The Problematics of Dialogue and Power

Hammond, Scott C.; Anderson, Rob; Cissna, Kenneth N.

doi:10.1080/23808985.2003.11679024

Cited by 28 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, issues of difference are central to dialogic theories. Dialogue involves tensions between needs for convergence, inasmuch as there are desires for consensus and communicative requirements for sharing assumptions, and needs for emergence, or the possibility that new ideas will develop from the representation, construction, and negotiation of difference (Hammond, Anderson, & Cissna, 2003). While some theorists construe dialogue as a nonpolarized method that rules out or overcomes conflict in favor of consensus (Black, 2005; Bokeno & Gantt, 2000), others position argument and debate themselves as dialogic interactions and strategies (Barge & Martin, 2002; Hyde & Bineham, 2000).…”

Section: Perspectives On Dialogue and Activismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialogue, Activism, and Democratic Social Change

Ganesh

Zoller

2012

Communication Theory

129

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Perspectives On Dialogue and Activismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialogue, Activism, and Democratic Social Change

Ganesh

Zoller

2012

Communication Theory

129

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although dialogue normally assumes a commitment to authentic engagement, respect for the other and abiding by the ensuing decisions (Anderson et al, 2004), the books are replete with examples where CSR dialogue turns out to be half-hearted, rigged from the start in favour of powerful corporations, disadvantaging subaltern actors who lack access or established means of self-presentation, resulting in piecemeal or unjust outcomes. Recently, dialogue scholars have called for a more explicit engagement with power relations (Hammond et al, 2003), even arguing for a more expanded perspective that centers agonistic means, such as protests, demonstrations and violence, which might force powerful corporate agents to agree to a more equitable dialogue (Ganesh and Zoller, 2012). Such a broader view of dialogue privileges conflict, rather than consensus, so that the goal is to produce a pragmatic rather than utopian 'win-win' outcome.…”

Section: Discussion: Broadening Local/global Connectedness Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Book Review: Reassessing corporate social responsibility for the hyper-global network society: centering communication

Mitra

2013

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every so often, after events such as the Bhopal gas tragedy in the 1980s, or the Enron meltdown in the early 2000s, or the current public reaction against global financial firms, corporate social responsibility (CSR) comes to the fore in public discussion. Although the intermittent attention to the (mis)behavior of corporations and other organizations is welcomed by many audiences including scholars with such interests, the case-specific and often individualistic framing of 'bad apples' and 'good apples' continues to undermine systemic analysis of the roles of institutions in societyat-large. CSR is often understood in the mainstream as one-off campaigns, incentives and/or philanthropic actions that businesses engage in at their discretion, instead of an underlying philosophy that guides (or ought to guide) their 'regular' actions, and the organic interconnections between firms and society are largely unappreciated.The books reviewed in this essay depart crucially from this trend. Even as they adopt different tones, ranging from academic high theory to practitioner and managerial concerns, they address CSR as everyday principles of business crucial to the firm's long-term growth story, adopting a holistic view of organizational connectedness with(in) society. The authors and editors of these works largely locate CSR in the relationships that characterize business operations, the processes of change management that all firms must adopt to thrive in the global economy, the legal codes of corporate governance that affect the firm's very existence, or the communicative practices that constitute the firm, its agents, and its partners. Importantly, all four of these books center communication-either as the effective transmission of CSR related information, or as shaping the relationships among organizational agents, or as the symbolic building blocks that constitute both the firm and what counts as CSR-suggesting that CSR scholars need to take a deeper look at the communicative processes at

show abstract

“…It might be argued that Tonn overstates her point here and is offering a limited notion of public dialogue. For example, Hammond, Anderson, and Cissna (2003) argue that dialogue by definition differs from mere conversation. Surely, dialogists would also argue that facilitated public dialogue-the sort of third-party, organized dialogue used to engage public issues-does in fact have a useful structure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dialogue theorists accept the challenges of the interaction between openendedness and goal orientation, but that does not mean they find such challenges easy to meet. Being in dialogue means constantly negotiating several inherent ''tensions'' (Hammond et al, 2003;Littlejohn, 2004;Stewart & Zediker, 2000;Wood, 2004). One of them is what Hammond et al have labeled the ''process and content'' tension (p. 137).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Invention and Public Dialogue: Lessons from Rhetorical Theories

Heidlebaugh

2008

Communication Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the dialogical nature of publics and public deliberation has been acknowledged frequently in recent years, several scholars have challenged the viability of dialogue as an instrument of public deliberation. This study discusses some of those challenges and examines a form of invention drawn from sophistic rhetoric for its potential to contribute to the theory and practice of facilitated dialogue on public issues. An extended illustration is drawn from an actual multilogue on a public issue.

show abstract

The Problematics of Dialogue and Power

Cited by 28 publications

References 18 publications

Dialogue, Activism, and Democratic Social Change

Dialogue, Activism, and Democratic Social Change

Book Review: Reassessing corporate social responsibility for the hyper-global network society: centering communication

Invention and Public Dialogue: Lessons from Rhetorical Theories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About