|
|
Handouts COMM 381 |
Monologic and Dialogic Communication
By
T. Dean Thomlison
An essential component of an
individual's "humaneness" is communicative interaction with others.
Communicologists, philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists, theologians,
sociologists, and a host of other contemporary thinkers have approached the
topic of communication from varying perspectives. A fascinating area of inquiry
about human communication derives its origins from these diverse fields of
thought. Human communication as dialogue is called "the third revolution
in communication" by Floyd Matson and Ashley Montagu in The Human
Dialogue (1967). The first revolution, in this frame of thought, was the
scientific invention phase which produced mass communication. The second
revolution was the scientific theory and human engineering phase which produced
cybernetics and motivation research. According to Matson and Montagu, the third
revolution places emphasis upon openness and mutual respect.
Numerous writers, thinkers, and
theoreticians such as Buber (1958), Howe (1967), Matson and Montague (1967),
Ruesch (1971), Jaspers (1964), Meerloo (1967), Rogers (1961, 1980), (Habermas
(1984), Johannesen (1971, 1996) , Stewart (1978), Brown and Keller (1979),
Arnett (1981) and Thomlison (1972, 1974, 1975, 1982) have explored dialogic
communication in one form or another. Their approaches and emphases vary, but
each deals with some of the prime aspects of dialogue. Because of this
diversity, this orientation toward communication has been characterized by
several different names including: presence, encounter, genuine communication,
therapeutic encounter, supportive climate, nondirective therapy, existential
communication, facilitative communication, helping relationships, authentic
exchange, conversation, I-Thou relationship, and dialogue.
Dialogic encounter assumes an essential
faith in human interaction. It is not a method, but rather an attitude or
orientation toward communication. In dialogic communication each participant
possesses genuine concern for one's partner instead of as a means to an end.
This facilitative communication is opposed to coercing and exploiting,
dishonest forms of interactions that are used to manipulate people in various
degrees. Dialogue is characterized by trust, openness, spontaneity, caring,
sensitivity, sincerity, and empathy. In a sense, it is the "stuff" of
which ideal interpersonal relationships are made. As we move toward deeper,
more honest forms of interpersonal interaction, we are also moving toward
dialogue (Thomlison, 1982).
Martin Buber, the renowned philosopher,
developed a profound interest in dialogue. His I-Thou and I-It concepts
are one well-known way of viewing many different types of relationships. Three
types of dialogue were recognized by Buber: (1) genuine dialogue, in which a
mutual relationship grows, (2) technical dialogue, in which there is the goal
of achieving objective understanding, and (3) monologue, in which one is more
interested in self than in the relationship (Buber, 1967). I-Thou relationships
are dialogic, while I-It relationships are monologic. It was acknowledged by
Buber that communicators will tend to alternate between these types of
interaction in everyday life (Friedman, 1956).
Johannesen (1971) states that an I-Thou
relationship possesses the following six characteristics:
1. Mutual
Openness : Behavior patterns and attitudes of those participating in dialogue
possess the qualities of "mutuality, open-heartedness, directness,
honesty, spontaneity, frankness, lack of pretense, nonmanipulative intent,
communion, intensity, and love in the sense of responsibility of one human for
another" (Johannesen,1971,p. 375).
2. Nonmanipulative
: There is an absence of forcing one's belief on another. Dialogue, in the
I-Thou sense, can include influence and yet not include manipulative intent.
Use of propaganda and "suggestion" are seen as manipulative
approaches (Buber, 1966a, p. 112).
3. Recognition
of Uniqueness : The unique individuality of the persons engaged in dialogue
is acknowledged. This recognition of human uniqueness implies that each
participant should be allowed equal rights and respect in the exchange (Buber,
1966a). One's partner is not viewed as simply another similar member of a
categorized group.
4. Mutual
Confirmation : I-Thou encounters include mutual confirmation and awareness.
"One becomes totally aware of the other rather than functioning as an observer
or onlooker" (Johannesen, p. 375) Buber knew that people will not always
agree but they can support and affirm each other. Awareness of one's
communication partner leads to confirmation and acceptance of
"otherness".
5. Turning
Toward : There is a moving toward, turning toward, or reaching toward one's
partner in a symbolic sense. The meeting which results from this focus is the
core of dialogic encounter. Buber summarized this "turning toward" as
follows: "Where the dialogue is fulfilled in its being, between partners
who have turned to one another in truth, who express themselves without reserve
and are free of the desire for semblance, there is brought into being a
memorable common fruitfulness which is to be found nowhere else" (Buber,
1966c).
