From a communication perspective, dialogue rep- resents a form of discourse that emphasizes listen- ing

and inquiry, with the aims of fostering mutual respect and understanding. Dialogue allows com-
municators to become aware of the different ways that individuals interpret and give meaning to similar
experiences. It is viewed as a dynamic, transactional process, with a special focus on the quality of the
relationship between participants.

The term dialogue derives from the Greek dialo- gos, in which logos refers to meaning and dia is a prefix
that translates as through or across. Implied in its Greek roots is the notion that meaning emerges from
interaction; it is not something that already exists, waiting to be discovered. Meaning is co-constituted
through communication, reflect- ing both the form of message exchange and the relationship between
individuals. Dialogue is made possible by the attitudes with which participants approach each other, the
ways they talk and act, and the context within which they meet.

Dialogue is often contrasted with monologue, a transmission-focused process that is primarily con-
cerned with control of the other and of the situa- tion, and with discussion and debate, both of which
involve dissecting or breaking things apart, with an emphasis on the presentation and defense of positions.
Dialogue points beyond the everyday exchange of messages, implying a particular qual- ity of
communication that makes possible learning and change, in both self and others. Dialogue does not
preclude disagreement; indeed it allows participants to explore complexities of their own perspectives as
well as those of others. Scholars advocate dialogue as a constructive way for indi- viduals to navigate
their differences in interper- sonal, organizational, community, and public realms. This entry provides a
brief overview of the primary “thought leaders” in dialogue theory and traces the way in which dialogue
theory was incor- porated into and developed within the communi- cation discipline.

Thought Leaders in Dialogue Theory

There are many important contributors to dia- logue theory, but the following are considered to be those
who most directly addressed dialogue in their writings: Martin Buber, Carl Rogers, Hans- Georg
Gadamer, Mikhail Bakhtin, David Bohm, and Paulo Freire.

The existentialist philosopher Martin Buber placed the concept of dialogue at the center of his approach
to human communication and human existence. His distinction between two types of human
relationships, I-It and I-Thou, became a key focus of dialogue theory. In an I-It relation- ship, the
communicator views the other as an object and manipulates the other for the communi- cator’s own
selfish ends. The communication in an I-It relationship is characterized by self-centeredness, deception,
pretense, appearance, domination, and even exploitation. Persuasion, prestige, and power characterize the
exchange. In an I-Thou relation- ship, on the other hand, the attitudes and behavior of each communicator
revolve around honesty, directness, spontaneity, and mutual responsibility. Individuals in a dialogic
relationship do not attempt to impose their own views on each other, and each person accepts the other
unconditionally, without attempts to change the other. Dialogic partners show an awareness that others
are unique and whole persons, exhibit a genuineness or authenticity toward each other, and demonstrate a
respect for each other that encourages mutual growth and development.

Buber also introduced the concept of the between as a guiding communication metaphor. He under- stood
dialogue as rooted in the space that exists between persons in a relationship. It is this com- mon center of
discourse that brings people together in conversation, not the individual psyche of the interactants. His
emphasis on the sphere of the between and the way in which meaning is co- constituted during dialogue
takes the focus away from both individualism and collectivism and places it on the relational. This gives
recognition to the interdependence of self and other, the intersubjectiv- ity of meaning, and the emergent
nature of reality.
Carl Rogers, considered by many to be the most influential American psychologist and psychother- apist,
was a central figure in advancing a dialogic view of communication. One of the founders of the
humanistic approach to psychology, he devel- oped a client-centered approach to therapy, which he later
termed person-centered as the application of his work broadened to include relationships in other
contexts. He believed that listening was cen- tral to therapy and to all relationships, and he popularized
the term empathy as key to meaning- ful communication. Perhaps more than any other leader of the
humanistic psychological movement, Rogers shifted the focus of communication to the self. He believed
that communication and relation- ships must center on concern for human feelings, human relationships,
and human potential. He placed a great deal of trust in the innate wisdom of human beings, believing that
if one could get in touch with the deepest sense of self, direction will emerge and constructive changes
would occur without the need to be instructed, shown, or directed by others. He encouraged stripping
away facades and moving away from “oughts,” expecta- tions of others, and attempts to please others.
Rogers believed that a space could be opened for dialogue when relationships are characterized by a
willingness to listen and to enter into a meaningful relationship with the other, genuineness in sharing
feelings and ideas with the other, respect and regard for the other, and empathic understanding, which he
viewed as entering the private perceptual world of the other and becoming “at home” in it.

Hans-Georg Gadamer was a philosopher who studied and worked closely with Martin Heidegger;
Gadamer became interested in hermeneutics, or interpreting the meaning of written texts and sym- bolic
artifacts, from his association with Heidegger. Gadamer’s goal was to uncover the nature of human
understanding. In his treatise Truth and Method, he argued that humans above all seek understanding, and
it is through language that this understanding is built. Both language and under- standing are living,
dynamic processes, open to continual development and change. Meanings that evolve between oneself
and the other are open, fluid, and dependent on both the context of the encounter and the prior
understandings and preju- dices of interpreters. He wrote about the positive impact of prejudice, which he
argued needs to be recognized as inherent in all communicators and forms the basis for human
understanding. Gadamer used the phrase fusion of horizons to characterize the understanding that
develops between persons. He believed that the process of understanding is not based on empathy for
another but involves the attainment of a “higher universality” that over- comes the limited horizons of
each participant. It is a move from the separate positions of individu- als to a synthesizing position that
includes relevant aspects of each person’s views.

