This paper challenges four assumptions in the public relations literature about dialogue: first, that dialogue means two-way communication; second, that dialogue is the same as two-way symmetry; third, that dialogue is the right answer to any troubled communication situation, and finally, fourth, the assumption that everyone agrees dialogue is a specific form of communication characterized by particular tenets, and with a long and distinguished ancestry reaching back to Ancient Greece. The four assumptions mean that over the last decade, dialogue has been implicitly and explicitly treated as both a panacea for public relations, and a practice that is impractical and too difficult to use. This article attempts to reconcile the various dialogic perspectives by specifying the tenets of dialogue, and using them to explain why two-way communication and two-way symmetry are not dialogue. We then challenge the normative bias in current conceptualizations of dialogue in public relations by identifying the existence of what we call “negative spaces,” or contexts, where dialogue is not possible or appropriate.

本文挑战了公共关系文献中有关对话的四个假设：首先，对话意味着双向交流；其次，对话意味着双向交流。第二，对话与双向对称相同。第三，对话是解决任何沟通困境的正确答案，最后，第四，人人都同意对话的假设是一种特殊的交流形式，其特点是具有特定的宗旨，并有着悠久而独特的血统，可以追溯到古希腊。这四个假设意味着，在过去的十年中，对话被隐式和显式地视为公共关系的灵丹妙药，也是一种不切实际且难以使用的做法。本文通过指定对话的宗旨，试图调和各种对话观点，不对话。然后，我们通过确定不可能进行或不进行适当对话的所谓“负空间”或上下文的存在，来挑战当前公共关系对话概念中的规范性偏见。