The field of social and behavior change communication (SBCC) has a history reaching back to the period of decolonization following World War II. Since that period, much has been learned about theories and methods pertinent to this communication subfield. One topic that has received too little attention is the ethical dimension of SBCC. This paper considers the need for an SBCC code of ethics and justification for such a code. Amartya Sen's capabilities approach and Habermas's discourse ethics are reviewed as substantial contributions to such a justification. Habermas's U and D principles are selected as especially useful when the criteria for communicative action are considered, including criteria related to validity claims and general symmetry conditions. The paper argues that discourse ethics is the most suitable general ethical approach for SBCC, offering both a theoretical foundation for SBCC ethics and guidelines for practice in the field.
AcemogluDRobinsonJ (2012) Why Nations Fail. New York: Crown Publishing.
2.
AxtellGOlsonP (2012) Recent work in applied virtue ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly49(3): 183–203.
3.
BakerS (2008) The model of the principled advocate and the pathological Partisan: A virtue ethics construct of opposing archetypes of public relations and advertising practitioners. Journal of Mass Media Ethics23(3): 235–253.
4.
BellD (1993) Communitarianism and Its Critics. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
ChristiansC (2004) Ubuntu and communitarianism in media ethics. Equid Novi25(2): 235–256.
6.
ChristiansCTraberM (1997) Communication Ethics and Universal Values. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
7.
CouldryN (2010) Why Voice Matters. London: Sage.
8.
CrockerD (1991) Toward development ethics. World Development19(5): 457–483.
9.
CrockerD (2008) Ethics of Global Development: Agency, Capability, and Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DrèzeJSenA (2013) An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions. London: Penguin Books.
11.
FrankAG (1984) Critique and Anti-Critique: Essays on Dependence and Reformism. London: Macmillan Press.
12.
FraserN (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A crontribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: CalhounC (ed) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp.109–142.
13.
GarnhamN (1997) Amartya Sen’s ‘capabilities’ approach to the evaluation of welfare: Its application to communication. Javnost4(4): 25–34.
14.
GasparD (2004) The Ethics of Development: From Economism to Human Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
15.
GlenisterRKArnettRC (2008) Communication Ethics: Between Cosmopolitanism and Provinciality. New York: Peter Lang.
16.
GouletD (1971) The Cruel Choice: A New Concept in the Theory of Development. New York: Anthenaeum.
17.
GouletD (1995) Development Ethics: A Guide to Theory and Practice. New York: Apex press.
18.
HabermasJ (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
19.
HabermasJ (1979a) What is universal pragmatics? In: HabermasJ (ed) Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, pp.69–94.
20.
HabermasJ (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume One – Reason and The Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
21.
HabermasJ (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume Two – Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
22.
HabermasJ (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
23.
HabermasJ (1993) Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
24.
HamelinkC (ed) (1997) Ethics and Development: On Making Moral Choices in Development Co-Operation. Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok.
25.
HäyryM (2021) Just better utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics30(2): 343–367.
26.
HesmondhalghD (2017) Capitalism and the media: Moral economy, well-being and capabilities. Media Culture & Society39(2): 202–218.
27.
HillTE Jr (2013) Kantianism. In: LaFolletteHIngmarP (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Oxord: Blackwell Publishing, pp.311–331.
28.
IngramDDerdakT (2018) The Ethics of Development: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
29.
JacobsonT (2016) Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach and communication for development and social change. Journal of Communication66(5): 789–810.
30.
KellyM (1994) Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
31.
KleineD (2013) Technologies of Choice?: ICTs, Development, and the Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
32.
KrügerF (2016) Discourse ethics and the media. African Journalism Studies37(1): 21–39.
33.
LernerDSchrammW (1976) Communication and Change: The Last Ten Years and the Next. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
34.
MacIntyreA (1984) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
35.
MansellR (2002) From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies. Current Sociology50(3): 407–426.
36.
MeehanJ (eds) (1995) Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York: Routledge.
37.
MelkoteRSinghalA (eds) (2021) Handbook of Communication and Development. London: Edward Elgar.
38.
MugumbateJRChereniA (2020) Now, the theory of Ubuntu has its space in social work. African Journal of Social Work10(1): v–xv.
39.
NussbaumM (1986) Therapeutic arguments: Epicurus and aristotle. In: SchofieldMStrikerG (eds) The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.31–74.
40.
RaoS (2015) Practices of Indian journalism: Justice, ethics, and globalization. In: RaoSWassermanH (ed) Media Ethics and Justice in the Age of Globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.121–138.
41.
RobeynsI (2013) Capability ethics. In: LaFolletteHPerssonI (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. New York: Blackwell, pp.412–432.
42.
RogersE (1962) The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
43.
SchrammW (1964) Mass Media and National Development: The Role of Information in the Developing Countries. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
44.
SenA (1987) On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
45.
SenA (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
46.
SenA (2009) The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
47.
ServaesJ (1989) One World, Multiple Cultures: A New Paradigm on Communication for Development. Leuven: Acco Press.
48.
SingerP (1977) Reconsidering the famine relief argument. In: BrownGShueH (eds) Food Policy: The Responsibility of the United States in the Life and Death Choices. New York: Free Press, pp.36–53.
49.
SinghalACodyMRogersE, et al. (2004) Entertainment-Education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
ThomasP (2011) Negotiating Communication Rights: Case Studies from India. London.: Sage Publications.
51.
UrquhartLBrownLDuncansonK, et al. (2020) A dialogical approach to understand perspectives of an aboriginal wellbeing program: An extension of Habermas’ theory of communicative action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods19: 1–10.
52.
WaisbordS (2001) Family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies in development communication: Convergence and differences. Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.comminit.com/la/node/1547.
53.
WhiteS (1988) The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
WhiteS (1991) Political Theory and Postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
WilkinsKTufteTObregonR (2014) The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
56.
ZhangWChangL (2014) Perceived speech conditions and disagreement of everyday talk: A proceduralist perspective of citizen deliberation. Communication Theory24(2): 124–145.