Mikhail Bakhtin was a Russian scholar of litera- ture, culture, language, and philosophy who pro- duced
the bulk of his writings in the 1920s through the 1940s but who was not discovered by Western scholars
until the 1970s and 1980s. Though he addressed a wide range of topics, the concept of dialogue was
central to his thinking. He believed that dialogue reflects both unity and difference, and at the heart of
dialogue is the simultaneous fusion and differentiation of perspectives. For dialogue to occur, participants
must build a common base of understanding and at the same time maintain the uniqueness of their
individual perspectives. Bakhtin views dialogue as embodying a dialectical tension- ality that inherently
gives it a fluid and dynamic nature. As participants engage in dialogic interac- tion, there is a dynamic
interplay of expression and nonexpression, certainty and uncertainty, conven- tionality and uniqueness,
integration and separa- tion. Dialogue, to Bakhtin, is an emergent process in which the interplay of
contradictory forces cre- ates a constant state of unrest and instability, while also bringing moments of
unity and synthesis.

David Bohm, an American physicist and col- league of Albert Einstein, spent most of his career in
London. His early works dealt with topics such as quantum theory and the theory of relativity; later in his
career he brought his understanding of theoretical physics into the realm of dialogue. He warned against
the dangers of fragmentation, of breaking the interaction process into separate ele- ments that are treated
as if they are independent of each other. Instead, he argued, dialogue must be understood as a holistic
process rather than as a collection of separate exchanges. This undivided whole is in a constant state of
flow and change, part of an unbroken movement. Bohm believed that for dialogue to occur and be
sustained, com- municators must suspend judgment about both their own and others’ beliefs and opinions.
This suspension implies allowing a variety of perspec- tives to exist in tension, without premature
attempts to resolve them.

The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire is best known for his influential book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In
Freire’s view, dialogue allows us to move away from individualism and the focus on self to jointly build a
learning community. He advocated a dialogic style of education in which the student’s own historical
situation provides the starting point for learning. In his work with non- traditional students, he sought,
through dialogue, to protect the dignity of learners, allowing them to explore new ideas without fear of
humiliation. According to Freire, it is important to affirm the other, thereby helping to instill a sense of
hope in the minds of an otherwise oppressed community. For Freire, dialogue can transform the world by
enabling us to explore the type of world we desire and shape it together. Dialogue is built on humility to
learn from the other, guided by trust between communicators, and pushed forward by hope for liberation
from oppression. He insists on the unity of word and action: Unless dialogue leads to changes, it is just
“idle chatter.” Although he also believed that action without dialogue was also inappropriate, he saw
dialogue as the way to chal- lenge the existing domination that was responsible for oppression.

Dialogue Theories in Communication

Communication scholars have been concerned with the concept of dialogue from the field’s earli- est
days, starting with study of the Socratic dia- logues written by Plato. Until around 1970, however, the
focus of dialogue studies in commu- nication was primarily on rhetorical inquiry. This began to change
when Floyd Matson and Ashley Montagu published their influential volume The Human Dialogue, which
appeared in 1967. The authors drew heavily from the work of Martin Buber, adopting his contrast of
dialogue with monologue. They described how dialogue pro- motes both development of self and
knowing the other in the context of strengthening the relation- ship between individuals. They
characterized dialogue as the “unfinished third revolution” in communication theory, sketching out a
vision of communication that would move from detach- ment to connection, from objectivity and subjec-
tivity to intersubjectivity, and from estranged aloofness to “something resembling an act of love.”
Although Matson and Montagu’s works were not from the communication discipline, their book helped
turn attention toward new ways of conceptualizing the speaker–listener relationship.

Communication scholar Richard Johannesen’s 1971 article “The Emerging Concept of Com- munication
as Dialogue” provided an important impetus for the development of dialogic studies in the
communication discipline. Drawing heavily from Martin Buber and Carl Rogers, he described what he
called the major components essential for dialogic communication: (a) genuineness—avoiding a façade,
stratagem, or projection of an image; (b) accurate empathic understanding—reflecting feelings as seen
from the other’s viewpoint; (c) unconditional positive regard—confirmation and nonpossessive warmth
for the other, without necessarily approving the behavior of the other; (d) presentness—avoiding
distractions and being communicatively accessible; (e) spirit of mutual equality—viewing each other as
persons, not objects, avoiding superiority and power; and (f) supportive psychological climate—listening
without anticipating, interfering, competing, refut- ing, or warping meanings. Johannesen raised a number
of questions that were given attention by subsequent scholars: Should monologue and dia- logue be
viewed as mutually exclusive opposites? How does one study dialogue? Can it be subjected to empirical
research? Can people be taught to engage in dialogue? What ethical issues are inher- ent in the concept of
dialogue? What is the role of nonverbal communication in dialogue? In what communication contexts can
dialogue function most effectively?
As the study of interpersonal communication advanced in the 1970s, a number of dialogically oriented
textbooks were published. John Keltner’s Interpersonal Speech Communication, Kim Giffin and Bobby
Patton’s Fundamentals of Interpersonal Communication, Charles Brown and Paul Keller’s Monologue to
Dialogue: An Exploration of Interpersonal Communication, and John Stewart’s classic reader Bridges
Not Walls all reflected a shift away from the older rhetorical traditions in com- munication to increased
emphasis on the humanis- tic orientation of the 1960s. This new focus on dialogue was not without its
critics, and some even characterized the new dialogic focus as an “aca- demic fad.”

