The model of communicative relations (PMOGI) is a tool designed by the Institute of Communication Ethics (ICE, 2001) to assess the integrity and oper- ational values that exist in acts of communication such as dialogue. It is a stand- point model that situates human relationships as both interdependent and morally founded, with ‘viewpoint emerging from standpoint’. In the PMOGI Figure 7.1 Example of a QUAD
Source: ICE (2004).
values
dialogue-lite
Corporate dialogue Medium
Message Dialogue forms using CE dialectics
rights
just dialogue
Community dialogue
Figure 7.2 PMOGI heuristic
Source: ICE (2001). The 5circle is a trademark of Communication Ethics Limited.
Political
Media
Organization Group
Interpersonal
model, dialogue participants use five relational groups to contrast and examine various dimensions of communication and their respective ethics (Figure 7.2).
● Political (P): the political dimension of dialogue relates to human rights, statutory instruments and regulations devised to protect individuals against coercion and manipulation by corporations or indeed govern- ment institutions.
● Media (M): dialogue is traditionally associated with face-to-face commu- nication but far more information is now disseminated through mediated systems, which has both positive and negative implications for consulta- tions practice. For example using the internet to report public consultations may actually reduce dialogue by setting technological limits, or it may improve it by bringing new constituencies into it.
● Organization (O): dialogue between organization and others is clearly fraught with competing paradigms, for example personal versus corporate interest and community rights versus commercial imperatives.
● Group (G): dialogue can be viewed as a convenient term to describe group communication that promotes justice, although the question remains whether dialogue is possible outside face-to-face contact in groups, and even in these encounters can dialogue be limited by expedience? When is it a dialogue and not a debate or a consultation?
● Interpersonal (I): individual relationships lie at the centre of dialogue but corporate dialogue reports rarely if ever reveal individual circumstances, dynamics or opposition.
The PMOGI model identifies how different interests, language and powers affect the way in which people communicate. Even when group dialogue exists it can be seriously distorted if political, media, organization or personal inter- ests interfere with the dialogue in process. One particular factor rarely men- tioned in reports of public consultation is the group-interpersonal relationship.
This relates to the opportunity for coercion of the individual by the group, or coercion of the group by an individual, for example by the facilitator.
The binary relational tensions in the PMOGI model presented in Figure 7.3 indicate a degree of communicative complexity that is rarely acknowledged in communications at any level of society. For instance an organization–organization discourse has a completely different complexion to that of an organization–individual communication. The variety of com- municative relations and assumptions that exist increase the complexity of corporate dialogue and make communication a far more powerful and meaningful task than is usually identified by solely pragmatic interests.
In communication ethics, dialogue conflicts are often regarded as language conflicts, revealing logical assumptions with a positivist agenda.
For example feminine ideals are often subjugated to masculine ones (Alia, 2004). The following analysis of dialogue is by no means comprehensive and is intended only to show that the ‘dialogue on dialogue’ is in the early stages
of its critical development and lacks key conceptual tools. The neglect of communication-based linguistic analysis tends to reduce communication while potentially exercising control by simplification or reducing complex- ity through expedience. The media dimension of the PMOGI model exem- plifies this simplification. For instance, when addressing ethical issues the media are often guilty of reducing complex reality to black and white ‘con- ditions of certainty’ (Alia, 2004) in order to create a ‘lite-communication’
able to be effectively transmitted through multiple media channels.
Figure 7.4 displays some of the dilemmas in social dialogue. These can be read (graphed) alongside Figure 7.3 to produce a picture of the complexity that is inherent in all dialogue. For instance knowledge of interpersonal issues involving gender, language, personal control, wellbeing and ability are essen- tial to understand how individuals perceive and react in a group dialogue.
Each of the PMOGI relational groups has its own dilemmas that are part of a matrix of tensions that lie behind dialogue and may reduce its effectiveness, particularly if not opened to examination by the participants.
Each assessment made of formal dialogues should account for a deeper level of complexity founded in communication theory and a practice of moral engagement. Participants should be fully enabled to appreciate the Figure 7.3 PMOGI model of communicative relations
Source: ICE (2001).
Political–organization Political–political
Political–media Political–
group Political–
interpersonal
Interpersonal–
organization
Interpersonal–
media Interpersonal–
group
Interpersonal–
individual
Interpersonal–
political
Media–organization Media–media Media–
group
Media–political
Organization–
political
Organization–media Organization–
interpersonal
Organization–organization Organization–
group PMOGI Communicative relations with binary
oppositions
Political
Organization
Media Interpersonal
Group–organization Group Group–
group Group–media
Group–
political Group–
interpersonal
Media–
interpersonal
deeper issues concerned. For organizations that initiate dialogues this implies a substantial responsibility to educate the citizens whose lives they touch (and sometimes dominate) and to enable maximum responsiveness from participants in order to safeguard the implied ethic of dialogue. Despite being the reverse of how most systematic dialogues are presently conducted, we argue that the real purpose of dialogue must be to help citizens to make decisions that are fundamentally ethical rather than merely procedural, and that in addition, protect them from the overwhelming power of enormous public institutions and massive multinational corporations.