Dialogue as the basic form of communication

Київський університет імені Бориса Грінченка

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dialogue as the basic form of communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Підготувала

студентка групи

ФАМ-1-12.2.2.з.

Гайдей Мирослава

 

Київ 2013

Content

 

1. Dialogue theory.
2. What is dialogue?
3. Properties of Dialogue.
4. Types of dialogue.

Conclusion

References

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dialogue theory

Traditional understanding of dialogue is to examine the messages of communicators in terms of speech acts, coordinate management of meaning, and accomplishment of goals. In terms of levels of communication, the most individualistic is intrapersonal communication, whereas mass media is collectivistic.

ASSUMPTIONS OF DIALOGUE THEORY

In order for dialogue to take place, three conditions must be met. First, participants must suspend assumptions. Bohm said that discussions and negotiations are not dialogue because each represents a process whereby someone tries to “win” or convince others to assume the views of another. In dialogue, there is no attempt to win or prevail in a discussion. The main goal of dialogue is to suspend opinions and examine the opinions of others. All participants must learn to listen to what is on someone’s mind and suspend judgment without coming to a conclusion. Hence, active listening such as listening with feeling and listening to interpret are encouraged. Dialogue requires an “empty place” to give all participants the necessary space to talk.

Buber espoused an ethical approach to communication such that true dialogue between communicators reflects ethics. He espoused an ethical responsibility to value people rather than external objects. Hence, meanings are in people, not in words from the old cliché. His philosophy was grounded firmly in Western Judaic religion and psychology. For Buber, it was important to understand the distinction between two different types of human existence “what one’s reality is” as opposed to “the image of what one wishes to be.” Buber distinguished three types of dialogue: genuine, technical, and disguise. In genuine dialogue, whether it is spoken or silent, each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relation between them. Conversely, technical dialogue is prompted by the need of objective understanding. Finally, there is monologue disguised as dialogue, in which two men, meeting in space, speak each with himself in strangely tortuous and circuitous ways and yet imagine they have escaped the torment of being thrown back on their own resources.

Any dialogue between two people involves six perspectives: 1.How you view yourself. 2. How you view the other person. 3. How you believe other person views you. 4. How other person views themselves. 5. How the other person views you. 6. How the other person believes you view him or her.

Anderson and Cissna discussed the famous Martin Buber – Carl Rogers dialogue at the University of Michigan that occurred in 1957. Rogers was a clinical psychologist famous for his humanistic theory of the “actualizing tendency.” It can be defined as the built-in motivation present in every life form to develop its potentials to the fullest extent possible. Rogers asked Buber whether a person could have a dialogue with one’s self. Buber answered “No” because dialogue requires two persons entering into a genuine relationship with each other. He referred to imagining dialogue within oneself as an intrapsychic dialectic in terms of envisioning self and other within a single person. For Buber, internal dialogue lacks the otherness and surprise necessary for real dialogue. He described dialogue as a game of chess because the self can only contemplate what the interaction partner will do.

 

What is dialogue?

All communication involves speaker(s), listener(s) and contexts. Speakers initiate communication and convey meaning. Listeners attempt to understand communication. The environment is both a situation for communication and a context (“co-text”) that is a source of meaning. Thus the immediate environment is a “participant” in communication.

Dialogue differs from conversation, discussion, debate and argument. Dialogue is concerned with understanding ideas and opinions of others.  Attentive listening, sensitivity, turn-taking, the desire to communicate experiences and ideas, sharing understanding and planning actions are typical in dialogue interactions. Dialogue is both task- and other-oriented. 
 Dialogue is an occasion for learning and development within a social group.

