Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Response—Belonging, Interdisciplinarity, and Fragmentation: On the Conditions for a Bioethical Discourse Community

  • Symposium: Legacy of Miles Little
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I have been invited to reflect on “Discourse communities and the discourses of experience” a paper co-authored by Little, Jordens, and Sayers and discuss how their analysis of discourse communities has influenced the development of bioethics and consider its influence now and potential effects in the future. Their paper examines the way different discourse communities are shaped by different experiences and desires. The shared language and experiences can provide a sense of belonging and familiarity. These can be positive aspects of a discourse community, but there are also risks restricting the voices and experiences that can be heard and recognized. In this essay I hope to weave together three threads: an analysis of Little, Jordens, and Sayer’s research on discourse communities; the narrative interview I conducted with Little about his own experiences in establishing a bioethics centre; and my own experience of the bioethical discourse community established by Little.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bailey, P. 1984. Unrest in Doctors’ Ranks. Sydney Morning Herald.

  • Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin, edited by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Elliott, C. 2005. When ethicists have conflicts of interest. Dissent 52(4): 44-46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R.C., and J.P. Swazey. 2008. Observing bioethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, J., D. Field, and A. Davis. 1984. Doctors and the State: Implications of the 1984 NSW dispute. Australian Quarterly 56(3): 249-255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, M. 1998. Values, ethics and the law—Issues for practice and education. Education for Health 11(1): 65-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, M. 2018. Interview with Christopher Mayes, 19th March 2018. For 'Bioethics in the Antipodes: History of bioethics in Australia'. Funded by Australian Research Council DE170100550. Ethics approval from Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HAE-17-249).

  • Little, M., C.F. Jordens, and E.-J. Sayers. 2003. Discourse communities and the discourse of experience. Health 7(1): 73-86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unknown. 1984. Surgeons resign over fight with government. Sydney Morning Herald.

Download references

Funding

I receive funding from the Australian Research Council (DE170100550).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alfred Deakin Institute, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Christopher Mayes

Authors
  1. Christopher Mayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Mayes.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayes, C. Response—Belonging, Interdisciplinarity, and Fragmentation: On the Conditions for a Bioethical Discourse Community. Bioethical Inquiry 19, 79–84 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10146-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10146-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation