2/15/24, 6:00 PM TWM EXTRA CREDIT.

https://learn.vccs.edu/courses/597732/assignments/14048006 1/2

TWM EXTRA CREDIT.

Due Feb 23 by 11:59pm Points 0 Submitting a file upload Available until Feb 23 at 11:59pm

Start Assignment

Central question from our chapter readings 4, 6&7

**If you can answer this statement/question thoroughly, you have an excellent grasp of the information

Taking into consideration the guidelines for dialogical communication, provide examples, in the film, how the functions of nonverbal communication and listening increase any of the character's ability affectively connect with one another.

2/15/24, 6:00 PM TWM EXTRA CREDIT.

https://learn.vccs.edu/courses/597732/assignments/14048006 2/2

Section: CST 110 – Powell (Spring 2024) Join: 715767

Content Classroom Gradebook

Courses / NVCC – CST 110 Introduction to Human C… Leshaela

My Spaces /

Course Work 4: Dialogic Communication Review

We need only scan the cable news networks and assorted newspaper

columns to notice that American society is frequently shaped as

aggressive, polarized, and uncivil. Popular news and entertainment

shows model communication as combative, not as a means to

understand each other or critically examine statements and evidence.

The same can be said for expressions on Facebook, Twitter, and other

social media tools, where it is not uncommon to find people making

disparaging, hateful, and even violent statements about others. Mass

media tools can enhance our communication with each other, but

sometimes they seem to encourage us to treat others poorly.

As we have already discussed, to be a competent communicator means

you are able to understand and respect other people in a variety of

contexts. In this chapter, we discuss how to communicate effectively and

respectfully in any situation. In subsequent chapters, we will explain how

this method of interaction works in specific contexts. The method is

called dialogue , which, simply put, is communicating in a way that

both respects others and encourages them to want to listen, while also

listening in a way that encourages others to want to speak.1 Scholar

John Poulakos expounds upon this definition by identifying three

components necessary for dialogue to take place: the self, the other, and

the in between. For Poulakos, the focus is on the “actual happenings

between” people where they “stand before each other prepared to meet

the uniqueness of their situation and follow it wherever it may lead.”2

Dialogue thus requires an openness to change and appreciation for the

other person’s perspective. 

In this chapter, we will first explore the concept and discuss the various

components of good dialogic communication identified by

communication scholars. In the second part of the chapter, we will

examine various attitudes of dialogue to illustrate not just what dialogue

is, but also what it looks like. Finally, we will offer some suggestions for

developing dialogic communication in any context.

Defining Dialogue Like many things in this book, dialogue may sound simple on the

surface, but it is more complicated than meets the eye—and

challenging to put into practice! Perhaps you associate the term

dialogue with conversations in movies or plays, or maybe you regard

any exchange between people as a dialogue. As we will illustrate,

dialogue is much more nuanced. In this section, we will investigate the

four key elements of dialogue, paying particular attention to the notion

of civility. This will then allow us to see how each of these components

serves as the foundation for the dialogue characteristics we will discuss

later in the chapter.

Civility

The first, and perhaps most essential, component of dialogue is civility.

We always want people to treat us with respect, and so it stands to

reason we should do the same in our dealings with others. Civility is

the ability to treat others with respect, so we can have a lasting,

peaceful, and positive interaction. Many people associate being civil

with being passive, fake, or weak, but as we will see, that is not the

case.3  There are three fundamental parts of civil behavior, and as we

explore each, keep in mind that just because people may be familiar

with some of these concepts does not mean they always know how to

consistently put them into practice.

Politeness. Parents always remind their children to be polite to others,

but how is it that when people become adults they sometimes model

aggressive and hostile behavior toward others? Politeness is a simple

concept, simply meaning to show consideration for others in

accordance with societal expectations. The difficulty is not with

showing consideration for others, but rather with navigating the

societal expectations in given contexts. We have different social norms

and rules for different places, people, events, and cultures. More

succinctly, politeness is the use of tact when speaking to others.

