Dialogue Versus Expressive Communication
Some writers imply that Buber's and Rogers's views of communication are synonymous with "expressive" communication. In expressive communication, the writers contend, we always reveal every gut feeling, do our own thing, do what comes naturally, let the chips fall where they may, and are totally honest without considering the consequences to others in the situation. However, Rogers makes clear that congruence or transparency does not mean simply expressing every feeling or attitude experienced at the moment in a relationship. Rogers's description of congruence explicitly excludes expression of feelings that are irrelevant or inappropriate to that particular relationship or situation. Buber's view of dialogue clearly would exclude unrestrained expressivism. Dialogue involves a genuine concern for the welfare and fulfillment of the other and a conscious choice making in response to the demands of specified situations. For example, dialogue requires sensitivity to the role responsibilities of such relationships as teacher-pupil, therapist-client, doctor-patient, clergy-parishioner, and parent-child.
Characteristics of Dialogue
We now can summarize the characteristics of dialogue fundamental to the process. These are the major attitudinal dimensions which most scholars writing on dialogue, under various labels, identify to some degree as typifying communication as dialogue. In this summary, I have relied heavily on Martin Buber's terminology and explanations.
Remember that dialogue manifests itself more as a stance, orientation, or bearing in communication rather than as a specific method, technique, or format. We can speak of an attitude of dialogue in human communication. As categories, these characteristics are not mutually exclusive, not completely separate from each other; there may be margins of overlap. Other writers might choose different language to describe essentially the same characteristics. Furthermore, the categories are not intended in any particular rank order of importance.
There is another important point to bear in mind. Even the characteristics of dialogue can be abused and used irresponsibly. Blunt honesty, for example, could be employed to humiliate others in order to satisfy our own ego and sense of self-importance.
Authenticity. One is direct, honest, and straightforward in communicating all information and feelings that are relevant and legitimate for the subject at hand. But we avoid simply letting ourselves go and saying everything that comes to mind. We strive to avoid facade, projecting a false image, or "seeming" to be something we are not. The communication filters formed by inappropriate or deceptive roles are minimized. But the legitimate expectations of an appropriate role can be honestly fulfilled. In judging appropriateness, we would consider both our own needs and those of other participants.
Inclusion. One attempts to "see the other," to "experience the other side," to "imagine the real," the reality of the other's viewpoint. Without giving up our own convictions or views, without yielding our own ground or sense of self, we imagine an event or feeling from the side of the other. We attempt to understand factually and emotionally the other's experience.
Confirmation. We express non-possessive warmth for the other. The other person is valued for his or her worth and integrity as a human. A partner in dialogue is affirmed as a person, not merely tolerated, even though we oppose her or him on some specific matter. Others are confirmed in their right to their individuality, to their personal views. Confirmation involves our desire to assist others to maximize their potential, to become what they can become. The spirit of mutual trust is promoted. We affirm others as unique persons without necessarily approving of their behavior or views.
Presentness. Participants in a dialogue must give full concentration to bringing their total and authentic beings to the encounter. They must demonstrate willingness to become fully involved with each other by taking time, avoiding distraction, being communicatively accessible, and risking attachment. One avoids being an onlooker who simply takes in what is presented or an observer who analyzes. Rather, what is said to us enters meaningfully into our life; we set aside the armor used to thwart the signs of personal address. The dialogic person listens receptively and attentively and responds readily and totally. We are willing to reveal ourselves to others in ways appropriate to the relationship and to receive their revelation.
Spirit of Mutual Equality. Although society may rank participants in dialogue as of unequal status or accomplishment, and although the roles appropriate to each partner may differ, participants themselves view each other as persons rather than as objects, as things, to be exploited or manipulated for selfish satisfaction. The exercise of power or superiority is avoided. Participants do not impose their opinion, cause, or will. In dialogic communication, agreement of the listener with the speaker's aim is secondary to independent, self-deciding participation. Participants aid each other in making responsible decisions regardless of whether the decision be favorable or unfavorable to the particular view presented.
Supportive Climate. One encourages the other to communicate. One allows free expression, seeks understanding, and avoids value judgments that stifle. One shows desire and capacity to listen without anticipating, interfering, competing, refuting, or warping meanings into preconceived interpretations. Assumptions and prejudgments are minimized.
(Edited from Johannesen, Richard L. Ethics in Human Communication, 5th ed. Waveland, Press, 2002. p 55ff)
Department of Communication, Seton Hall University