Kramer vs. Kramer: A Dialogical Approach to Court Debates. Angela Glass. December 7, Queens University of Charlotte

Transcription

1 Dialogical Approach 1 Running head: DIALOGICAL APPROACH Kramer vs. Kramer: A Dialogical Approach to Court Debates Angela Glass December 7, 2010 Queens University of Charlotte

2 Dialogical Approach 2 Kramer vs. Kramer: A Dialogical Approach to Court Debates Introduction Martin Buber, Austrian born Jewish philosopher best known for his philosophy of dialogue, once said: "I You," which is for Buber one basic word for, "when one says You, the I of the word pair I You is said, too." Buber is talking about the importance of dialogue as a pragmatic tool for learning. It is "a relation between persons that is characterized in more or less degree by the element of inclusion" (as cited in Hoivik & Follesdal, 1995, p. 271). Inclusion is the heart of any dialogical communication, and it is facilitated when we acknowledge the differences of others, when we have respect for someone else s viewpoint, and when we are willing to listen to others views. Dialogical perspectives emerge from ancient viewpoints such as of the ones proposed by Socrates and Plato, and are the foundation in which current scholarship describes the nature of communication as either dialogue or monologue. Buber suggests that dialogue lives outside of demand and is not normative in dayto day interaction (Arnett, Fritz & Bell, 2009, p. 83). From an ethical communications perspective the attitudes participants have towards each other are an index of the ethical level of that communication (Johannesen, Valde & Whedbee, 2008, p. 51). It calls for mutual respect and a genuine interest. This paper will examine the ethical consistencies, inconsistency, and dialogical implications presented by society during a court custody battle. The Kramer vs. Kramer movie underscores the paternalistic and utilitarian manner by which society approaches problem solving and decision making in family issues.

3 Dialogical Approach 3 Through this movie I will analyze how socially constructed differences are presented through our ethical communication practices, and how through a dialogical lens a court debate could become more constructive. I believe the solution to improve the results of a debate will most likely come from a renewed commitment by those involved in the debate. Meaning, if those involved in a debate are aware of their own uniqueness and differences, the outcome could be a less stressful one. However, this will only happen if the debate is seen in a positive way by all participants, debaters and audience alike, otherwise the controversy will never end. Purpose I will focus on the court scene, and I will approach communication through a dialogical lens perspective in which communication and change are intertwined and go hand in hand with the goal to achieve a peaceful resolution to a child custody battle. By means of ethical dialogical communication parties are able to find a middle ground, a balance, a safe space for understanding and learning from each other. If we were able to establish some ground rules of dialogue before the dialogue takes place, is it possible that the outcome of the situation becomes a more positive one than when ground rules are not specified? Willingness to listen with the intention of understanding and learning is vital, but is it possible in a courtroom? In conducting my interpretive and social constructionist research, I was guided by the following research questions:

4 Dialogical Approach 4 RQ1. If a dialogical communication approach is established in a communication setting such a court room, then, is it possible to obtain a better outcome, a better resolution, and a better understanding of the main issue at heart? Theoretical Framework & Ethical Communication Approaches The theory that contributed to the framework of this paper is that of dialogical communication. For purpose of this paper, I will define dialogue as a balanced communication, or communication in which each individual has a chance to both speak and be heard (Eisenberg, Goodall & Trethewey, 2007, p. 48). So, If I was to blend the terms dialogue and communication into one single premise, I will define dialogical communication as an altruistic and purposeful conversation in which participants are aware and respect each other common grounds and differences, and where dialogue is conceived as a peaceful end to itself not a means to an end. Kramer vs. Kramer Plot The movie centers on Ted Kramer, a career man for whom his work comes before his family. His wife Joanna cannot take this anymore, so she decides to leave him. Ted is now faced with the tasks of housekeeping and taking care of himself and their young son Billy who is about 6 or 7 years old. When he has learned to adjust his life to these new responsibilities, Joanna resurfaces and wants Billy back. Ted however refuses to give him up, so they go to court to fight for the custody of their son ( During the court interrogation, Joanna is not questioned at all about the type of person she is. If dialogue is to be applied, the court should have been intrigued to