Politeness often gets confused with “being nice,” or as a tactic for

manipulating others. Some people view politeness in others as an

attempt to hide something, making them skeptical of the motives of

others. We propose that people view politeness as a contrast to

rudeness rather than as a veil for some ulterior motive that may not be

there. Rudeness consists of behaviors that make others uncomfortable,

violate social decency, and are inappropriate or demeaning, while

politeness consists of none of those things. Civil communicators

exercise a degree of self-monitoring, assessing the contexts in which

they find themselves to determine the best way to be considerate

toward other people and thus avoid being seen as rude. Politeness

often manifests itself through the exhibition of good manners.

Good manners refer to those polite behaviors that encourage

positive relationships with others. Good manners are sometimes

legislated, like putting electronics in “airplane mode” while in flight, but

most are social expectations people have of others. Here are a few

good manners that apply to most communication settings.

Be on time for meetings and appointments.

Patiently wait in line.

Don’t talk with your mouth full.

Say “please” and “thank you.”

Respect other people’s property.

Don’t look at, or answer, your mobile phone while in the middle of

a conversation. 

As you can probably imagine, engaging in each of these behaviors can

help create a positive perception of a person by others. Just think

about what we tend to think of people who do the opposite.

Respect for others. Respect is acknowledging the inherent dignity

of the other person as a human being, regardless of what we may think

about him or her. Respect does not mean subservience or deference,

but rather an effort to understand another person and an

acknowledgement of his or her ideas and presence. Scholar Richard

Johannesen refers to this as a spirit of mutual equality, and describes it

this way: “although society may rank participants of dialogue as of

unequal status or accomplishment, the participants themselves view

each other as persons, not as objects to be manipulated or exploited.

The exercise of power and superiority is to be avoided. Participants do

not impose their opinion, cause or will.”4 In other words, everyone has

an equal stake in the discussion, and no one person is privileged over

another. Communication with a spirit of mutual equality entails not

forcing one’s perspective on someone else but instead remaining open

to receiving the perspective of another as equally significant as one’s

own position or ideas. No one likes to be ignored or to go unnoticed,

and so providing that minimum level of recognition is a good baseline

for treating people with respect. When we do this to others, we

encourage them to reciprocate, and this creates a positive relationship

in which we can have honest and frank discussions, even when we

disagree.

Respect for self. Civility is not only about how we treat others, but it is

also about how we treat ourselves. We must respect our own opinions,

ideas, and humanity in interactions just as much as we need to do that

for other people. To do this is an important, if generally

unacknowledged, component of civility whereby we are assertive. To

be assertive means to clearly, calmly, and confidently make our

positions and ideas known to others. It is important that we feel

comfortable expressing our opinions and hearing those of other

people. It is disrespectful to ourselves and devalues what we have to

say if we sit quietly and never share our own ideas, thus eliminating a

Video

Please visit the textbook on a web or mobile device to view video content.

chance for other people to understand our perspective and perception

of the situation.5

Assertiveness is not to be confused with aggressiveness.

Aggressiveness implies a desire to win, compete, or otherwise move

the other side to silence. Aggressiveness is rude and creates a very

uncomfortable situation for everyone and can come across in the

words we use, the volume and tone of voice we use, and the facial

expressions and hand gestures we make. When we are assertive, we

are comfortable knowing we have made our contribution, regardless of

whether the idea is adopted by others. On the contrary, when we are

aggressive, we seek to win and dominate the conversation. Knowing

how to be assertive, but not aggressive, is a key component of being

civil.

Assigned as

Responses

Reply Showing ordered by

Review

Q4.1

A�er watching the video above and reflecting on Petrow's definition of civility, create your own definition of civility that you think e�ectively updates it for our time and share that definition in a discussion post.

�

All Responses Newest Responses

Q4.2 Review

What are the three fundamental parts of civility?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Politeness, respect for self, respect for others

b Consistency, structure, space

c Beliefs, values, morals

d Cultural, global, national considerations

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Presentness

Being civil does not in and of itself create dialogue; there are other

important components to this form of communication we must note.

One of the biggest challenges to engaging in dialogue with another

person or group of people is giving them your undivided attention.

When we give our full attention to someone and avoid mental

distractions, or noise, we are then practicing presentness .

