What are dialogical ethics?

Answer 1

Dialogue as a philosophy began in ancient Greece, with the classical argumentation of philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. Dialogue is a natural inclusion in any discussion of ethics because some scholars (J. E. Grunig, 2001; Habermas, 1984) argue that dialogue is inherently ethical. They see dialogue as ethical because it engages in a give and take discussion of public relations issues with the chance for all interested parties to have input. The discussion is ultimately supposed to arrive at truth or to reveal the underlying truth to which the parties can agree. Ideas are evaluated on merit alone rather than on a positional basis. It should be noted that this distinction is a fine one that separates advocacy from dialogue - true dialogue argues based on merits until truth is reached. Advocacy argues positionally, meaning according to the arguments from the side of the client or employer, rather than from any or all sides. The advocate's position may or may not be aligned with truth, but it starts with a bias in the discussion and thus fails the test of being truly ethical. A dialogue can potentially reach a truth that could be negative to an employer or client simply based on meritorious arguments, and is seen as ethical since it does not favor any one party over the views of others.

Public relations scholars such as Heath (2006) see dialogue as the way in which a good organization engages in open communication with its publics. The virtue or good character of the organization is maintained through its efforts to communicate with publics, discussing issues in a dialogue of give and take. This "wrangle in the marketplace" (Heath, 2001) results in the best ideas rising to the top, regardless of their origin. Heath (2006) explained, "What was needed was not more articulate advocates, but advocates who had achieved higher standards of corporate responsibility". This higher standard is to engage in dialogue for the sake of achieving an understanding of the truth, and truth can arise from any perspective. One note to keep in mind is that dialogue must be entered into with good intentions; Kent and Taylor (2002) wisely noted that "If one partner subverts the dialogic process through manipulation, disconfirmation, or exclusion, then the end result will not be dialogic" (p. 24).

Pearson (1989a) explored the concept of dialogue as an ethical basis for public relations. He thought that public relations was best defined as "the management of interpersonal dialectic" (Pearson, 1989b, p. 177) emphasizing the personal relationship maintenance and building functions of public relations with members of publics. An entire strain of research (Ledingham & Bruning, 2001, 2000) has found that relationship building functions are the most crucial aspect of public relations, and Pearson's link to the usefulness of dialogue in doing that makes perfect sense. Dialogue is best seen as an ongoing process of seeking understanding and relationship, with the potential to resolve ethical dilemmas through a mutual creation of truth. Kent and Taylor (2002) offer an extensive list of factors to consider in engaging in the process of dialogue, and it is an invaluable resource for public relations professionals seeking to build that process into the communication of their organization.

Most people who think of public relations as advocacy would not agree with the dialogical position because they believe that the organization can best define facts related to an issue and persuade publics to understand or agree with those interpretations (Pfau & Wan, 2006). These scholars (Fitzpatrick & Bronstein, 2006; Miller, 1989; Peters, 1987) agree that the advocate role of public relations is similar to that of an attorney, in which Pfau and Wan pointed out that "persuasion plays an integral role" (p. 102). However, this approach lacks authenticity because it emphasizes one-sided persuasion and does not allow for the validity of contrary facts emerging outside the organization or from other publics.

Advocacy can sometimes be difficult because it can confuse loyalty to the client or employer with loyalty to the truth. For instance, a long-term ethical approach might be to help the client change or improve operations to ensure future viability, but this perspective can be overlooked in favor of short-term success or loyalty to management's interpretation of issues. Although some advocates maintain that an ethically responsible approach is enough (Fitzpatrick & Bronstein, 2006) many executive-level practitioners explain that they need more powerful means of analyses in terms of ethical issue resolution (Bowen, 2002b, 2006). Alternate views see public relations as the organization's objective or balanced advisory voice in strategic management, as discussed below.