Speaking Into The Air: Dialogue and Dissemination
The concept of communication only “took its current shape”(37)
in the nineteenth century. When we look at Plato’s “Phaedrus”
and the Gospels, we can find two different conceptions of communication:
tightly coupled dialogue and loosely coupled
dissemination. These two conceptions
of communication persist until today. In our society, dialogue is considered
as direct and good communication while dissemination is considered inferior
to dialogue because it is one-way communication (33).
Plato's "Socrates"
had an ideal about communication that is still alive today: "souls intertwined
in 
reciprocity"(43).
The idea about reciprocity does not only include the melding of minds but
also physical beauty. Although it is important to be able to communicate on
the same level, we know that communication works better with a person we feel
comfortable with. Plato's "Socrates"
gives the example of communication between two people who are attracted to
each other not only because their minds found unity together but also because
they are physically attracted (44). In addition, "Socrates" talks about enduring
anxieties in the evolution
of the means of communication. In the past, people said that photography,
cinema and radio would destroy dialogue. That same fear is still present today,
when people complain about computers that are impersonal
and reduce our desire for dialogue. However, Peters says that "to blame media
for distorting dialogue is to misplace pathos"
(34). This shows that Peters does not agree with the common idea that
media destroys dialogue. Nevertheless, for many people since Socrates,
dialogue is the norm and dissemination is the deviation (49). In fact, the
idea of the proper form of communication offered by Socrates is still present
today when we think about true communication as personal, free, live, and
interactive. While Plato
describes communication as mutual (people talking face- to- face), the
Gospels
rather look at communication as dissemination (53).
Although we look at communication as true when it is face to face and mutual, the Gospels offer dissemination as a form of communication equal to dialogue. Dissemination means "to make known", and, unlike dialogue, it does not make people understand certain ideas. While dialogue encourages people to agree on certain ideas, dissemination leaves audiences to interpret meaning differently since there is a lack of interaction (51). This idea is still present today when people say that dissemination (via television, not the Gospels) is not "real" communication. Peters disagrees: communication can be accomplished, even if it is only one way.
Peters says that "one-way communication is not necessarily bad"(56). However,
reciprocity can be
violent as well as fair. He argues that war and vengence work on the basis
of strict reciprocity as much as does conversation. In that way, Peters says
that dialogue can be as cruel and destructive as war.
Another point of view from which dissemination is seen as equal or even superior
to dialogue is the Gandhian
ethic of passive
resistance. Peters explains that one-way communication is like Gandhi's
passive resistance which was powerful in fighting the British. He further
mentions that we should not forget "the majesty in many cases of nonresponsiveness"
(57).
Peters concludes that "though reciprocity is a moral ideal, it is an insufficient one"(61). This shows that Peters does not agree with society's point of view that only dialogue is good communication and dissemination is inferior to dialogue. In fact, Peters says that dissemination takes better account of our attempts to meet others with fairness.