).Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, IL:

Waveland Press, Inc.

Lockyer, S. & Given, L. (2008). Textual analysis. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative

research methods. (pp. 866-867). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:

10.4135/9781412963909.n449


Maatta, S. (2006). Closeness and distance in the nurse-patient relation. The relevance of Edith

Stein's concept of empathy. Nursing Philosophy, 7(1), 3-10.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Pratt, H. (2005). Adolescence. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human development. (pp. 29-

36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412952484.n12

Snyder, M. (2002). Applications of Carl Rogers’ theory and practice to couple and family

therapy: a response to Harlene Anderson and David Bott. Journal of Family Therapy,

24(3), 317-325.

ablogbywendi.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewMy work will use the dialogic approach to...

Documents

Transcript of ablogbywendi.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewMy work will use the dialogic approach to...