Dialogue, Activism, and Democratic Social Change

Abstract

This article provides a systematic description of various positions on dialogue and their implications for understanding activism and social change. It describes three orientations toward dialogue-collaboration, co-optation, and agonism-which are differentiated by assumptions regarding the pervasiveness of dialogue, the role of difference, and conceptions of power. We argue for a multivocal, agonistic perspective on dialogue that centers issues of power and conflict in activism. Such a perspective illuminates a broad range of activist tactics for social change instead of privileging consensus-oriented methods. These approaches are illustrated with two ethnographic case studies that highlight the importance of lay theories of activism and dialogue.Political upheaval and conflict across the world in 2011 from New York and Wisconsin to Syria and Egypt, underscored the tremendous global need for democratic social change in the wake of a slew of crises arising from political repression, corporate corruption, and rapid environmental degradation. The proliferation of research centers on civic discourse, democracy, participation, and voice in a range of universities such as Arizona, Kansas State, Southern California, Stanford, Texas, and Washington, among others demonstrates that communication scholarship has much pragmatic value in offering visions of how such change can take place and how democracy across the world can be deepened and woven into everyday communication practices. Indeed, theoretical concerns with democratic change have arguably been at the heart of much communication inquiry in the past century, and scholars have crafted a diverse range of perspectives on communication processes and mechanisms through which individuals, communities, and organizations procure and enact democratic change.Throughout, however, we find that scholars have relied on dialogue and activism as significant tropes to understand specific communication processes involved in such change. There are many ways in which communication scholars have positioned these two concepts with and against each other, so our purpose in this article is to clarify 66 Communication Theory 22 (2012) 66-91

Policing Economic Growth: Mining, Protest, and State Discourse in Peru and Argentina

“…Interestingly, state frames of remedy, despite blaming protesters as the wrongdoers, overwhelmingly emphasized the need for dialogue. Ganesh and Zoller (2012) note three primary orientations toward dialogue in the context of governance-collaborative, co-optive, and agonistic-depending on varying conceptualizations of conflict, power, and difference. While collaborative dialogue strives for win-win scenarios it often ignores many of the underlying power differentials that in turn define outcomes.…”

Dialogue for Fostering Participation or Manipulation

“…However, even though the role of dialogue has been accepted in sustaining democracy (Ganesh & Zoller, 2012), this area remains relatively underexplored (Isaacs, 1993;Mazutis & Slawinski, 2008;Schein, 1993;Senge, 1990). There is currently a dearth of theoretical and empirical studies which critically explore dialogue (with exception of Ganesh & Zoller, 2012;Hujala & Rissanen, 2012;Kalliola, Nakari, & Pesonen, 2006;Mazutis & Slawinski, 2008, to mention a few) to shed light on its democratic abilities (Akella, 2003). This article seeks to make a contribution to the literature pertaining to dialogue and its purpose by investigating the following issues:…”

“…Dialogue is a communication process where there is free exchange of thoughts and ideas making it possible to change one's mental paradigms and outlooks (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000;Ganesh & Zoller, 2012;Isaacs, 1993). "People gradually learn to suspend their defensive exchanges and further probe into the underlying reasons why these exchanges take place" (Isaacs, 1993, p. 25).…”

“…Dialogue supports communication, sharing, and learning of new information across different levels of hierarchy and cultural boundaries. Dialogue facilitates mutual trust and makes it possible to tell what is really on one's mind (Ganesh & Zoller, 2012;Isaacs, 1993;Schein, 1993).It helps in generating, sharing, and exploring tacit information, and creation of common mental models and assumptions leading to higher levels of creativity and learning within organizations (Schein, 1993). Dialogue enables groups in reaching higher levels of consciousness, and be more creative and innovative.…”

“…Dialogue is characterized by "strange otherness and emergent consequences" (Ganesh & Zoller, 2012, p. 70), individuals are able to evaluate taken for granted rules, assumptions, and voice unacceptable ideas and resolve individual differences. Dialogue enables collective inquiry and reflection (Ganesh & Zoller, 2012;Isaacs, 1993;Lyotard, 1984;Schein, 1993).Dialogue is a process which allows people to suspend their defensiveness leading to a free flow of inquiry into their own and others' assumptions and beliefs (Isaacs, 1993;Raelin, 2008;Schein, 1993). Dialogue is effective in building mutual trust and common ground.…”