Is It Dissemination Form Of Communication?

Better Essays
1. I think since the beginning we can see that Peters prefers dissemination form of communication to dialogue. From the explanation on both sides he presented, it’s completely understandable why he posed tendency toward dissemination because dialogue obtains an underlying demand (passive aggressive) from one or the other party in the dialogue, while on the surface it seems mutual as Peters puts it “dialogue’s supposed moral nobility can suffocate those who prefer not to play along (p.159)”. Dissemination, on the other hand, is very hermeneutic, open to each and individual interpretation of the messages and communication content. But then, the problem with this is that the interpretation may be misinterpreted when it’s done out of the context or situation in which the messages or texts were initially developed or composed.
To me conceptually, communication occurs when a message(s) is sent from a sender to a receiver either in a form of one-on-one, one-to-many, many-to-many, or even many-to-one, where sometimes both sides of the conversation are actively involved or neither side expects involvement or “participation” from one another. However, the key take-away for me from Peters book is that, sometimes we tend to rather focus on what being said or how it is said than who actually says it and why.
Although the currently “delivery system” seems to be more in a hermeneutic form, I still think that both dialogue and dissemination need to be explained and discussed because we
Get Access