Dialogue is a multilayered, complex process. Dialogue elicits questions, values, emotions, ideas and beliefs in a joint quest for meaning. In dialogue, language, relationships, thinking and contexts are interactive and interconnected. Dialogue is an opportunity for expressing, refining and expanding communicative literacy through the process of social interaction. During the process, learning and development by individual participants is socially mediated by the other members of the group.   
 The term, dialogue stems from the Greek, dialogos, in which dia means through and logos means words. Dialogue literally means, “through words.” Dialogue is a dynamic, interactive, meaning-centered activity that fosters communication, openness and mutual understanding among people.  Indeed the concept of logos encompasses far more than words, speech or meaning. The concept of logos has profound significance in the history of metaphysics, theology and philosophy. Logos represents the unifying, essential force in the world, creating order from chaos and linking humans to god and the cosmos. For the ancient Greeks, logos is identified with fire, for Christians, with The Word and for philosophers, with thought.  The term, logic, the study of thought, also derives from logos. Dialogue involves direct communication of two or more individuals and usually is a face-to-face encounter. However telephone conference calls, electronic chat and webcasts now allow “virtual” dialogues.   
 Dialogue works to create and sustain the collective thought of the group. Habermas (reference) describes dialogue as the ideal speech situation, perfection in communication. Through dialogue, we are able to make sense of experience and order our thoughts with the help of others. The imagery Bohm uses to describe dialogue alludes to power of logos: “a stream of meaning flowing among us and between us . . . out of which may emerge some understanding. It’s something new . . . .It’s something creative. And this shared meaning is the glue or cement that holds people and societies together.” This description suggests the value of dialogue for developing insight, synergistic relationships and a civil society where members live in harmony and show concern for the welfare of others. At its best, dialogue results in distributed knowledge, full participation and enhanced humanity. 
 When groups of people decide to engage in dialogue, whether in social or professional groups, a vast kaleidoscope of knowledge, experience, ideas and possibilities come out. Such dialogue is energizing, delightful and insightful. Although good dialogue is hard work and can be frustrating at times, as a result, close relationships grow in the group dialogue process.

Properties of Dialogue 
 According to Pinell dialogue has certain, defining properties:  
 1) Sequential organization. Like text, dialogue has a beginning middle and end. Dialogue also includes a “core act” or event that organizes, focuses and directs the flow of ideas. Dialogue occurs over time. 
 2) Asymmetry is a contributing factor. Different from debate where comparable ability, knowledge and experience are necessary, dialogue adjusts to different levels of experience, knowledge, education, interests and communicative abilities among participants. These differences are positive, contributing to lively dialogue and supportive interactions.  
 3) Context specific/Collaborative negotiation of meaning. Participants interact productively, exchange ideas, work on problems, allow differences of opinion, revise thinking, project hypotheses, share understanding and engage in planning new experiences. 
 4) Coherence. Practicing dialogue regularly increases coherence, making ideas and views sensible to others. In practicing dialogue, the ability to express ideas coherently improves as participants strive to make their thoughts meaningful to others. According to Bohm, coherence is an antidote to fragmentation. 
 5) Surfacing differences is a pivotal stage in the process of dialogue. When tensions arise, participants who accommodate differences into the dialogue are able to progress to a new level of openness. When this state is achieved, a group is able to think together and deal with the challenges that are the focus of the dialogue.

The Greeks may not have invented dialogue, but they introduced the idea that individuals are not intelligent on their own, that it's only by reasoning together that they are able to uncover the truth for themselves. The Greeks understood that if two or more people are unsure about a question, they can accomplish something together they can't do on their own. By questioning and probing each other, carefully dissecting and analyzing ideas, finding the inconsistencies, never attacking or insulting but always searching for what they can accept between them, they can gradually attain deeper understanding and insight.         That's what dialogue is: a form of discussion aimed at fostering mutual insight and common purpose. The process involves listening with empathy, searching for common ground, exploring new ideas and perspectives, and bringing unexamined assumptions into the open.         While dialogue is often confused with other forms of discourse, it belongs in a distinctive category of its own. Unlike debate, it doesn't involve arguing for a point of view, defending a set of assumptions, or critiquing the positions of others. Unlike negotiation or consensus-building, it's not a method of reaching agreement or arriving at decisions. And unlike discussion, it can only emerge when participants trust and respect each other, suspend their judgments, and listen deeply to all points of view. The process of dialogue is more important than ever today for a number of reasons. For one thing, the confrontation between different cultural traditions and worldviews requires some process by which people can communicate across differences. For another, the fragmentation of society into a myriad of subcultures based on profession, status, race, ethnicity, political loyalty, etc., make it necessary that people find a pathway to common ground. A third reason is that traditional authority structures are falling away.         Dialogue is the most effective response to these developments because, on the one hand, it allows people to span their differences and forge shared frames of reference and, on the other, it gives those formerly excluded from decision-making an opportunity to participate in the process of finding common ground and establishing priorities for action.           But dialogue is not always easy or straightforward. It can run aground in a thousand subtle ways. Effective dialogue requires that all the participants have equal standing, that they listen with respect and empathy, and that ideas and assumptions explored openly and without judgment.

