Ethics of Dialogue

Defining Dialogue

A leading contemporary exponent of dialogue and dialogic learning, William Isaacs, breaks down the term to its etymological roots: dia and logos. Dia means “through” and logos is translated as “word” or “meaning.” In this sense, dialogue is a “flow of meaning.” An older derivation of logos is “to gather together,” suggesting that meaning arises out of relationships. Thus, dialogue is an open-ended, interactive form of communicative learning that encourages those engaged in discourse to reflect on their own and others' preconceived values and ways of framing issues so that they can together move toward a common ground where joint problem solving via mutual discovery and cooperation becomes possible.

Often, the term dialogue is used loosely to cover a variety of modes of communication. Spoken and other forms of communication can occur solely or primarily for self-expression or for the construction of knowledge from an individual's existing cognitions and beliefs. Dialogue can be viewed as communication exchanges involving two or more individuals for purposes such as information sharing, persuasion and other instrumental outcomes, and empathetic relationship building. The learning theorist Peter Senge makes a distinction, though, between dialogue and other forms of discourse, such as discussions involving a group of individuals for instrumental or strategic purposes. These discussions usually seek a convergence of the perspectives of participants, by one point of view winning out over others, to reach some conclusion or course of action. Dialogue, instead, focuses much more on exploring and respecting the diverging perspectives and concerns of participants, seeks a richer grasp of complex issues, and fosters a unique, more trusting relationship among participants who so regularly interact.

The growth of interest in an ethics of dialogue has been associated with specific definitions of dialogue and the particular assumptions underlying these forms of communication. Recent conceptions of dialogue usually assume empowered and vocal participants and a search for “intersubjective” meanings as participants in a dialogue struggle to make sense of a shared problem from contrasting identity, interest, and value perspectives. The diverse applications suggested for dialogue include collaborative inquiry and learning, deliberation and negotiation of public policy in contested, problematic settings, and engagement for increased understanding of relationships and responsibilities among “selves” and “others.” Such more recent assumptions and goals for dialogue contrast with forms of communication that are also referred to as dialogue. For example, traditional Socratic dialogue is not open-ended and exploratory since it has more strategic goals of persuasion and established roles for the master or teacher and novices or learners. Different conceptions of dialogue, thus, can have varying ontological (the nature of existence or reality), epistemological (the nature of knowledge or meaning), and ethical (the nature of the good life) assumptions.

...