The changing form and function of dialogue

Popper suggests that dialogue can create a linguistic dramatisation that removes the interlocutors, allowing errors to appear without attaching blame.

The main goal of dialogue, he thought, is to bring us closer to what unites us, not to generate disagreements or create distance through questioning and doubting.

Dialogue under re-evaluation

Yet modern epistemologists are reconsidering dialogue's concepts of error, misunderstanding, and subconsciousness. They now see dialogue as a means for making mistakes and for disagreeing. This can result in alienation and divergence, rather than conversion and consensus.

French philosopher Gilles Deleuze rejected the conventional concept of dialogue. He felt that it was difficult for people to express themselves in interview, interrogation, or dialogue. When asked a question about himself, for instance, he said he was often at a loss for a response.

In dialogue, Deleuze attached importance to constructing a dilemma, in part because of the method people use to present and solve it, a process that may not occur during discussion or thought.

He found objections to be unconstructive, as he did questions of a commonplace nature. Ultimately, his goal was not to answer questions but to transcend them.

Dialogue for Plato and Socrates

In a typical Platonic dialogue, a wise man (normally Socrates) leads a discussion on a moral or philosophical problem. This follows the Socratic method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and draw out presuppositions.

As it progresses through its stages, there is often a sense of helplessness that emerges, causing the conversation to falter or even come to a halt. Yet these moments of stumbling and confusion can often reveal points of convergence.

The gaps are not difference between speakers, but between ideas and assumptions. They are the moments when ignorance and knowledge converge – precisely what Socrates seeks to illicit in his dialogues.

The dialogue becomes a form of self-examination, not just a discussion between people with opposing views. It evolves into tension within the self, where one seeks to break free from their own stereotypes. Points of disagreement become points of consensus.

Dialogue is not always a tool for persuading others to adopt our perspective, in the hope of achieving a shared understanding, or of reaching consensus. Rather, it can involve alienation, disputes, obstacles, conflicts, and disagreements.

Paradoxically, this can pave the way to agreement - disagreement at one stage of the dialogue could serve as a catalyst for achieving agreement at a later stage.

A look at modern dialogue

Modern dialogue goes beyond personal interactions. Its meaning has expanded from verbal exchange to include cultural exchange, often driven by historical processes.

Dialogue, in this sense, can help different cultures come together and work together. As the end goal of dialogue is to reach agreement, harmony, and unity, it requires an openness to exploring new thinking.

In this sense, dialogue serves as a tool to eradicate misunderstandings not only between the parties involved but within oneself and within one's culture.

The power of language

The language used in dialogue can contrast with the language of fighting, as the former is not dominated by the power dynamics inherent in war. Yet language is what can be used to display power and mastery. Throughout history, disagreements have often centred on language, which can be the essence and core of conflict.

Likewise, naming things has been a means of asserting power and domination. The history of names reflects the various powers in charge and their respective visions. In a way, history is a history of names. A name is indicative of the power that possesses and controls it.

Therefore, any dialogue that uses words is inherently imbued with power dynamics and the desire for control. Dialogue is not governed by logic nor moral motives, nor is it reliant on the good faith and integrity of the interlocutors.

Instead, it is a battle of words, a subtle struggle in which the winner is the one who successfully shapes meanings, raises issues, and defines concepts and facts.

The goal of dialogue is not merely to achieve a minimum level of understanding, but rather to reinterpret what may seem to be sources of agreement and common ground to reveal potential for divergence and misunderstanding.

Such disagreements between parties in a dialogue may not necessarily be due to misunderstandings but can result from an inner conflict within a particular culture, such as its lack of self-awareness, arrogance, or even existential nihilism.