Effective dialogue typically follows some basic ground rules:

• The focus is on common interests, not divisive ones
• The dialogue and decision-making processes are separated
• Assumptions that can lead to distortions of certain points of view are clarified and brought into the open
• People are encouraged to reveal their own insights and assumptions before speculating on those of others
• Concrete examples are used to raise general issues
• The process focuses on conflicts between value systems, not people
• When appropriate, participants are encouraged to express emotions accompanying strongly held values
• Participants err on the side of including people who disagree
• They encourage relationships in order to humanize transactions
• They minimize the level of mistrust before pursuing practical objectives.

The late physicist David Bohm developed what is widely regarded as the most useful model of dialogue. He saw it as a method for developing what he called a "higher social intelligence." Nothing is more important, in my view. In the past, it may have been enough to get by on personal intelligence alone. But it's no longer enough to be brilliant on our own (if such a thing is even possible). Our pressing problems today require that we be smart together, that we harness our best collective thinking and put it to work in the world.

Dialogue types

In the new dialectic, a dialogue is conventionalized, purposive joint activity between two speech partners. This abstract definition of dialogue is applied to different types of “joint activities” by means of dialogue types. The interlocutors can, in fact, have different kinds of goal, which influence the nature of the interaction. In this conception of dialogue, we can notice that the two parties have individual goals (for instance, in a negotiation, getting the best out of the discussion), and an “interactive” goal (for instance, always in a negotiation, making a deal). The individual goals are

sub-ordered to the collective goal, or purpose of the communicative interaction. A type of dialogue, in this perspective, is a normative framework in which there is an exchange of arguments between two speech partners reasoning together in turn-taking sequence aimed at a collective goal.

Dialogue types can be characterized by the type of commitments (propositional or not), the type of starting point (contrast of opinion, open problem, decision to be made), the type of dialogical goal (persuading, making a deal…). The typology of dialogue types is represented in table 1.

 

TYPE	INITIAL SITUATION	MAIN GOAL	PARTICIPANTS’ AIMS	SIDE BENEFITS
1. Persuasion Dialogue	Conflicting points of view	Resolution of such conflicts by verbal means	Persuade the other(s)	Develop and reveal positions Build up confidence Influence onlookers, Add to prestige
2. Negotiation	Conflict of interests & need for cooperation	Making a deal	Get the best out of it for oneself	Agreement, Build up confidence Reveal position Influence onlookers Add to prestige
3. Inquiry	General ignorance	Growth of knowledge & agreement	Find a “proof” or destroy one	Add to prestige Gain experience Raise funds
4. Deliberation	Need for action	Reach a decision	Influence outcome	Agreement Develop & reveal positions Add to prestige, Vent emotions
5. Information-seeking	Personal Ignorance	Spreading knowledge and revealing positions	Gain, pass on, show, or hide personal knowledge	Agreement Develop & reveal positions Add to prestige, Vent emotions
6. Eristics	Conflict & antagonism	Reaching a (provisional) accommodation in a relationship	Strike the other party & win in the eyes of onlookers	Agreement Develop & reveal positions Gain experience, Amusement Add to prestige, Vent emotions

Table 1: Types of Dialogue and their Characteristics (Walton and Krabbe 1995, p. 66).

