Dialogue

The dialogic approach to communication goes back to the Socratic notion of dialogue (or dialectic) as a philosophical tool for uncovering truth and discovering knowledge. Modern treatments of dialogue have described it as an interpersonal conversational technique based on respect and trust, and as an approach, or orientation, toward communication.

Dialogue as an approach to communication involves risk (a willingness to interact with others and to be changed), trust (fairness and openness), proximity (spontaneous, honest, face-to-face contact), empathy (supportiveness), mutuality (a recognition of shared goals and interests), and commitment (to ethical conversation). Rob Anderson, Kenneth Cissna, and Ronald Arnett explained, “Dialogue is a dimension of communication quality that keeps communicators more focused on mutuality and relationship than on self-interest, more concerned with discovering than disclosing, more interested in access than in domination” (1994, p. 2).

Each dialogic concept is integral to achieving “ethical” conversation. For example, when individuals or groups with divergent beliefs are interacting, each party must be able to trust that the other will not exploit them. An activist who agrees to meet with an organizational representative must be able to trust that the organization is not simply trying to distract the group while they secretly lobby Congress or take some other action. Without trust, authentic, mutually oriented communication cannot occur. Similarly, before trust can be built, interlocutors must be willing to risk, taking a chance that the other party will be honest and forthright.

Authentic dialogue is said to require spontaneous, face-to-face, interpersonal interaction. Both parties must be committed to the process of dialogue, or conversation. True dialogue is not achieved through sporadic or infrequent interactions. Trust and empathetic understanding are built over time, through repeated conversations and the pursuit of mutually beneficial goals. True dialogue requires commitment to the conversational process.

Dialogue has been studied by an assortment of scholars from diverse fields of study including communication, philosophy, political science, and psychology. As Carl Rogers suggested of his dialogic approach to therapy, dialogue is about “unconditional positive regard” for the other (1994, p. 128). Paolo Freire suggested in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “Dialogue cannot exist without humility.…How can I dialogue if I am closed to—and even offended by—the contribution of others?” (1994, pp. 71–72). Similarly, Michael Kent and [Page 251]Maureen Taylor (1998) conceived of dialogue as a public relations tool, with dialogic communication referring to any negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions. The term dialogic denotes a communicative give-and-take and is guided by two principles: First, individuals who engage in dialogue do not necessarily have to agree; quite often they vehemently disagree. However, what they share is a willingness to try to reach mutually satisfying positions. Second, dialogic communication is about intersubjectivity.

Implicit in the notion of dialogue is the belief that the orientation that one holds toward others influences the quality of communication, and ultimately, influences the development of relationships. When interlocutors are viewed as alien, or “other,” effective conversation (involving risk, trust, empathy, etc.) is more difficult.

One of the obstacles to using dialogue as a practical public relations tool has been the variety of ways that the term dialogue has been used. To political pundits, dialogue often means nothing more than talk. To political scientists, dialogue often refers to public forums where political leaders express opinions (public debates). According to Richard L. Johannesen, dialogue often refers to ethical communication that acknowledges “the attitudes toward each other held by the participants in a communication exchange” (1990, p. 58, italics in original).

...