6. Nonevaluativeness
: In dialogue, there is an attempt to see the other's point-of-view even if it
is opposed to one's own. "Each of the partners, even when he stands in
opposition to the other, heeds, affirms, and confirms his opponent as an
existing other" (Buber, 1966b)
Buber believed that true dialogic
connection and I-Thou relationships could only be derived from the between --"the
region of human existence that links self and others" (Anderson and Ross,
1994). This mutuality of communication resides not in either participant but in
the relationship between the two (Figure 10). He believed that the essence of
communication, language, and even one's identity resides in the
"between". In communication terms, the meaning of messages is
co-generated by the participants rather than being dictated by one. Thus,
dialogue is directly related to the transactional model of communication
discussed earlier in this chapter. The shared meaning and the relationship
itself are the unique creations of both parties to the interaction.
(Figure
10: The Between)
In basic terms, monologic communication
involves manipulation and control just as one would treat a physical object. It
is the embodiment of an I-It relationship and obviously takes a one-way,
transmission model approach to communication. Johannesen (1996) summarizes the
characteristics of monologic communication in vivid terms:
A person
employing monologue seeks to command, coerce, manipulate, conquer, dazzle,
deceive, or exploit. Other persons are viewed as "things" to be
exploited solely for the communicator's self-serving purpose: they are not
taken seriously as persons. Choices are narrowed and consequences are obscured.
Focus is on the communicator's message, not on the audience's real needs. The
core values, goals, and policies espoused by the communicator are impervious to
influence exerted by receivers. Audience feedback is used only to further the
communicator's purpose. An honest response from a receiver is not wanted or is
precluded. Monological communicators persistently strive to impose their truth
or program on others; they have the superior attitude that they must coerce
people to yield to what they believe others ought to know (p. 69).
The above description of monologue is
reminiscent of the approach to communication traditionally used by public
relations practitioners. Botan (1997) makes this very point in an excellent
journal article advocating a more ethical, dialogic approach to public
relations. He believes that the predominant model of public relations in use
today is monological. He states that most strategic communication campaigns
today "define their goals only from the perspective of the sponsor so they
typically seek to reduce the receivers to a vehicle for achieving those
needs" (p. 192). Monologic communication targets and treats others
primarily to fulfill one's own needs.
Broom and Smith (1979) observed that
although there are numerous public relations paradigms and models,
practitioners are basically either technicians or managers. The public
relations technician is described by Botan (1997) as follows:
A technician
perspective on public relations (otherwise known as a 'hired gun') is by far
the dominant model of public relations practice and teaching today...This view
sees public relations not from an ethical perspective but as a set of technical
journalism-based skills to be hired out. Most important among these is the
ability to write press releases well, but organizing and hosting press
conferences, laying out or editing publications, taking pictures, and handling
media relations are also important skills. In effect, the practitioner becomes
the client's hired journalist-in-residence, or a mechanic for media relations.
The most important attribute of this approach is that practitioners and their
employers assume that the practitioner should be primarily a conduit for
strategies, and sometimes even tactics, that have been decided elsewhere in the
organization. In doing so this approach instrumentalizes publics, and to a
lesser extent practitioners, and negates both the ethical role of the
practitioner and the dialogic perspective . . . (p. 195).
Thus, although the technician generally
does not actively plan to bypass rational decision making by being deceitful
and manipulative, the inherent lack of emphasis on relationship building and
dialogue in this predominantly transmission model of communication will
naturally lead to monologue. As monological communicators, technicians view
their communication partners and relationships simply as the means to an end
rather than viewing the relationship as the end goal.
As emphasized early in this chapter. the
relationship management perspective for public relations uses communication to
develop, maintain, grow, and nurture mutually beneficial relationships. Pearson
(1989) goes so far as to declare that "establishing and maintaining
dialogical communication between a business organization and its publics is a
precondition for ethical business practices" (p. 125) Both Pearson (1989)
and Botan (1993) were among the early advocates for moving away from a
transmission-oriented , monologic, technician model and toward a dialogic,
relational manager model of public relations. Botan summarizes their view as
follows:
A dialogic
view of public relations differs from a technician approach by being more
humanistic, communication-centered, relationship-focused, and ethical. This
perspective focuses on communicative relationships rather than on technical
skills. Traditional approaches to public relations relegate publics to a
secondary role, making them an instrument for meeting organizational policy or
marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of
communication equal with the organization (p. 196).
