The caption to this chapter is "Meeting Differing Grounds of the Good," which is realized through dialogic ethics. There is a huge and necessary emphasis on our differences that creates learning and opens the door for dialogue with others. Not everyone has the same narrative. Therefore, first and foremost, you must understand your grounds and what makes up your understanding of the good, in order communicate effectively with dialogue.
There are a lot of suggestions when it comes to dialogic ethics. I agree with Hans Gadamer that our biases control our daily lives and the way we communicate. Our biases come from our narratives and the way we have grown to understand the world. This is also how we create our "common sense." There are three steps Gadamer suggests to effectively participate in dialogue:
1. Amit your biases.
2. Respect the bias of others.
3. You must be willing to permit the "fusion of horizons."
In which these three steps can help your learning process when communicating with others (pg. 86).
Engaging in dialogue with someone with different biases could affect your own views positively or negatively. It can reaffirm your current views or change them; for better or for worse.
For example, I used to be quite bias on the fact that people can get to where they want in life based on the hard work they put in. And the notion of who you know, and not what you know was a way for people to deceive their way up to the top. However, as I've discovered throughout college and through participating in dialogue with others, I've changed my own world-views and come to value the importance of networking. While still agreeing that merit will get you places, networking and using others as resource can be a merit within itself. This occurred when my current boss would go out of her way to do things for me or try to help me as much as she could. When I asked why she wanted to be such a resource to me, she responded that she believes everyone deserves an opportunity and some people just need to meet the right people to give them that opportunity. Her bias and mine both fused and reconstructed my way of thinking.
The concept by Paulo Freire was a little confusing for me. He talks about one having power and equity in order for there to be dialogue, as well as saving face for the oppressed/disadvantaged. Based on my own biases, I could not agree that someone must assimilate to the ways of the dominant culture in order to have dialogue. But after reading the paragraph over a few times, from what I can grasp, in order to have dialogue two people must have the same intentions and commitments, and must be of equal power/status. So unfortunately, some people will have to learn the ways and norms of the dominant culture in order to have genuine dialogue. However, how can we break that barrier? And I guess it comes to the question of, do we even want to break that barrier? Why do we want to be accepted by a particular group that won't accept our real self?
Hi Chua,
ReplyDeleteI want to comment on the questions you brought up about Paulo Freire and his theory. I do agree with you that it is a little harder to understand or picture his theory in action. I think maybe he is saying that two people who are on the same playing field (status/power and intentions) will have a better dialogue than those who are not. His example of Gandhi trying to communicate with the enemies peacefully could be seen as not effective according to his theory because the enemies of Gandhi have a different intentions...how could the dialogue go about ethically? Also, another point you mentioned was about breaking down barriers of the other having to conform to the norms and ways of the dominant culture...I believe that this is unavoidable, it is bound to happen. You cannot help as the outsider but have to learn the ways of the dominant culture because they will find it harder to understand your ways of common knowledge because all they see/know is the common knowledge of their culture all around them. But what I think needs to be done is that the dominant culture needs to understand and respect that their ways are not the only ways nor the right ways. If people could get a grasp on that, I feel that dialogue could go about much more smoothly and open, causing a fusion of narratives.