Many think that dialogue is just a form of two-way communication. But is that so? What is your understanding about dialogue? People keep on discussing and mentioning dialogue but why is it important? Or it is just a white elephant term that we only mention but don't practice?
I understand dialogue as a form of communication in which both parties are willing to be influenced or even moved by the other. It may be useful to contrast this with monologue, which I think of as an interaction in which influence is one-directional, involving the imposition of one party's ideas on the other. In other words, monologue is associated with authority, and dialogue with collaboration. Is it important? Well, maybe it's useful to go into an interaction with dialogical intentions - making room for the other's voice, rather than using their views only to enhance or confirm one's own. I find this useful in a therapeutic context (Harlene Anderson is very good on this point), reminding me that my theories should not be imposed on the client, and that I should be respectful of that person's freedom to think differently from me.
Dear Michael, thank you for the response. Ya, like the words "willing to be influenced". When we organize a dialogue session, people involved would always putting up the worries of being influenced unconsciously. Dialogue should always link with understand ourselves, try to understand others, interaction with others and willing to change our mindset.
What you want to see is group collaboration, interaction, and synergy from a group structure. This may look different than we expect. Let me give you two examples from my field research in Kazakhstan:
1. I wanted to have more interaction in my interviews and not rely on the North American model of "ask a straight question -- get a straight answer". Thus I began to interview peers about the meaning of selected Kazakh proverbs. I found that peers were willing to challenge each other if they thought the other was giving a bogus answer. I also had one situation where the peers gave contrasting answers, but did not call each other on their different examples.
2. We asked students to do dialogues using Kazakh proverbs. On the first day, we had a number of students (perhaps around eight) who did a monologue using a Kazakh proverb. My research assistant said that we should throw out all the monologues, but I insisted that we transcribe each one. For the most part they were boring, but we had one gem. A student did a folktale to explain a Kazakh proverb. They audience interacted with him offering two supporting proverbs. Fascinatingly enough, the conclusion was a proverbial phrase that challenged the folktale and supporting proverbs. The skillfully and accurately delivered monologue actually provide the structure for interaction and challenge!
Ya, do agree. Dialogue happens not because of right or wrong, but instead it happens when two or more parties have different ideas. Thus, all the involved parties should have a mindset that they are all equal, willing to listen and willing to try to understand each other...
Hi Chang,
Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami introduced the idea of Dialogue Among Civilizations as a response to Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of a Clash of Civilizations.
This theory argues that "the political translation of dialogue among civilizations would consist in arguing that culture, morality, and art must prevail on politics".
Apart from political discourse of dialogue even Media Theories have evaluated and discussed the necessity and functions of dialogue as a form of communication; whether a successful two-way communication, or a one-way authority dictatorship communication.
Traditional Theories including: The Magic Bullet Theory, The Obstinate Audience, The Two-Step Flow Theory, Uses and Gratifications, Theory of Agenda-Setting, The Human Action Approach, Free Press Theory, Cultivation Theory, Media Dependency Theory, Social Learning Theory.
Interpretive Theories including: Semiotics, Narrative Theory, Genre Theory, Polysemy, Simulacra
Critical-Cultural Theory including: Neil Postman, Concentration of Media Outlets, Political-Economy of Media, Consumerism in Media, Burke's Equipment for Living, McLuhan's Medium as Message, Stereotyping in Media, Hegemony, Ideology and Media, Chomsky's Manufacture of Consent
Communication is a fundamental issue in every field of human culture and society.
Listening is also the most important issue.
In this sense, I notice that many dialogues end up as a collection of monologues, that might be interesting to follow, independently from any other form of valued communication.
Totally agree. Maria Bettencourt Pires, many dialogues end up as a collection of monologues. Mostly due to the represented dialoguers are not clear with themselves and as well the other sides. Many dialogue sessions end up becoming a lecture with question and answer session
Hello Chang Lee Wei, I studied the concept of dialogue during my PhD. From my point of view a dialogue is that kind of interaction from which there is something new coming out that wouldn´t be produced by the participants in isolation. So I would say a dialogue is a collective construction of something (ideas, etc). This pressuposes many things, openess, willingness to suspend assumptions, etc. Some of my papers have been published in English and approach in depth the theory of dialogue as I understand it. You are welcome to have a look a it. Best wishes from Brazil.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Cartography
- Mapping
- Maps