Critical Organizational Dialogue: Open Formation and the Demand of “Otherness”

Abstract

The call for dialogue became a core part of our sociality in the later part of the twentieth century, and it clearly continues as a social hope as we confront the problems of a new era. International conflicts that bear on local interests, increasing interdependence and renewed isolationism, calls for diversity and pluralism coupled with new forms of destruction and annihilation, are all situations in a complex world context for dialogue. Although many still tout the promise of the information age, with the mass reproduction of meaning that new information technologies make possible, the need for discussion and negotiation persists. The struggle of our time is to build the practices of working together. This is the hope of a dialogic theory of communication. Using the word "dialogue," rather than simply "communication," foregrounds specific normative hopes. "Dialogue " has been useful in drawing together alternative and often more hopeful understandings and practices of communication. The hopes of different conceptions and practices of dialogue are not all the same, however. In the twentieth century, three dominant positions on dialogue evolved. The first, a liberal humanist perspective, is rooted in notions of internally located meaning and grounded in the works of Maslow (1970, 1973) and Rogers (1965, 1969, 1980). These scholars advocate an interactional orientation founded on principles of understanding, empathy, and active listening. The thrust of communication from this perspective is to find common ground so that a community can comfortably co-exist. The second position, a critical hermeneutic orientation, is reflected in the writing of Gadamer (1975,

Da (Im)possibilidade Do Diálogo: Conversações Públicas E Os Direitos LGBTS

“…Herzig e Chasin (2006) relatam os benefícios da participação de ativistas em encontros de PCP que passaram a gastar mais energia em ações positivas referentes ao fim da violência intergrupos e menos no manejo das frustrações nas batalhas com os opositores. Nessas ocasiões, tais participantes puderam desmistificar seu receio de que o diálogo seria substituto da ação concreta com relação ao tema, experimentando um espaço conversacional de respeito mútuo, de problematização das certezas trazidas para a conversa, de multivocalidade, abertura, conexão humana e co-criação de sentidos (Black, 2008;Deetz & Simpson, 2004).…”

Positioning Intercultural Dialogue—Theories, Pragmatics, and an Agenda

“…First, they elaborate the theoretical terrain of intercultural dialogue studies by drawing on key theorists of dialogue. For instance, Witteborn's study of the discourse of Uyghur diaspora is grounded in Deetz & Simpson's (2004) propositions about dialogue as a political response, which in turn builds on formulations by Gadamer (1989) and Habermas (1987). And LaFever refers to Buberian definitions of dialogue in analyzing planning and decision-making process involving Gallup, New Mexico and a Navajo Nation community.…”

“…Studies of dialogue are prominent in organizational communication studies, where researchers have examined issues of stakeholder dialogue (Deetz & Simpson, 2004). Interpersonal communication scholars have developed nuanced understandings of Bakhtinian dialogue that combine analyses of interpersonal relationships with processes of social change (Rawlins, 2009).…”

Poder vibrante, vibrantes subjetividades: a abordagem de contação de histórias (storytelling) no estudo do poder na educação

“…The important distinction is whether knowing and being originates in the human mind and where the individual is the fixed originator of meaning, or whether people are social, cultural and material products where knowing and being always has to be understood in relation to somebody (humans) or something (non-humans) (Deetz and Simpson, 2004). A power framework falls within the latter category since power is about how the other, human or non-human, inflicts her-/him-/itself on humans and influences conceptions, values and actions.…”