Dialogue Ethics is as the chapter states, more and more important as we continue to advance, yet I kind of am unsure about which theory is correct. However Paulo Freire's theory is the one that I really disagree with. He argues that a true dialogue cannot be reached if there is a difference in power among the two. I think that this is where some of the most important dialogues take place. Whether it is between a coach and a player, or boss and employee. There is ALWAYS going to be a power difference when engaging in a dialogue, and it is a persons ability to navigate these differences that allow for useful and meaning full dialogue to take place. Even if one person has, "enough power to be heard without listening" a lot can be learned from both sides (p. 87).
As a player on the football team, I face these differences all of the time, a coach allows has the ability to not only disregard what I say, but to keep me until he is sure I know what he is saying. Yet these are some of the most productive conversations during my day. If I operate under the guide that he knows what he is talking about, the power difference actually benefits me as I gain from his expertise, but also if he so choses my input can help him figure out the best way to reach a player, or teach a play. So I would say that Freire is right in that power dynamics impact the way a dialogue is structured and that may hinder the productivity of it; but I would also argue that once a person figures out these rules (using the common sense gained by experience) these dialogues can be very useful, meaningful, and benefical to both parties.
I completely agree with your skepticism at Paulo Friere's notion that communication and dialogic understand can't proceed between persons in different levels of power. Your example from the football team and relationship with your coach are poignant demonstrations of his theory falls apart at the practical level. As I describe in my blog post, our own ethics, biases, and societal situatedness create individual spaces of Sameness for each of us--in counter to the Otherness of people around us. The same holds true for people at different levels of power--the authority one wields is just a part of infinite factors that create Sameness for them (and Otherness for us).
ReplyDeleteDespite the existence of these spaces, we still manage to find common ground through dialogue, and even insights about our lives and what makes others tick. This "In-betweenness," another idea I borrow from anthropology, gives communication ethics a practical use for learning. Literally any time we generate insights through genuine dialogue, we defeat power structures inherent to Otherness and come that much closer to a complete, perfect understanding of that person. Of course, true Otherness is impossible, as we can never shed the biases and experiences that led us to a moment of understanding. Regardless, Freire's wariness of power structures is refuted by how each and every one of us defeats power structures via genuine dialogue. After all, you and I occupy different power structures--you command certain influence, attention, and prestige as a college football player, and I command different versions of those things as an online journalist. Yet we had pretty good times and a few shared insights in SPAN 1022, no?
Kyle, I think that your example of the relationship that we built in SPAN 1022 is a good example of both how Freire's theory both works and fall apart. As you stated you have experience and expertise in online journalism. If I was to enter your company or and try to discuss an upcoming article with you, my input would not be as valued as yours or one of your fellow writers. Just as if you walked into the football complex and tried to run a play differently than we do. The level of expertise (which can be translated into power) is different do it dictates the conversation. Yet these conversations operate under the umbrella of a mutual respect and even playing field.
ReplyDeleteWhere I think his theory is meant to take place is in situations in which power (socioeconomic and political) are vastly unequal. In cases of oppression and under representation, a persons ability to actively dialogue is harmed if not destroyed. Due to this I would say that he is right, power affects ones ability to dialogue. The biases, common sense, and good that we all bring in to a conversation, will dictate how we converse. So if someones good or biases is that a person is not worthy or doing not have the "right" to speak, they will be ignored or talked over, just as he states. So I think i am going to refine my point about his theory, and say that it is accurate, but it requires that someone be almost formally unequal in power, so much so that their right to speak or be an authority on a topic is destroyed.