Appositional (Communication) Ethics: Listening to Heidegger and Lévinas in Chorus

Abstract

This work aims to find a reconciliatory ground between the philosophies of Martin Heidegger and Emmanuel Lévinas on the basis of communication ethics. The approach of the study can be summarized as appositional. Instead of working from the seeming differences, the article proposes excavating similar grounds that are subtle and imperceptible. Apposition alternatively would provide an opportunity to overcome any perceivable opposition. Starting from each thinker's position on the ideas of communication, the origin of ethics and the characteristics of intersubjectivity, the article reaches for conclusions on an appositional ethics of an Other centered Being without necessarily defacing both philosophers’ ideas.

Keywords:

• Heidegger
• Lévinas
• Responsibility
• Call
• Language

Notes

1. A version of this manuscript was submitted for the National Communication Association's 97th Convention that will take place in New Orleans on November 17–20, 2011. The paper was sent to the Communication Ethics Division and accepted for presentation.

2. The reason behind this spelling is to emphasize its literal meaning, there-being. The original German term is Dasein. On the other hand, in this text small letter dasein(s) is used for others’ there-being.

3. Lévinas uses both of the terms, autre (the personal Other, the you) and autrui (other) in Infinity and Totality in different nuances. He also uses both capital and small letters for each of the terms in the text in a varying sequence. Most of the English translations unfortunately lose this subtlety and many scholars, following Alphonso Lingis’ translation preference, use the term “Other” for the former and the “other” for the latter. My preference in this text is to use “Other” for the absolutely other, the exteriority par excellence; and “other” for the general reference for an individual.

4. See “On the Essence and Concept of φσις” in Pathmarks.

5. Literal etymological interpretation of “Ap-propri-ation” as [Er-eign-is] is here emphasized.

6. See Sembera (2007) Rephrasing Heidegger for in-depth analyses of these terms.

7. See Nancy (1991) The Inoperative Community for an extensive discussion of the idea of being-with.

8. For the influence of Aristotle's teleological thinking on Heidegger please see Bowler (2008), McNeill (2006), and Brogan (2005); as well as these studies, Kisiel and Buren's (1994) edited work is an excellent source for understanding the Aristotelian origins of Heideggerian ideas.

9. See Being and Time, Section 53.

10. These are my own words attempting to describe (translate) the call.

11. A well-known fact is that even though Lévinas (1996) reacts to Heidegger in his own work and is critical of many Heideggerian ideas, he is also one of the utmost admirer of Heidegger's work, especially Being and Time. Lévinas's translations of Heidegger and articles about his ideas were also very instrumental to Heidegger's reception in France. Lévinas’s 1932 article “Martin Heidegger and Ontology” which was translated to English in 1996 is an exceptional example of this relationship.

12. The relationship between the host and hostage is beyond the apparent etymological connection and is explained in detail in the next section but it is necessary to state here that for both Heidegger and Lévinas orientation of responsibility is towards exteriority. Both the host and the hostage provide security for the stranger, the Other, and are responsible for the well-being of the guest, the one who is next to me.

13. See Lévinas (1998b) Otherwise Than Being, or, Beyond Essence, Chapter IV starts with Paul Celan's epigram.

14. This idea needs to be understood in the sense of νργεια/ντελχεια.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cem Zeytinoglu

Cem Zeytinoglu (Ph.D. Duquesne University, 2007) is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania and President of the Pennsylvania Communication Association