The new information technologies used
for the "demassification" of messages have the potential to
facilitate dialogue. The Internet is an example of one contemporary context for
using new technology to "interpersonalize" the relationships between
organization and their publics. Individualized marketing and target advertising
combined with interactive capabilities generated by the Internet and the World
Wide Web have created a communication environment in which organizations can
literally interact with and provide selective information for customers via a
mediated channel of communication. Even particular segments of the population
are grouped into specialized areas of interest in a highly sophisticated manner
based upon the user's history of Internet selections or "hits". For
example, a new California-based site (http://www.thirdage.com) is now devoted
to the special interests and needs of the first wave of "baby
boomers" to be 50 years of age or older. The Third Agers, as they have
been dubbed, are as net savvy as the younger Generation Xers, and they are the
first of the onslaught of boomers to have reached a period of spendable cash
and more free time in which to spend it. Many profit and non-profit
organizations wanting to develop and maintain close ties with their publics
have developed Web pages to both disseminate information and gather information
on constituent needs. Similarly, other forms of electronic technology are being
combined to relationalize or interpersonalize the cold, impersonal nature of
technology. For instance, the banking industry has developed interactive
banking centers or "virtual banks" which combine touch sensitive
screens, electronic banking, two-way cameras and sound to allow interpersonal,
"face-to-face" transactions between customers at remote locations and
tellers at central banks.
A new wave in advertising has apparently
also taken note of the paradigm shift toward an interpersonal perspective. A
glance at television commercials quickly reveals a movement toward greater
emphasis upon personalized relations with potential customers. For example, in
1996 the AT&T "reach out and touch someone" advertisements were
so successful that many other companies have followed suit. In 1997, TCI published
the following ad in newspapers throughout the
WE SEE YOU
AS MORE THAN AN ACCOUNT NUMBER SO YOU CAN SEE US AS MORE THAN A CABLE COMPANY.
We know
that each of our customers is an individual. And no two are alike. That's why
we make sure to never forget how mportant it is to personalize everything from
the new products we offer to the services we provide. We've been doing it for
quite some time and getting better at it every day. TCI, Now there's a better
way.
No matter how slick or interpersonal
looking the ads for McDonalds, AT&T, MCI, or any other commercial
enterprise, including the television infomercials which involve interviews or
audience participation in introducing new products and services, the fact
remains that these are monologic attempts at representing or simulating
relationships rather than actually establishing on-going, dialogic
relationships. These ads still follow the traditional image-creation paradigm,
but they do at least show an awareness of the need for establishing closer
relationships with their publics and an acknowledgment of their individuality.
Public relations and advertising
specialists alike have attempted for years to make impersonal media appear as interpersonal
as possible. Mass mediated messages can inform significant publics about the
actions and efforts of organizations to be more responsive to them and to
establish closer relational ties, but this method of communication is no
substitute for the actual establishment and maintenance of relationships with
individual significant publics. These claims are only manicured images until
they are backed up by actions. In Buber's terms, they are monologue disguised
as dialogue or, at the very least, technical dialogue leading to basic message
understanding but not concerned with genuine dialogic relationships. In common
parlance, it is easy to "talk the talk", but the real test for public
relations practitioners should be whether or not their organizations are
"walking the walk". Generation of images and "saying the right
things" or "telling them what they want to hear" is not enough
to establish stable, long-term relationships. Words and actions must be
congruent if credibility and trust are to be built in a relationship possessing
dialogue.
Monologue and dialogue take many forms
in a relationship. As noted earlier in our examination of the transactional
model of communication, withholding information can send a clear message. Even
when attempting to not communicate by delaying a response, a profit or
not-for-profit organization can be clearly communicating messages to its
customers or clientele. Swift, straightforward action by the manufacturers of
Tylenol immediately following a few cases of product tampering spoke volumes to
a concerned public about the commitment of the company to its customers. There
was no attempt at withholding or manipulating information to shirk
responsibility or minimize costs associated with recalls, initiation of new
safety measures, and manufacturing a more tamper-proof tablet and container.
Not all organizations are as forthright
as the manufactures of Tylenol. On March 23, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez
leaked 10.1 million gallons of oil into pristine
One often ignored foundation stone for
the public relations communication process is listening (Thomlison, 1990).
Listening is a basic component of interpersonal communication and the heart of
dialogue. Since a high portion of the commonly cited "public relations
activities" include human interaction and response, it is inevitable that
listening skills and awareness will be a vital component of
"relationalizing" public relations. According to Wylie (1990),
"public relations becomes involved in the whole organization, and its
function of communication is no less from the public to the organization than
from the organization to the public" (p. 59). Thus, public relations
personnel engaged in relationship management will be heavily involved in
listening to their various publics. As the Public Relations Society of America
states, "public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt
mutually to each other" (Wilcox, et. al., 1989, p. 5).