5 Dialogical Approach 5 learn about her. For example, where has she been? What job has she gotten after being out of the job market all her married years? Is she as dedicated and selfconfident as her ex husband? Would she handle the dual role of parent and professional any better than Billy s father does? Why is it important to learn all these facts about Joanne? Because we have learned that dialogue is characterized by trust, openness, spontaneity, caring, sensitivity, sincerity, and empathy. In a nutshell, it is the "stuff" of which ideal interpersonal relationships are made. As we move toward deeper, more honest forms of interpersonal interaction, we are also moving toward dialogue (as cited in Thomlison). The jury in this case needed to understand the reasons why Joanna left, and the reasons why she wanted his son back in her life after an eighteen months separation. Also, Ted made outstanding changes in his life to care for his son, but they were never mentioned during the trial. In a court room, a dialogical communication approach would allow the participants to examine the basis of any relationship, promoting faith in human interaction. It is said that dialogue is conscience oriented because it goes beyond just the mere talk. It involves genuine conversations that seek to know and understand the other. The lawyers from both parties also needed to engage in dialogue before the trial took place. If dialogue would have taken placed before the trial, both lawyers would have been able to establish a genuine and mutual understanding of their respective client s goals. During the trial, Ted is attacked during the interrogation because he lost his job, and because Billy had an accident on the playground while in his care. Joanne,

6 Dialogical Approach 6 on the other hand, is attacked for her sexual and employment history, and because her marriage ended in divorce. Ted s lawyer asks Joanne over and over, "Were you a failure at the one most important relationship in your life? Were you?" and she nods in agreement. However, in spite of the vicious interrogation, Joanna presents herself as a shy, simple person, and she appeals to the fact that motherhood is the core of society by saying: "I'm his mother. He's my child. I love him. He needs me more than he needs his father. I'm his mother." The fact that Joanna is Billy s biological mother supposes to outweigh, in court, any paternalistic right that Ted wants to exercise. Sadly, on the basis of this argument the court grants custody to the mother. As Ted s lawyer says, "They went for motherhood right down the line." To understand better the relations between persons in court cases, one must delve deeper into the study of interpersonal relations. We live in a morally flawed world. We complicate our own lives by what other people do or say, and by the trickle effect that flows from our socially constructed realities. We are socialized to believe that children can only be nurture by their mothers. The role of the mother is of caring, tending to, feeding, and protecting of the children. Our relations as individuals to these socially constructed notions leave no room for recognizing that, in this 21 st. century, fathers have and want an active role in their children s live after a separation and divorce. A father is as capable as any mother to care for his own children, and if dialogue is present, together they both can contribute to the construction of effective systems of dispute resolution.

7 Dialogical Approach 7 Conclusion From a communications perspective we understand the meaning of dialogue as well as its importance, its usefulness, and its benefits. From an ethical perspective, a dialogic communication begins with the understanding that our view points are not the only ones. It certainly opens the doors to the preservation and promotion of the good by learning from others, and by acknowledging the difference that exist in us. The shared meaning and the relationship of its constituents is only beneficial when we embrace dialogue into our communication practices. My intention throughout this paper is to enhance understanding and create appreciation for the importance of dialogical communication by moving beyond the court room walls and into the immeasurable value of dialogue. As examined in this paper, dialogue is an essential component in human interaction. By applying dialogical communication, not only in a court room setting, but in any other aspect of our lives, we can rest assure that our relationships will grow. The outcome of our conversation will have meaning and value. Ultimately, never underestimate the power of dialogue. It is only by means of dialogue that we can find the perfect moment of mutual understanding, the perfect moment of truth. In the case of Ted and Joanne, communication didn t occur during the exhausting court battle, but it began when Joanne approached Ted in the last scene letting him know that it was best for Billy to remain with him. We finally see two people trying to understand each other by listening to each other. At the end, I am certain that dialogue finally happened.

8 Dialogical Approach 8 References Arnett, R., Fritz, J., & Bell, L. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eisenberg, E. M. (2007). Strategic ambiguities: Essays on communication, organization, and identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eisenbergy, E., Goodall, Jr., & Trethewey, A. (2007). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint. 5 th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin s. Fischoff, R. (Producer), Jaffe, S.R. (Producer), & Benton, R. (Director). (1979). Kramer vs. Kramer [Film]. Los Angeles: Columbia Pictures. Hoivik, H.V.W., & Follesdal, A. (1995). Ethics and consultancy: European perspectives. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Johnnesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K.E. (2008). Ethics in human communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Kramer vs. Kramer (n.d.). The internet movie database. Retrieved from Thomlison, T. D. (n.d.). Monologic and dialogic communication. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from