Difference between revisions of "Dialogue"

From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 38: Line 38:
 
*[[Dialogue Among Civilizations]]
 
*[[Dialogue Among Civilizations]]
 
*[[Intercultural Dialogue]]
 
*[[Intercultural Dialogue]]
 +
  
  

Revision as of 22:21, 2 January 2008

Lighterstill.jpg

Gates paradise renaissance.jpg

Oftentimes, we think of dialogue perhaps as a better conversation, but there is much more to it. Genuine dialogue is a conversation with a center, not sides. It is a way of taking the energy or our differences and channeling it toward something that has never been created before. It lifts us out of polarization and into a greater common sense, and is thereby a means for accessing the intelligence and coordinated power of groups of people.[1]


A dialogue (sometimes spelled dialog (n., v.) The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993 is a reciprocal conversation between two or more entities. The etymological origins of the word (in Greek διά(diá,through) + λόγος(logos,word,speech) concepts like flowing-through meaning)) do not necessarily convey the way in which people have come to use the word, with some confusion between the prefix διά-(diá-,through) and the prefix δι-(di-, two) leading to the assumption that a dialogue is necessarily between only two parties.[[2]]

Platonic dialogues

The philosopher Plato wrote a series of dialogues, mostly between Socrates and some other person. In all these dialogues there is an explicit or an implicit disagreement, and the purpose of these dialogues is to resolve the disagreement. The typical way is for Socrates to probe his partner for further beliefs until a contradiction is reached with the disputed belief or hypothesis by implication. In this way the interlocutor is made to see the impossibility of his hypothesis, and then tries some other hypothesis, which is again subject to the same scrutiny. Most of these dialogues break off without a final resolution—as in real life.

Philosophical, theological, and social concept

Martin Buber places dialogue in a central position in his philosophy: he sees dialogue as an effective means of on-going communication rather than as a purposive attempt to reach some conclusion or to express some viewpoint(s).

David Bohm originated a related form of dialogue where a group of people talk together in order to explore their assumptions of thinking, meaning, communication, and social effects. This group consists of ten to thirty people who meet for a few hours regularly or a few continuous days. Dialoguers agree to leave behind debate tactics that attempt to convince and, instead, talk from their own experience on subjects that are improvised on the spot. People form their own dialogue groups that usually are offered for free of charge. There exists an international online dialogue list server group, facilitated by Don Factor, co-author of a paper called "Dialogue - A Proposal," with David Bohm and Peter Garrett.[3]

Russian philosopher and semiotician Maranhão 1990, p.197 Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of "dialogue" emphasized the power of discourse to increase understanding of multiple perspectives and create myriad possibilities. Bakhtin held that relationships and connections exist among all living beings, and that dialogue creates a new understanding of a situation that demands change. In his influential works, Bakhtin provided a linguistic methodology to define the dialoghe, its nature and meaning: Maranhão 1990, p.51

Dialogic relations have a specific nature: they can be reduced neither to the purely logical (even if dialectical) nor to the purely linguistic (compositional-syntactic) They are possible only between complete utterances of various speaking subjects... Where there is no word and no language, there can be no dialogic relations; they cannot exist among objects or logical quantities (concepts, judgments, and so forth). Dialogic relations presuppose a language, but they do not reside within the system of language. They are impossible among elements of a language. Bakhtin 1986, p.117

Celebrated Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire, who is known for developing popular education, advanced dialogue as a type of classroom pedagogy. Freire held that dialogued communication allowed students and teachers to learn from one another in an environment characterized by respect and equality. A great advocate for oppressed peoples, Freire was concerned with praxis—action that is informed and linked to people’s values. Dialogued pedagogy was not only about deepening understanding; it was also about making positive changes in the world.

Today, dialogue is used in classrooms, community centers, corporations, federal agencies, and other settings to enable people, usually in small groups, to share their perspectives and experiences about difficult issues. It is used to help people resolve long-standing conflicts and to build deeper understanding of contentious issues. Dialogue is not about judging, weighing, or making decisions, but about understanding and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust, and enables people to be open to perspectives that are very different from their own.

In the past two decades, a rapidly-growing movement for dialogue has been developing. The website of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, at [4], serves as a hub for dialogue (and deliberation) facilitators, conveners, and trainers and houses thousands of resources on these communication methodologies.

Groups such as Worldwide Marriage Encounter and Retrouvaille International use dialogue as a communication tool for married couples. Both groups teach a dialogue method that helps couples learn more about each other in non-threatening postures, which helps to foster growth in the married relationship.


See also