Case study books abound with examples of
situations in which public relations practitioners did not listen to their
publics or communication partners. Wylie (1990) observes that historically the
shortsightedness of organizations and entire industries (health care,
insurance) of not attending to the interests and needs of their publics has
resulted in dire consequences. Examples of effective and sensitive, dialogic
listening are less abundant but there are a growing number. For instance,
listening to the need for parents of seriously ill children to have affordable
housing near treatment centers led directly to the establishment of Ronald
McDonald Houses. Surprisingly, even with the increasing awareness and general
comments about understanding and relating more effectively to significant
publics, very few specific references to listening are included in public
relations texts and courses. A cursory examination of the subject index of even
the most advanced public relations texts will reveal an absence of listening
references. Listening texts are equally guilt of ignoring the significant
impact of listening on public relations. However, there is great potential for
numerous significant applications of listening theory, research, and models to
public relations practice.
As advocates for public relations as
relationship management continue to increase in number, dialogic communication
theory will obviously play a key role in providing an interdisciplinary
philosophic foundation.
References
Anderson, R.
and Ross, V. (1994). Questions of Communication: A Practical Introduction to
Theory.
Arnett, R. C. (1981). "Toward a
Phenomenological Dialogue." Western Journal of Speech Communication
45, 201-212.
Barnlund, Dean
C. (1970). "A Transactional Model of Communication." In Foundations
of Communication Theory, edited by K.K. Sereno and C. D. Mortensen.
Berger, Charles R. (1982). Language
and Social Knowledge: Uncertainty in Interpersonal Relations.
Berko, Roy M,
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B., and Samovar, Larry A. (1997). Connecting, 2nd
ed.
Berlo, David
K. (1960). The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and
Practice.
Botan, C. (1997). "Ethics in
Strategic Communication Campaigns: The Case for a New Approach to Public
Relations." The Journal of Business Communication, 34 (2): 188-202.
Botan, C
(1993). "Introduction to the Paradigm Struggle in Public Relations." Public
Relations Review 19 (2) : 197-110.
Brehm, S. (1992) Intimate Relations,
2nd ed.
Brown, James I. (1987). "Listening--Ubiquitous
Yet Obscure." Journal of the International Listening Association,
1: 3-14.
Buber, M. (1967). "Between Man and
Man: The Realms." In The Human Dialogue, edited by Floyd W. Matson
and Ashley Montague.
Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou
(R.G. Smith, Trans.).
Buber, M. (1966a). "Acceptance and
Otherness." In The Way of Response: Martin Buber, edited by N.N.
Glatzer.
Buber, M. (1966b). "In This
Hour." In The Way of Response: Martin Buber, edited by N.N.
Glatzer.
Buber, M. (1966c). "Without
Reserve." In The Way of Response: Martin Buber, edited by N.N.
Glatzer.
Buber, Martin (1965). Between Man and
Man (R. G. Smith, Trans.).
Cook, Karen S. (ed.). (1987). Social
Exchange Theory.
Cutlip, Scott
M., Center, Allen H., Broom, Glen M. (1994). Effective Public Relations,
7th ed.
Drewery, J. (1969). "An
Interpersonal Perception Technique." British Journal of Medical
Psychology 42: 171-181.
Duck, Steven (1976). "Interpersonal
"Communication in Developing Acquaintance." In Explorations in
Interpersonal Communication, edited by Gerald R. Miller.
Duck, Steven (1988). Relating to
Others.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of
Cognitive Dissonance.
Flectcher,
G.J., Fincham, F.D., Cramer, L., and Heron, N. (1987). "The Role of
Attributions in the Development of Dating Relationships." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51: 875-884.
Friedman,
Maurice S. (1956). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue.
Grunig, James
E. (1993). "Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral
Relationship." Public Relations Review 19 (2): 221-139.
Grunig, James
E. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations.
Grunig, James
E. (1989). "Symmetrical Presuppositions as a Framework for Public
Relations Theory." In Public Relations Theory, edited by C. H.
Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr..
Hallen, Lars,
Johanson, Jan, Seyed-Mohamed, Nazeem. (1991). "Interfirm Adaptation in
Business Relationships." Journal of Marketing 55 (2): 29-37.
Heath, Robert L. (1993). "A
Rhetorical Approach to Zones of Meaning and Organizational Prerogatives." Public
Relations Review 19 (2): 141-155.
Hecht, M. L.,
Marston, P.J., and Larkey, L.K. (1994). "
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social
Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
Howe, Reuel L.
(1967). "The Miracle of Dialogue." In The Human Dialogue,
edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu.
