What do you think?
Rate this book
Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue
Questioning the tradition of individual responsibility, this pioneering book also transforms the concept of responsibility by giving centre stage to the relational process rather than to the individual - replacing alienation and isolation with meaningful dialogue. The first three chapters are the editors′ own contribution on relational responsibility - followed by their analysis of a challenging case study involving the issue of child sexual abuse. The next 14 chapters contain responses from leading academics and professionals in the fields of communication, psychology and organizational development, which extend the editors′ original dialogue. In conclusion, Sheila McNamee and Kenneth Gergen illustrate relational responsi
248 pages, Hardcover
First published October 27, 1998
2 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 10, 2008
I was supposed to write a review on this back in 2001, and got sidetracked because I was trying to graduate from my master's program. For the record, I'll say that the text can be difficult, but Gergen's ideas are interesting. He is one of the brand of postmodernists that don't believe that "anything goes"--not a relativist. Instead, he tries to argue for a postmodern ethics based on relationships--how the connection between people demands responsibility toward and for one another. So rather than being based on moral absolutes that are free from context, he proposes (like Levinas, Slife, Bauman, Warner, and some of my other favorite philisophical/ethical writers) an ethics that is based on relationships.
I appreciate the distinction (between absolutist ethics and relational ethics) because I think that it can be easily adapted to refect the unique LDS understanding of morality. Let me set up the context first. I feel that there is a strong moralistic faction in the LDS community that seems to believe that there are "eternal principles" that are absolute, exist independent of God--even exist above God (I've heard my own mother say that God is God because He follows eternal principles, not the other way around)--and that we, like God, have an eternal destiny that is dependent on how well we learn to live by these "eternal principles."
But I perceive that there is also a lot in the Gospel that suggests that a "relational ethics" (which Gergen and others describe) is more appropriate for our unique LDS understanding of God and truth, rather than an absolutist ethics.
For example, we follow Jesus not because He points us to the truth, but because He actually IS "the way, the truth, and the life." If we want to know what is true for us, we don't need to consult abstract principles (i.e., "what would 'honesty' dictate," or "what would 'responsibility' suggest is the right path?"). Instead, we can actually go to the Truth-giver and find out from Him what is true and right--that is a very relationally-contexted idea of truth, and very different from the relativism and absolutism that are battling it out for dominance in contemporary Christianity.
If "eternal principles" are the highest truth out there, then we should be worshipping them, rather than God. It's just another form of idolatry.
But if we have an LDS understanding of truth (truth that is constantly being revealed, not just static in an unchangeable canon), which is impossible to separate from our unique epistemology (revelation: we believe that we can receive direct answers to prayer, that we can be lead daily--and even hourly--by the Spirit, that God is always mindful of us and interested in directing us, and we aspire to having a prayer in our heart at all times--essentially a two-way open line of communication), then I believe that it is not "eternal principles" that we look to for guidance or inspiration, but a living, responding, relationally-connected Father in Heaven (and the Son and Spirit that are indistinguishable from Him in every meaningful aspect except that of being separate personages).
I'd rather find Jesus in a Sunday School lesson than "eternal principles" any day--Jesus saves, not abstract ideas. And it's when I'm most connected to Him that I behave most ethically--not when I'm doing my darndest to follow "correct principles."
I appreciate the distinction (between absolutist ethics and relational ethics) because I think that it can be easily adapted to refect the unique LDS understanding of morality. Let me set up the context first. I feel that there is a strong moralistic faction in the LDS community that seems to believe that there are "eternal principles" that are absolute, exist independent of God--even exist above God (I've heard my own mother say that God is God because He follows eternal principles, not the other way around)--and that we, like God, have an eternal destiny that is dependent on how well we learn to live by these "eternal principles."
But I perceive that there is also a lot in the Gospel that suggests that a "relational ethics" (which Gergen and others describe) is more appropriate for our unique LDS understanding of God and truth, rather than an absolutist ethics.
For example, we follow Jesus not because He points us to the truth, but because He actually IS "the way, the truth, and the life." If we want to know what is true for us, we don't need to consult abstract principles (i.e., "what would 'honesty' dictate," or "what would 'responsibility' suggest is the right path?"). Instead, we can actually go to the Truth-giver and find out from Him what is true and right--that is a very relationally-contexted idea of truth, and very different from the relativism and absolutism that are battling it out for dominance in contemporary Christianity.
If "eternal principles" are the highest truth out there, then we should be worshipping them, rather than God. It's just another form of idolatry.
But if we have an LDS understanding of truth (truth that is constantly being revealed, not just static in an unchangeable canon), which is impossible to separate from our unique epistemology (revelation: we believe that we can receive direct answers to prayer, that we can be lead daily--and even hourly--by the Spirit, that God is always mindful of us and interested in directing us, and we aspire to having a prayer in our heart at all times--essentially a two-way open line of communication), then I believe that it is not "eternal principles" that we look to for guidance or inspiration, but a living, responding, relationally-connected Father in Heaven (and the Son and Spirit that are indistinguishable from Him in every meaningful aspect except that of being separate personages).
I'd rather find Jesus in a Sunday School lesson than "eternal principles" any day--Jesus saves, not abstract ideas. And it's when I'm most connected to Him that I behave most ethically--not when I'm doing my darndest to follow "correct principles."
Displaying 1 of 1 review