Theorizing about Dialogic Moments: The Buber-Rogers Position and Postmodern Themes

Abstract

Dialogue has become a pivotal concept within contemporary humanstudies, yet few theorists explore its temporal dimension. Is dialogue an extended state of high quality mutuality? Or does it exist in important yet ephemeral moments of human meeting? This article reports on the contributions to communication theory that emerge from a close reading of a metadialogic conversational "text "-the landmark 1 957 meeting of Martin Buber and Carl Rogers. Although most commentators have described Buber and Rogers as disagreeing sharply, we argue that a coherent Buber-Rogers position emerged from their dialogue. Buber and Rogers, in their informal theoretical collaboration, theorize that mutuality-and, by extension, dialogue-is possible in role-unequal relationships in moments of meeting. We then discuss how this Buber-Rogers position prefigured the contemporary cultural tenor of postmodernism. Although not postmodernists themselves, Buber and Rogers helped to shape an intellectual climate in which key postmodern themes could flourish.Dialogue must be understood as something taking part in the very historical nature of human beings. . . . Dialogue is a moment where humans meet to reflect on their reality as they make and remake it. Something else: To the extent that we are communicative beings who communicate to each other as we become more able to transform our reality, we are able to know that we know, which is something more than just knowing. . . . Knowing is a social event with nevertheless an individual dimension. What is dialogue in this moment of communication, knowing and social transformation? Dialogue seals the relationship between the cognitive subjects, the subjects who know, and who try to know.Paulo Freire (Shor & Freire, 1987, pp. 98-99) The Brazilian educator and dialogic theorist Paulo Freire shows how dialogue is a relation of co-constituted mutuality that exists in a matter of moments. Although dialogue necessarily involves separate persons, it is not an individualistic process. Although its 63

Introduction: Organizational Discourse: Exploring the Field

“…Studies of dialogue in organizations focus on it as a mode of communication that builds mutuality through awareness of others and as an instance of unfolding interaction (Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993;Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001). In this respect, and unlike conversation with its strong temporal and rhetorical orientation, dialogue can be seen more as a momentary accomplishment (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). Drawing on the work of, for example, Bakhtin (1981), Buber (1958), Bohm (1996, and Eisenberg and Goodall (1993), studies of dialogue in organizations have sought to show how it is used to generate new meaning and understanding, create space in which to question and critique, and play a mediating function that can lead to a convergence of views (Gergen, 1994(Gergen, , 1999Gergen et al, 2001;Hawes, 1999;Thatchenkery & Upadhyaya, 1996).…”

“…Consequently, they require careful deconstruction (Derrida, 1976) in order to reveal the concealed and marginalized elements within them and thereby open them up for alternative interpretations (Calás & Smircich, 1999;Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001). Studies adopting this approach examine the texts represented in a variety of discursive domains, including dialogue and conversation (Cissna & Anderson, 1998;Cooren, 1997Cooren, , 1999Cooren, , 2001Cooren & Taylor, 1997Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993;Groleau & Cooren, 1998;Isaacs, 1993Isaacs, , 1999Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000;Taylor & van Every, 2000) and narratives and stories (Boje, 1995(Boje, , 2001Czarniawska-Joerges, 1996;Gabriel, 1991Gabriel, , 1995Gabriel, , 1997Gabriel, , 1998.…”

From debate to dialogue: Toward a pedagogy of nonpolarized public discourse

“…It is characterized by openness, trust, presence, and an understanding of the other that arises not from psychological compatibility but from shared humanity. As Cissna and Anderson (1998) have suggested, this way of being may manifest as "an extended state of high quality mutuality," or it may consist of "dialogic moments"-"important yet ephemeral moments of human meeting" (p. 63). Dialogue2, however fleeting, is ultimately the heart of dialogue.…”

Place-Based Dialogics: Adaptive Cultural and Interpersonal Approaches to Environmental Conservation

“…Cooper et al (2013) explain that the concept of dialogue originates in the work of Socrates, and rather than telling participants what to think, its use in The Socratic Method leads them to reconstruct their assumptions through dialogue. Understanding dialogue as an adjective or adverb that can be used to describe particular qualities of a speech act being performed (Pearce and Pearce, 2004) enables us to understand and differentiate meaningful encounters that occur at "moments of meeting" (Cissna and Anderson, 1998). In such moments, dialogic communication is differentiated from traditional forms of communication (such as transactional or persuasive) because an inherent focus on reflexivity, ethicality, and mutual engagement is expected (or perhaps, required).…”