In “Foundations of Dialogic Communication,” written in 1978, John Stewart helped clarify com-
munication scholars’ basic understanding of the dialogic phenomenon by articulating the philo- sophical
positions in which the study of dialogue is grounded. He showed how (a) phenomenology’s emphasis on
the metaphysical and epistemological primacy of relationship contributed a relational perspective to
dialogic studies and an emphasis on the nature of the transaction between human beings engaged in
dialogue; (b) the phenomeno- logical notion of intuition grounds dialogic com- munication’s experiential
focus; (c) existentialism leads to a focus on self and self-awareness, leading to the importance placed on
developing awareness of one’s own idiosyncratic communication values and behavior through dialogue;
and (d) philo- sophical anthropology channels dialogic studies toward holism, in which emphasis is given
to inte- grating cognitive, affective, and behavioral ele- ments of communication.

Stewart’s grounding of dialogue studies in phil- osophical inquiry helped move the study of dia- logue
beyond its early emphasis on humanistic psychology and encouraged the further develop- ment of
dialogue theory within the communication discipline. Additional textbooks with a dialogic focus
appeared, but there were also scholarly books and journal articles. A review in 1998 by Kenneth Cissna
and Rob Anderson listed more than 100 citations on the topic of dialogue, most of them published during
the 1990s. The number has continued to grow in the 21st century, and dialogue has become a concept that
carries across all communication studies. New books went beyond interpersonal communication, as
dialogue theory was embraced also by rhetorical studies, organizational communication, media studies,
and intercultural communication. At the same time, dialogue studies in communication expanded to
include a broader range of thinkers, including feminist theorists such as Carol Gilligan. Her 1982 book, In
a Different Voice, described moral devel- opment from a female perspective, showing how women give
more emphasis to connection, rela- tionship, inclusion, and caring, all of which are part of a dialogic
perspective.

As works on dialogue grew rapidly, however, there was a tendency to define it so broadly that it became a
synonym for all human contact. In their 2000 article “Dialogue as Tensional, Ethical Practice,” John
Stewart and Karen Zediker advo- cated a more focused understanding of dialogue. They differentiated
between what they termed “descriptive” and “prescriptive” approaches to dialogue. The former refers to
an approach that views all human life as inherently dialogic, while the latter approach reserves the term
dialogue for a particular quality or type of relating. Those who draw heavily from Bakhtin’s work, such
as Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in their 1996 book Relating: Dialogue and Dialectics, fall
within the descriptive approach. They argue that dimen- sions of personal relationships such as the self,
competence, and relational development should be reconceptualized dialogically. For descriptive theo-
rists, the essential human condition is relational, and dialogue is an omnipresent and significant feature of
daily interaction.

Prescriptive approaches to dialogue, which also emphasize the relational nature of the human con- dition,
are equally concerned with urging their listeners to change their communication patterns toward more
dialogic modes of interaction. Dialogue, in this case, is a goal toward which par- ticipants can work.
Interactants can make com- municative choices that will help create conditions for dialogue to occur.
Those who base their work on Buber’s approach, such as Barnett Pearce and Stephen Littlejohn in Moral
Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide, are more prescriptive in their ori- entation. These authors suggest
specific communi- cation practices that are designed to promote higher quality public discourse on
divisive issues.

Many communication scholars believe that pre- scriptive approaches to dialogue are particularly needed
in today’s multicultural and conflicted world in which value differences and struggles over scarce
resources often lead to alienation, marginalization, community breakdowns, violent confrontations, and
other dysfunctional and destructive consequences. Although the character- istics of communication and
relationships advo- cated by prescriptive theorists and practitioners may be difficult or in some cases
impossible to realize, they can serve as an ideal toward which communication can be directed. Dialogic
practices apply to a wide variety of contexts, including per- sonal relationships, organizational
environments, educational settings, health care systems, and pub- lic discourse, as Ronald Arnett and Pat
Arneson demonstrate in their book, Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age. Although the situated and
emergent nature of dialogue makes it inappropriate to offer a set of specific steps that will guarantee a
dialogic experience from a particular encounter, the acts of turning toward the other, focusing on the
between, listening with respect to differences, and other dia- logic moves all increase the likelihood that
com- munication will be enhanced and relationships will become more creative, fruitful, and rewarding.