Chapter 5 was very interesting to me and fairly easy to follow. This chapter focuses on dialogic ethics and how necessary it is being that we live in a post modern era with many differences. The main point of this chapter is that difference is the key to learning and dialogue is a great way to learn more about others and their ideas. I think that everyone can relate to this chapter because we all have learning to do and we have to be open minded.
Throughout this chapter we are given many different perspectives on dialogic theory from Buber, Gadamer, Freire, and Arendt. The two that I found most interesting were Gadamer's and Freire's. Gadamer talks all about biases and how "biases guide our unique insights and contributions to everyday life," (p. 86). Just because we live in a time of difference, does not mean that we should avoid dialogue altogether, we should be learning and respecting others' biases. However, as we saw with the example in the book of the student and her Spanish professor, not all dialogue of biases always result in agreement. Freire, on the other hand, "contends that the invitation to dialogue is impossible between persons of unequal power," (p. 87). The two are related to each other being that Freire believes that, "Awareness of the bias of inequities opens the door to change and beginning conversation," (p. 87). After reading about the authors, this all relates back to the main point that dialogue is the key to learning and we all have something to learn from one another. Although communication may be difficult, we have to be open minded and realize that it opens the door to many new things.
I agree with what you are saying. I think dialogic ethics are necessary to live and interact with people who have different perspectives from me. I also felt communication could be difficult while I reading dialogic theories in this chapter. However, it is important to have open mind to learn differences from others and respect others’ bias.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked the idea about how learning should be the most important feature concerning dialogue between two individuals. If we just try to force our values or beliefs on one another without actively listening to the differences or each others biases, then all we really have is two monologues going back and forth that probably are not even being received. It is so easy in a world of disagreement for dialogue to quickly turn into a heated argument where we try to prove why our standpoint is correct. Just think how much further we could develop our understanding of other people's narratives if we actually took the time to ask why.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm still a little confused on the concept that Freire proposed, and based on reading other blog posts, I don't think I am alone. I truly believe that there can be an invitation to dialogue between persons of unequal power. I can see in many circumstances how that would be true. There are many groups out there who don't get the same voice as others, and there are some people who just refuse to listen, but I also know that dialogue can happen in a power differential. Two days ago at work, I was driving the zamboni and accidentally ran over one of the goal pegs. It literally sounded like something exploded and of course my boss heard it. He had every right to come chew me out, but instead he simply asked me what happened, and we were able to go back and forth about the matter. A situation emerged, and even though my boss has more power than me, we were still able to engage in quality dialogue because he came to me with an open mind.