Alternatives to monological communication: analyzing Jabri, Adrain, and Boje's theory

¶ … Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) on alternatives to the monological model is fascinating in that it causes us not only to think about communication in an alternate way but also reverses paradigms in other factors too. Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) submit that Western culture emphasizes the monological model due to its tendency of viewing the recipient of communication as an I-it (I.e. object) rather than as an I-Thou and therefore one ends up addressing the other in a peremptory or objective, detached manner. Perceiving the other, however, as complex person would stimulate a multi-dialogic strand of communication and this would replace the monological model. As prescription, accordingly, Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) see Bakhtin's approach as more suited to a constructive mode of communicating.

Expanding on Jabri, Adrain, and Boje's (2008) thoughts, it seems to me that the monological model may be more suited to a specific historical and geographical context and time. Certain periods such as the modern ages may be more demonstrative of the monological model than may be an earlier period. Similarly, too, certain countries, such as America, may be representative of the monological model than other countries / continents such as India may be. Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) fail to particularize but their underlying observations are interesting and acute. Their discussion may be slanted in that it fails to analyze a sufficiently required cross-sample of people as well as being limited to one period of time rather than being longitudinal as such a complex subject requires. Nonetheless, their research has value in its originality and potential contributions. By seeing people as the subjects in communication rather than the objects in communication, organizations and individuals can better their communication. The consensus-as-dialogue approach, rather than consensus-as-monologue perspective helps one see conversation amongst people as a never-ending process. This provides a different perspective on participation where one person's message joins with that of another and the person's meaning with that of another is seen as offered rather than seen as objectively given and static.

The Monological approach

The monological approach sees conversation as one-logic i.e. proceeding in one direction. Examples abound such as organizations requiring that members 'agree with our proposed change please." This is intended not so much s a question but the language rather implies an expectation that communicants should agree, or else.. Even when diverse points-of-view exist, the focus is on achieving a consensus and, thereby, by not seeing individuals as a multiplicity, clumps all in one homogeneity and expects a static, common ground for all.

Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) point out that this static perspective of communication may have traditional roots reaching way back to Aristotle who saw communication as one of rhetoric, namely persuasion, where communication was a strategy for influencing people and helping them see reason, or the truth. In this way, the 'other' became viewed as object, communication was one way (monological) and the objective was how to best seduce the other to one's way of thinking. Theorists in the 16th century expanded on Aristotle's ideas and seperated the study of how we reason to their study of how we present ideas. According to Taylor (2001), this reduction culminated in reducing conversation, depersonalizing words, and converting them into ideas rather than seeing the complexity of the speaker behind the words. It also led to glossing over the complexity of the words themselves with their manifold messages.

In more recent times, however, communication scholars attempt to show people that communication is also about our unique perspective and interpretation of the world, not just about delivery and ideas, and that language (in all its multiplicity and complexity) serves as medium for conveying our slanted and biased perspective. "The goal of language ahs becomes that of constructing shared meaning" (669). However, most current working models of communication, according to Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008), are monological in that they either see communication as instrument of change (as in "please do as I say" or the educational discourse) or tend to perceive communication as instrumental in allowing people more opportunity to involve them in change.

Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) see both models as being too limiting in that "people need to recursively communicate and connect with people." They, therefore, propose an alternative fashioned upon Bakhtin's anthropology

Reflections

It seems to me, too, that expanding on Jabri, Adrain, and Boje's (2008) thoughts, the monological model may be more suited to a specific historical and geographical space and time. Certain periods such as the modern ages may be more demonstrative of the monological model than may be an earlier period. Similarly, too, certain countries, such as America, may be representative of the monological model than other countries / continents such as India may be. Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) fail to particularize but their underlying observations are interesting and acute. Their discussion may be slanted in that it fails to analyze a sufficiently required cross-sample of people as well as being limited to one period of time rather than being longitudinal as such a complex subject requires. Nonetheless, their research has value in its originality and potential contributions. By seeing people as the subjects in communication rather than the objects in communication, organizations and individuals can better their communication. The modern idea of communication relies on a linguistic, grammatical base. As a result of contributions such as those of Saussure (who suggested that the study of language and speech be separated and that emphasis be placed on language as a social institution of the word), "communication became centered on what the speaker says.. Meaning became fixed and language was simply a code for transmitting information" (Bakhtin, 89) this became a consensus-as-monologue approach where speakers focused on language as instrument for transmitting information.

Bakhtin, however, distinguished utterances from sentences, seeing sentences as static, fixed in time, and easy to dissect whilst the utterance, as a whole, being embodied in other people is continuous and complex. This is known as consensus-as-dialogue approach. The consensus-as-dialogue approach, rather than consensus-as-monologue perspective helps see conversation amongst people as a never-ending process. It emphasizes the intended meaning of the communicator and brings the listener away from listening to the message to focusing on the communicator him or herself. Communication is, therefore, committed to being with the other rather than being with the message and communication and communicator become separable one from the other. This provides a different perspective on participation where one person's message joins with that of another and the person's meaning with that of another is seen as offered rather than seen as objectively given and static. By personalizing communication in this way -- as dialogical rather than monological - organizations in general and individuals in particular can benefit from a more empathic approach to the other as individual rather than as object and less conflict as well as more respect will be inserted in an already selfish and chaotic as well s conflict-ridden world. Bakhtin's recommendations for sharedness of communication, steering us away from the monological perspective, apply to all times and countries.

Jabri, Adrain, and Boje (2008) may be incorrect in defining the monological model as symptomatic of modern times in general. It may be more particular of a specific age and country. Nonetheless, their observations and elaboration on Bakhtarin's model as well as their recommendations for it's replacing the monological perspective are current and astute.

Source

Jabri, M., Adrain, a., & Boje, D (2008). Reconsidering the role of conversations in change communication, Journal of Org. Change, 21, 667-685.