 

In a persuasion dialogue, one party, the proponent, tries to persuade by means of arguments the other party, the respondent, that a thesis is true. In a persuasion dialogue, the disagreement between the interlocutors stems from the respondent being convinced of the truth of a proposition opposite to the proponent’s thesis. The role of the respondent, in this dialogue, is to prove his own thesis. Each party tries to persuade the other party to change his opinion, by leading it by means of arguments to commit himself to or to concede certain propositions.

Negotiation is an interest-based context of dialogue, in which the goal is to make a deal. Both parties try to maximize the benefits they can get out of it, and try to reach a compromise which is acceptable by both of them. In this type of dialogue, persuasion may be irrelevant or secondary, and it is involved usually to set up a dialogue agenda for negotiation. In negotiation, the goal is not to show that a proposition is acceptable or right; for this reason, a commitment is not an assertion that some proposition is true. Commitments are instead concessions of some goods or services in order to lead the interlocutor to comparable concessions, until a settlement is reached.

Inquiry is a collaborative investigation aimed at proving a proposition, or showing the impossibility of proving it. The focus is on propositions, not on interests such as negotiation, but the starting point is not a conflict of opinion, such as the persuasion dialogue, but an open problem. The inquiry can be successful only when all participants agree upon the same conclusion at the end. In this type of dialogue, the premises of an instance of reasoning are supposed to be better established than its conclusion. The goal is not to show the plausibility or acceptability of a proposition, such as in the persuasion dialogue, but to prove that a proposition is or is not part of the established knowledge. Moreover, retraction of commitments is not generally permitted.

Deliberation in the new dialectic is similar to inquiry inasmuch as it starts from an open problem. However, the problem is practical and the goal of a deliberation is to decide how to act.

The main goal is agreement, but it does not coincide with the end of the dialogue, since a decision can be made by an authority without the general agreement. Deliberation is concerned with the future and plans. The interlocutors have to balance the pro and cons of a possible course of action, assessing its possible consequences. The typical kind of reasoning involved is called practical reasoning: an agent considers different possibilities of carrying out an action on the basis of its consequences, and chooses the one leading to the best, or less negative, outcome relative to the goal in a set of circumstances.

In an information-seeking dialogue, a participant lacks and needs some information and requests it from the interlocutor, who is an expert, or has some knowledge, or is position to know something.

Unlike the other kinds of dialogue, the information-seeking type is grounded on an asymmetrical dialogical relationship, in which the goal is to spread knowledge. Information-seeking has not as its purpose to prove something, but to retrieve a piece of knowledge. For instance, an example of this type of dialogue can be provided by the case below. A tourist needs a piece of information, and asks a person supposed to know it.

Case 1

First tourist: Could you tell me where the Central Station is?

Shopkeeper: It is across the bridge, one kilometer south

First tourist: Thank you [to the second tourist]. Ok. Let’s head for the bridge.

Eristic dialogue can be considered a family of dialogues characterized by verbal fighting aimed at reaching a provisional accommodation in a relationship. Both participants try to win, that is, achieve some effects on onlookers, for instance, striking him out or humiliating him. However, the goal of the dialogue is to resolve a situation of antagonism and conflict between two parties, releasing powerful emotions that otherwise would degenerate into physical fights or frustration.

Eristic dialogues vent repressed emotions, and are characterized by anarchy in rules.

The dialogue types have subtypes, characterized by different factors. For instance, persuasion dialogue can be classified into its subtypes according to the type of initial conflict (single, multiple, compound), the nature of the matter discussed, the degree of rigidity of the rules, the preciseness of the procedural description of the dialogue, the admixtures from other types of dialogue. A typical case of admixture is the discussion of a proposal, a persuasion dialogue embedded into a larger deliberation dialogue. In other cases, the admixture does not affect the goal or the essential characteristics of the dialogue, influencing only the relationship between the interlocutors (Walton and Krabbe call it “flavour”). For instance, in a persuasion dialogue, one party may behave as an expert, introducing a certain asymmetry between the participants. Other relevant criteria are the knowledge of the participants and their role. For instance, the expert consultation, a subtype of information-seeking dialogue, is characterized by fact that one party is an expert while the other is not.