Presentness involves a commitment to the moment, and more

specifically, the other person in the moment with us. As

communication scholar Ron Arnett puts it, “relationship centered

communication that is sensitive to what happens to both self and

other approaches dialogic communication.”7 This is harder than it

sounds; just think about a time where you received particularly good or

bad news and then had to pay attention in class. You were likely not

able to give undivided attention to the class because of the distraction

the news became.

It is important to note that the human attention span is finite, which

means we only can maintain attention for a certain period of time

because doing so requires a great deal of mental effort. Our ability to

focus is a skill we can build with practice8  Many people erroneously

believe they can multitask and pay attention to someone while doing

something else. For any cognitive function that requires you to focus,

such as driving, reading, or paying attention to a speaker, it is actually

physically impossible to multitask. As molecular biologist John Medina

notes, “We are biologically incapable of processing attention-rich

inputs simultaneously.”9  So, as you can probably see, it is impossible

to do something else that requires cognitive effort while participating

in a dialogue, because you simply would not be paying attention to

what the other person is saying. It also should be noted that doing

something else while someone is talking to you is considered rude in

almost any social setting.

Seeds of Peace: The Maine Experience6

In the early 1990s, journalist John Wallach began a program called

Seeds of Peace designed to bring young people from geographic

locations rife with conflict together, so that individuals on both sides of

the conflict interact with their perceived “enemies.” The youths range in

age from 13 to 18, and spend parts of their summer with each other at

a camp in Maine where they live and interact together. The goal is that

through meeting and talking with each other for an extended period of

Video

Please visit the textbook on a web or mobile device to view video content.

time that these “seeds” of peaceful interaction will return home and

build a foundation for peace as they grow older and become more

active in their communities. To ensure that the impact is not restricted

to the summer, the participants in this very selective camp receive

continual support after they leave in the form of dialogue sessions,

cross-cultural visits, and development workshops. As of 2014, there

have been participants in the Seeds of Peace program from the Middle

East, Afghanistan, South Asia, and India. It is an astounding example of

how dialogue can help improve relations between parties who are

seemingly in perpetual conflict.

Assigned as Review

Q4.3

Share an example from the Seeds video that you think would benefit your own

Responses

Reply Showing ordered by

community.

�

All Responses Newest Responses

Unconditional Positive Regard

So far we have explored how dialogue involves civility and presentness,

but those are only parts of the equation. The third element of dialogue

is what psychologist Carl Rogers referred to as

unconditional positive regard , or accepting others with a positive

attitude. Although he applied it specifically to therapists, it works in any

interactions we might have with people. Keeping an open mind and

seeing the potential good in others creates an environment where

people feel comfortable expressing ideas and speaking about

potentially controversial topics. Unconditional positive regard does not

mean you agree with the other person, only that you believe the other

person wants the best for you and you want the best for her or him.

Operating with unconditional positive regard is not easy, and it

involves taking some risks, but the rewards outweigh potential costs.

Of course, if a person repeatedly shows you he or she is deceitful or

cannot be trusted, then your positive regard will diminish. Without the

presence of deceit, however, you should believe in the best of others.

Most interactions are not competitive, and so we should not operate

within them as if the other person is “playing us.” The idea of

unconditional positive regard illustrates the importance of character in

any communication situation.

Mutual Equality

In any social, familial, or professional setting there is a power

distribution. Parents have power over children, supervisors have power

over employees, and so on. This can, and often does, influence the

communication patterns and styles people use when interacting with

each other, and in many cases, the simple presence of positional

authority can diminish the chance of a true dialogue between people.

In a dialogue, the expressions and ideas of every party are valued at the

same level; no one person is valued less or seen as unable to provide a

positive contribution. The premise that each person can make an

equal contribution to the interaction is the

principle of mutual equality , and it is the fourth and final component

of a good dialogue.

A dialogue depends on the free exchange of ideas between parties,

even when those ideas might be at odds. As Ron Arnett puts it,

dialogue conducted with a spirit of mutual equality seeks the “unity of

contraries,” or a way to bridge positions that seem at odds. These

tensions occur when authority is present, but also when interests seem

mutually exclusive, such as a concern for self versus the community or

power and responsibility. For mutual equality to happen in a system or

environment where one has authority or power over another requires

setting aside the power dimensions and communicating in a way that

values the contributions made by everyone. Here are some actions

that create mutual equality.

