Dialogic Communication Theory
Dialogic communications theory derives primarily from the writings of the 20th century existentialist philosopher Martin Buber. Buber's famed "I-Thou" duality became the very source of dialogue at its most fundamental, and communications theory has taken much from him. Dialogue was not merely a form of communication, but a reality, a true friendship.
Other People Are Reading
-
Features
-
True dialogue, according to Buber, is found prior to any actual communication. Unity must be present before dialogue, in its true sense, can take place. Dialogue, as a form of communication, is based on unity and seeks to deepen that unity as the two parties reach truth. Therefore, dialogue as communication is a matter of a belief in truth in an atmosphere that promotes unity and openness.
Function
-
Dialogue as communication is about truth. But truth itself is based on the shared values of the two partners in the dialogue. Both partners need to be totally open with one another and the conversation can never be about gain or manipulation. "Winning an argument" and "proving the other wrong" are the opposite of true dialogue.
-
Benefits
-
This approach requires that both participants see each other as unique persons with a point of view that may be misguided, but never based on guile or contempt. Openness and a sense of uniqueness are based around friendship, the idea that the two people involved truly care for one another and want to bring the other to truth. It is not about winning, but about unfolding the truth that lies at the bottom of both points of view.
Effects
-
Buber and the rest of the "dialoguists" in communications want to see humane debate and intelligent discussion that is based on the mutual love of truth, not on "winning." The ultimate effect is to habituate people to discuss and debate issues with a strong sense of mutual love and friendship. Unity must come first, since no real dialogue can exist without unity. If the discussion is about "scoring points," the only issue is making a fool of one's opponent. The ultimate effect here is to make certain debate is never an end in itself, but is about unity, friendship and finally, the mutual love of truth. The opposite of this is monologue, which is about domination and control.
Significance
-
As an existentialist, Buber was primarily concerned with the question of how people, isolated in their own consciousness, can ever join in unity. Dialogue was the answer. It does not matter how much two people disagree, so long as the truth is the final purpose. This presupposes certain conditions of unity such as linguistic and cultural unity, as well as openness and the desire to see and understand the others' point of view. The paradox of Buber's "I-Thou" relationship is that it both presupposes and seeks to create the forms of unity that dialogue assumes and makes possible. Without dialogue, the alternative is dictatorship and force.
-
References
- Photo Credit bouquet image by Ilya Kapustnikow from Fotolia.com
