At or With?

In 1970 in an article in The New York Times, Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman put forth the following dictum: "the social responsibility of business is to increase profits so long as the company stays within the rules of law." Known as the Friedman Doctrine, this statement seems straight-forward enough, almost beyond dispute. After all, of course businesses are in the business of making money. The more the better. Right? And of course they should not break or violate any laws in their efforts to increase profits. This is no different than it is for individuals. We strive to make money and not do anything illegal in that regard.

Does such a philosophy apply to communication? Does it make sense to believe men and women have a social responsibility to communicate, assuming they want to, so long as they do not break any laws is doing so? That, too, seems beyond dispute. But looking at what Friedman wrote nearly 50 years ago and what I have attempted to relate now, there is a nagging feeling that there appears to be something missing. In raising his initial thought, Friedman seems to overlook the matter of ethics. If a business branches out to another country, for instance, is it acceptable for it to ignore any child labor laws that run counter to what it follows in its own country?  Yes," is what Friedman seems to be suggesting.

But what about my communication analogy? What social responsibility do any of us have when it comes to communication? Does our responsibility end with a matter of our doing what we need to do to be heard? Do we have any social responsibility to give others a chance to respond to what we say? Should we factor into our communicating the opportunity for others to whom we have spoken to be heard as well? The answer to that points to how we see one-way communication versus two-way communication. Speaking at versus speaking with. Which one is preferable? Which one, ultimately, is more effective?