Collaborating on a solution

Sharing your goals with all involved

Paraphrasing what others say to ensure understanding

Now look at these behaviors that stress the power dimensions

between participants, and see how they might discourage dialogue.

Responding to every statement others make

Keeping information from other participants

Beginning the discussion with your desired decision

Engaging in communication with others in a civil manner and setting

aside any existing power dimensions creates a dialogic environment

where people are comfortable expressing ideas, even when they

conflict. Creating this type of environment, though, is much harder

than explaining what it looks like. Now that we have defined what

dialogue is, let’s briefly take a moment and illustrate what dialogue is

not.

Q4.4 Review

Keeping an open mind and seeing potential good in others are behaviors considered in this element of dialogue, _________.

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Presentness

b Unconditional Positive Regard

c Mutual Equality

d None of the above

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

“Dialogue is public engagement with di�erence and o�ers no assurances for correctness or resolution. The absence of dialogue propelled by tenacious hope to meet ideas contrary to one’s own assures societal demise.”10   — Ronald Arnett, Duquesne University

What Is Not Dialogue People commonly misconstrue two other forms of communication as

dialogue, when, in fact, they are not. True dialogic communication

contains a deep respect and recognition for the other parties in the

interaction, and it is also not about winning anything but rather about

understanding peoples’ unique positions and perspectives. This is not

to say these other forms of communication do not have their place;

they do. In most interactions with others, dialogue works far better.

Just because we are talking with someone else does not mean we are

in a dialogue with him or her. In fact, sometimes we are actually

conducting a monologue. A monologue is a style of communication

where only one voice is respected. This does not mean it is the only

voice that is heard, but it does mean that only one voice matters in the

discussion. In certain contexts, monologues work well, such as in the

military where commanding officers need their troops to follow a

directive. Without such a structure, the military loses discipline and is

far less effective. Monologues are also sometimes helpful in crises

when time is of the essence, such as when emergency personnel are

coordinating search and rescue efforts after a tornado or other natural

disaster. Monologues, though, are not helpful in situations where group

participation and commitment are necessary for success.

In addition to monologues, some people also confuse dialogue with a

more competitive form of communication, debate . In debates,

parties critically listen to each other with the goal of defeating the

opponent’s argument rather than understanding a perspective or

finding common ground. This is, unfortunately, the type of

communication modeled for most people through television news

programs. Two people with opposing views are asked to speak in short

periods of time and argue his or her side against the other person's

side. There is no attempt to build common ground but rather to “win

points” by undermining the ideas and evidence of the other person.

This type of communication does not promote collaboration, and

although it is necessary and even appropriate in some situations, it

often can get in the way of true understanding.

Q4.5 Review

Which is true about dialogue?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Debate, as long as it is civil, is a type of dialogue.

b It involves winning.

c It involves a deep understanding for people’s perspectives.

d It occurs as long as two people are talking.

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Science vs. Faith: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

One of the most popular PBS television programs to run in the 1990s

was Bill Nye the Science Guy, hosted by scientist and former Boeing

mechanical engineer Bill Nye. Since his show finished airing, Nye has

made numerous appearances promoting science education to people

across the United States. Ken Ham is CEO of Answers in Genesis, and

founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Ham

established the Creation Museum to make the case to the public that

the Christian Bible’s book of Genesis explains creation literally. In

February 2014, the two men, one a proponent of evolution, and the

other an adamant evangelical creationist, met to debate their

positions. The central goal for both parties was to prove the other

wrong. They did not attempt to understand each other or explore the

Video Please visit the textbook on a web or mobile device to view video content.

positions the other articulated, but rather sought to demonstrate how

the opponent’s evidence was erroneous. This is an example of a

debate, not a dialogue. It is also one of the more common approaches

to communicating ideas in the public forum, whether in a formal

setting like this, or in a two-minute clip on a cable news show. The idea

is to push one’s position at the expense of the other.

Assigned as

Responses

Review

Q4.6

O�en, debate is a productive exercise. What values and skills mentioned in this video from the Harvard debate team might serve you well in your thinking and education?

�

Reply Showing ordered byAll Responses Newest Responses

Attitudes Necessary for Dialogue Now that we have uncovered the philosophy behind dialogue, we ca