In a persuasion dialogue, one party may defend his own point of view without accepting arguments supporting the opposite position. It tries to get the best out of the discussion, while his interlocutor aims at resolve a conflict of opinions. For instance, we can analyze the following case of biased argumentation:

Case 2

Bob and Wilma are discussing the problem of acid rain. Wilma argues that reports on the extent of the problem are greatly exaggerated and that the costs of action are prohibitive. Bob points out that Wilma is on the board of directors of a U.S. coal company and that therefore her argument should not be taken at face value.

On the other hand, a negotiation dialogue may be presented from one party as a persuasion dialogue. In the case below, the goal of the dialogue is to divide the labours within the household.

The husband presents this negotiation as a persuasion dialogue, attributing to the interlocutor a different interactional goal. This strategy lies beneath the fallacy of straw man:

Case 3

Wife: I’ll do the cooking if you’ll washes the dishes

Husband: Why should I?

Dialogues can shift from an argumentative context of dialogue to a non argumentative context, and vice versa. For instance, as seen above, a negotiation can shift to a quarrel. A fallacious case of such kinds of shifts is represented by some shifts from information-seeking dialogue to inquiry. For instance, a circular sequence of question-reply can be acceptable and reasonable in the context of an information-seeking, but if this circular reasoning is used to prove a point, instead of providing information, the argument begs the question.

The clashing of a participant’s goal with the purpose of the interaction is evident in the case of the fallacious use of the argument from consequences. Reasoning from consequences is an argument scheme typical of deliberation or negotiation. However, it can be used in a persuasion dialogue, such as in the case below:

Case 4

The United States had justice on its side in waging the Mexican war of 1848. To question this is unpatriotic, and would give comfort to our enemies by promoting the cause of defeatism.

In this example, a persuasion dialogue shifts to a deliberation. The speaker cites the negative consequences not to support a viewpoint, that is the actual goal of the dialogue, but to advocate a decision.

Argument from consequences is the basis of several emotional arguments, such as arguments from fear appeal, or appeal to threat, or appeal to pity. They are all grounded upon a prudential pattern of reasoning. This line of argument is reasonable in negotiation or (sometimes) in deliberation, but is fallacious when used in a persuasion dialogue. We can consider, for instance:

Case 6

A union leader argues for a pay raise. He points out that the workers may get very angry if they don’t get the pay raise and may go on strike with disastrous consequences for all. The president of the board retorts that, though he personally would be glad to grant the pay raise, his colleagues on the board would sooner close the shop.

We can notice that, in this case, the union leader uses a threat to shift a persuasion dialogue to a negotiation. The interlocutor accepts the new dialogical context, and replies with another threat. The fallacy prevents the dialogue to move forward, turning it into a negotiation. The argument from appeal to pity involves a similar shift from persuasion to negotiation.

Ad hominem arguments are arguments typical of eristic discussions, in which personal attacks are common and acceptable. However, when used in a debate or a critical discussion, they are highly inappropriate. They shift the dialogue into a quarrel.

Ad ignorantiam arguments (I have no proofs that x is false, therefore x is true) are reasonable patterns of reasoning typical of an inquiry, but fallacious in most cases of deliberation dialogue.

 

So, in dialogue each listener is able to reflect back to each speaker, and to the rest of the group, a view of some of the assumptions and unspoken implications of what is being expressed along with that which is being avoided. It creates the opportunity for each participant to examine the preconceptions, prejudices and the characteristic patterns that lie behind his or her thoughts, opinions, beliefs and feelings, along with the roles he or she tends habitually to play. And it offers an opportunity to share these insights.

 

 

References

 

1. Anderson, R., & Cissna, K. N. (1997).The Martin Buber-Carl Rogers Dialogue: Anew transcript with commentary . Albany: State University of New York Press.

2. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge.

3. Buber, M. (1947). Between man and man. (R. G. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge&Kegan Paul.