emotion and democracy

In the web lecture on democracy and dialogue I discuss various approaches to democracy and how they apply to organizational communication. As with organizational life in general, scholars and organization members think of democracy as rational, logical, and systematic. Yet the recent events in Iran (millions of people demonstrating and protesting the presidential election process) reveal the emotional side of democracy. That's why I find dialogic democracy appealing--it recognizes the passion underlying democratic processes.

One of the negative influences of classical theories of organization has been the removal of emotion from organizational life. Some displays of emotion are allowed in limited quantities. For example, it's okay to show happiness (but not too much) and displeasure (but again, not too much). In a previous entry, I talked about emotion labor, the idea that organization members must manage their emotions in specific ways. Dialogic democracy allows for a more authentic or honest expression of emotion. That doesn't mean you should blurt out whatever you're feeling at the time. Part of coordinating your behaviors with others involves a degree of self monitoring. That is, just because you think or feel something doesn't mean you have to tell others about it (consider the case of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, whose admissions about an affair have been referred to as streams of consciousness and other members of the GOP saying they wish he would "just shut up").

Dialogic democracy recognizes the importance of emotion as part of the human condition and encourages organization members to recognize the role emotion plays in organizational communication and decision making. This approach to emotion presents a clear distinction from other views of democracy as well as more traditional theories of organizing.

~ Professor Cyborg