It is not wrong to have good intentions, but dangerous to utter them. For one thing because the whole world will know that they have not been there before. For another because from that time on the world will judge if one manages to put them into practice. So why do we uttere them? Probably because we are excited about ourselves and want to share that exuberance with the world. And because we sometimes forget we might wear ourselves out between the two jeopardies as have been mentioned above. All that will remain for us to be done is to shrug our shoulders and confess that we have too late realized something trivial and, even worse, have failed. But since we are not philosophers, we are not silent.
Whoever thinks this is a little cryptical be assured the author's sincere intention to enter into a dialogue with him. After all, this is what is all about. There are so many misunderstandings which thwart the real goals normal communication pursues - mutual respect, understanding, perfect consensus. All we have to do is take a determined breath and let the dialogue happen. Acting that simply can sometimes be so hard.
No surprise that, assisted by their consultants, political parties and business organizations have internalized that plain recepy and present themselves to the world with communicatively spread arms. A few years ago PR quite melodramatically focussed its professional image on the term dialogue, implicitly coceding its credibility could be increased. Since the opposite notion, the monologue, still enjoys popularity, because it helps to forget one could be confronted with someone who is not only too stupid to see he is wrong but also too ignorant to see even this. And during the monological phase of corporate communications it was all about conveying one's viewpoint to the electors or customers. No contradictions.
But this belongs to the past. We have understood. Well, at least partly. Of course we are still right and good-willing, but we want to be recognized that way. Electors and customers are not meant to feel simply informed, but convinced. And therefore a different strategy is required - instead of plain announcements something mutual, communicative - a dialogue, for sure.
Holding communication in high regards belongs to the most blatant paradoxa of erroneous human history. After all, dialogic communication seems to be the perfect tool to realize the vision of an all-embracing harmony. For this reason, everybody who wants something from someone else, demands dialogues - between philosophers, cultures (which ones exactly?), religions, politicians and citizens, companies and target groups, generations. We are not short of motivation to emit sounds into the atmosphere. But, strangely enough, listening carefully one cannot help but notice that the communicative problems resemble the multi-headed Hydra; solving one problem means creating another. That good old truism that one word generates another should be taken into account. For instance, couple therapists can confirm that the yearning for perfect partnership mutates into perfect divorce. And this is because unsuspicious groups which are suddenly promoted as dialogue partners tend to be strenously interested in remaining to be so - especially when the offering party has already lost interest in equal communication, perhaps because it has achieved its object. So whoever initiates communication might have difficulties in saying good-bye to the invited guests. Furthermore, one runs the risk of achieving contraproductive results; the partner might insist on his view and steadfastly refuses to be convinced. Diappointment casts its shadow, and beyond notice the dialogue has turned into a quarrel. And it is not before this state one remembers absolute consensus (or disinterest in others' plans) is always silent. It dawns too late what normal consensus is really like before we want to conjure it up dialogically: justified dissensus.
From that perspective, dialogical PR does make sense; you keep the customers in need by advising him to keep his dialogical lines open. Until tomorrow. And tomorow never comes.
Whoever thinks this is a little cryptical be assured the author's sincere intention to enter into a dialogue with him. After all, this is what is all about. There are so many misunderstandings which thwart the real goals normal communication pursues - mutual respect, understanding, perfect consensus. All we have to do is take a determined breath and let the dialogue happen. Acting that simply can sometimes be so hard.
No surprise that, assisted by their consultants, political parties and business organizations have internalized that plain recepy and present themselves to the world with communicatively spread arms. A few years ago PR quite melodramatically focussed its professional image on the term dialogue, implicitly coceding its credibility could be increased. Since the opposite notion, the monologue, still enjoys popularity, because it helps to forget one could be confronted with someone who is not only too stupid to see he is wrong but also too ignorant to see even this. And during the monological phase of corporate communications it was all about conveying one's viewpoint to the electors or customers. No contradictions.
But this belongs to the past. We have understood. Well, at least partly. Of course we are still right and good-willing, but we want to be recognized that way. Electors and customers are not meant to feel simply informed, but convinced. And therefore a different strategy is required - instead of plain announcements something mutual, communicative - a dialogue, for sure.
Holding communication in high regards belongs to the most blatant paradoxa of erroneous human history. After all, dialogic communication seems to be the perfect tool to realize the vision of an all-embracing harmony. For this reason, everybody who wants something from someone else, demands dialogues - between philosophers, cultures (which ones exactly?), religions, politicians and citizens, companies and target groups, generations. We are not short of motivation to emit sounds into the atmosphere. But, strangely enough, listening carefully one cannot help but notice that the communicative problems resemble the multi-headed Hydra; solving one problem means creating another. That good old truism that one word generates another should be taken into account. For instance, couple therapists can confirm that the yearning for perfect partnership mutates into perfect divorce. And this is because unsuspicious groups which are suddenly promoted as dialogue partners tend to be strenously interested in remaining to be so - especially when the offering party has already lost interest in equal communication, perhaps because it has achieved its object. So whoever initiates communication might have difficulties in saying good-bye to the invited guests. Furthermore, one runs the risk of achieving contraproductive results; the partner might insist on his view and steadfastly refuses to be convinced. Diappointment casts its shadow, and beyond notice the dialogue has turned into a quarrel. And it is not before this state one remembers absolute consensus (or disinterest in others' plans) is always silent. It dawns too late what normal consensus is really like before we want to conjure it up dialogically: justified dissensus.
From that perspective, dialogical PR does make sense; you keep the customers in need by advising him to keep his dialogical lines open. Until tomorrow. And tomorow never comes.
No comments:
Post a Comment