Ichheiser,
Gustav (1970). Appearances and Realities: Misunderstanding in Human
Relations.
Jaspers, Karl
(1964). "Communication," in The Worlds of Existentialism,
edited by Maurice S. Friedman.
Johannesen, Richard L. (1971). "The
Emerging Concept of Communciation as Dialogue." Quarterly Journal of
Speech LVII: 373-82.
Johannesen, Richard L. (1996). Ethics
in Human Communication, 4th ed.
Kelley, Harold
H. (1979). Personal Relationships: Their Structures and Processes .
Kerckhoff, A. C., and Davis, K.E. (1962).
"Value Consensus and Need Complementarity in Mate Selection." American
Sociological Review 27: 295-303.
Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal
Communication and Human Relationships.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social
Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye.
Knapp, M.L. and Miller, G. R. , eds.,
(1985). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication.
Knapp, M. L., and Vangelisti, A. (1992).
Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships.
Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and Others.
Laing, R. D.,
Phillipson, H., and Lee, A.R. (1966). Interpersonal Perception.
Ledingham,
John A., Bruning, Stephen, and Thomlison, T. Dean (1996). "The
Applicability of Interpersonal Relationship Dimensions to an Organizational
Context: Toward a Theory of Relational Loyalty, A Qualitative Approach."
Paper presented at The Allied Academies International Conference.
Ledingham,
John A., Bruning, Stephen, Thomlison, T. Dean, and Lesko, Cheryl (1997). Academy
of Managerial Communications Journal 1 (1): 23-43.
Liska, Jo and Cronkhite,
Littlejohn, Stephen W. (1996). Theories
of Human Communication, 5th ed.
Matson, Floyd W. and Montagu, A. (1967).
"Introduction: The Unfinished Revolution." In The Human Dialogue,
edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu.
Meerloo, Jost A. M. (1967).
"Conversation and Communication." In The Human Dialogue,
edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu.
Montgomery, Barbara M. (1992).
"Communication as the Interface Between Couples and Culture." In Communication
Yearbook 15, edited by Stanley Deetz.
Newcomb, Theodore M. (1953). "An
approach to the Study of Communicative Acts." Psychological Review,
60: 393-404.
Pearson, R. L.
(1989). "Business Ethics as Communication Ethics: Public Relations
Practice and the Idea of Dialogue." In Public Relations Theory,
edited by C. Botan and V. Hazleton.
Rogers, Carl
R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's view of Psychotherapy.
Rogers, Carl R. (1980).
Ruben, B. D. and Lievrouw, L. A. (eds.).
(1990). Mediation, Information, and Behavior. Transaction Publishers.
Ruesch, J.
(1971). "Communication and Human Relations: An Interdisciplinary
Approach." In Basic Readings in Interpersonal Communication, edited
by Kim Giffin and Bobby R. Patton.
Stewart, J.
(1978). "Foundations of Dialogic Communication." QuarterlyJournal
of Speech, 64: 183-201.
Sunnafrank, M.
(1986). "Predicted Outcome Value During Initial Interactions: A
Reformulation of Uncertainty Reduction Theory." Human Communication
Research 13: 3-33.
Taylor, Dalmas A. and Altman, Irwin
(1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships.
Thibaut, J.
W., and Kelley, H.H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups.
Thomlison, T.
Dean (1972). Communication as Dialogue: An Alternative. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University.
Thomlison, T.
Dean (1990). "Public Relations and Listening." Paper presented at the
annual conference of the Central States Communication Association in
Thomlison, T.
Dean (1985). "Relational Listening: Theoretical and Practical
Considerations." Resources in Education, ERIC Clearinghouse for
Thomlison, T.
Dean (1974). "The Existential Foundations of Dialogic Communication."
Journal of the
Thomlison, T.
Dean (1975). "The Necessary and Sufficient Characteristics of Dialogic
Communication: The Dialogic Process Equation." Journal of the
Thomlison, T. Dean (1982). Toward
Interpersonal Dialogue.
Thomlison, T.
Dean and Ledingham, John A. (1989). "The Challenge of Communication
Curriculum Integration." Resources in Education, ERIC Clearinghouse
for
Wilcox, Dennis
L. (1989). Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics, 2nd ed.
Wilmot, William W. (1987). Dyadic
Communication, 3rd ed.
Wilmot, William W. (1995). Relational
Communication.
Wood, Julia T. (1996). Everyday
Encounters.
Wood, Julia T. (1995). Relational
Communication.
Wylie, Frank
W. (1990). "The Challenge of Public Relations Education."