Week 4 Response

Response to blog titled, “Along the way – reflections & essays.” Question on PRESENTATION OF SELF: MORAL OR IMMORAL? Question: In your opinion, is it morally right or wrong to have different versions of one’s “self”? If it is morally right, cite concepts in the readings that would justify your position. If it is morally wrong, what might the flaws in, say, Larson’s argument that effective communication requires the presenter to adjust their language or tone of their message in response to the audience’s response?

 

This is a good question because I don’t believe the answer lies in a definite sense of the issue in question being a moral or immoral issue. Communication is about the grey area most of the time. It’s the area in between what is morally right and or morally wrong. Getting the opinion to change from being morally right to morally wrong can be as simple as asking one person or another. The possibilities for the change from one side to the other are as limitless as the evolution of communication itself as understood through or by multiple people in multiple contexts either simultaneously or at different times.

 

With that being said, my opinion leans toward the characteristic of a person to have several different versions of one’s self as being morally correct. I would say it’s more an issue of being morally competent depending on the relativity of the situation. Hauser and Bitzer both discuss this. Hauser defines relativity as referring to the meaning of an event based on the perspective of the individual (Hauser 41). When talking about having different versions of one’s self it’s important to consider perspective in determining if having different versions of one’s self is morally right or wrong.

 

Perspective can be the perspective of the audience and the perspective of the presenter as they view the audience, viewing them. The looking glass self or self-monitoring is another way to understand this. In other words, how do we construct an understanding of our performance based on how our performance is being interrupted by the audience. Just because you have different versions of yourself doesn’t mean that your manipulating or using rhetoric in a morally unacceptable fashion. The reason for this is because the perspective of your audiences DOES OFTEN change. If you know what aspect or value of yourself you are trying to make others see then showing different versions and changing how you present yourself doesn’t mean that you aren’t presenting the same version of yourself. It just means that the context is different and in order for you to show your audience the characteristic or version of yourself that YOU understand it might require slightly altering your perceived version of yourself.

 

For example, say you have an understanding of yourself as someone who stands for justice and equality.  Depending on the group you are talking to, what is understood as just or equal might be different but your understanding of those concepts don’t change. You can change how you present your ideas about justice and equality to others in an attempt to find a common ground with the group of people. If you are talking to a group of people who believe in same sex marriage and you are in a heterosexual marriage you might say that same sex couples should have equal marriage rights. That same stand on gay marriage might be presented differently to a group of religious conservatives. You might say that you believe same sex couples should be entitled to marriage rights but don’t acknowledge the union of two same sex individuals. Each situation shows a sense of equality but a different version of yourself is required because the context and understanding of each group is different.

 

The other reason I don’t think it’s morally wrong to present different versions of yourself is because people have a tendency to judge based on very small inconsistencies. Goffman talks about this when he discusses the audience and how they might judge a politician if they pronounce a word wrong or stutter or forget a point. We are being constantly judged and evaluated and in order to protect ourselves in many environments that might even include our future well being (such as a job, to pay our bills) we have to create alternate versions. This is why it isn’t morally wrong. But again, I would say the issue is about competence of the intended audience in the interaction.