Do we find it hard to enter into an authentic dialogue with someone? Has a pleasant conversation with someone become an impossibility for us? If yes, why? Read carefully you may find an answer.

Dialogue now has emerged as the overarching medium of understanding, and indeed of human existence.[i] Having witnessed the short demonstration presented a while ago we can be sure that authentic dialogue does not ensue from the willingness of two individuals to enter into conversation. In a real dialogue we are aiming to understand what the other says by following his or her thoughts and engaging in an exchange that mutually adjusts and respects the two perspectives: our own and that of the other[ii].

There are various elements that obstruct authentic dialogue which lead to a crisis in dialogue. Some of such elements are differences, prejudices, feeling of alienation, monologue, and interference of systems. We shall now look into these points briefly.

DIFFERENCES:

Whenever two individuals come together, they are bound to have differences of opinion. Misunderstandings can easily arise over almost in every aspect of their lives. Such differences can be broadly divided into two areas: differences in history and differences in aptitude.

a) Differences in History:

Hans Goerg Gadamer is of the opinion that the self finds itself defined by its cultural and historical background.[iii] And so a dialogue is always an event that is based on prior background understandings that are beyond the control of the participants involved.

People who grow up in the city do some things differently from those who grow up in the village. People from one part of the world do things differently from those in another part. Different ethnic, educational, financial, and religious backgrounds also produce differences in the ways we go about the daily details of living.

b) Differences in Aptitude

Interests of people often vary. Individuals are oriented towards things on the basis of previously acquired, culturally shared beliefs and assumptions.[iv] Differences in interests can pose massive obstacles to dialogue.[v] It is possible to be simply obsessed by a particular idea or interest, so much so that they have difficulty getting this idea out of their system even when it is wrong. Such persons will have great difficulty in hearing others out. Their preoccupations may well be justified, but their obsession can sidetrack genuine dialogue.[vi]

PREJUDICES

Prejudice refers to a positive or a negative attitude or belief directed towards certain people based on their membership in a particular group. The root word of prejudice is “pre-judge.” For Gadamer it is a judgement that is rendered before all the elements that determine a situation has been finally examined.[vii].

Prejudice refers to a tendency to “over categorize.” Have we not responded, at times, to others in a more or less fixed way due to our Prejudices?

Kinds of Prejudices

There can be various kinds of prejudices that hinder the interpersonal relationships. They are:

1. Cognitive Prejudice which refers to the uncritical belief of people that what they believe is true. Examples of such a prejudice can be traced in the claims of fundamentalist groups such as ISIS.
2. Affective Prejudice which points to people’s likes and dislikes.
3. Conative Prejudice which refers to how people are inclined to behave. (e.g. “If I were to get the first prize I would not have boasted at all”. This sentence expresses the prejudice towards the one who won the prize.

While these three types of prejudice are correlated, they don’t have to all be present in a particular individual. Someone, for example, might believe a particular group possesses low levels of intelligence, but harbor no ill feelings toward that group. On the other hand, one might not like a group because of intense competition for jobs, but still recognize no inherent differences between groups.

Prejudices are learned

Prejudice is not inherited; it is learned, first from parents and then from an ever widening circle of people and institutions ranging from relatives to schools. One of the pioneer scholars of racial prejudice, Gordon W. Allport, found that children can learn bigotry in two basic ways: by adopting the prejudice of their parents and other family members and from the cultural environment, or by being raised in such a way that they acquire suspicions, fears and dislikes that sooner or later focus on minority groups.

ALIENATION

Feeling of alienation usually refers to the feeling of rejection by the community. Those who are alienated are usually left alone or not given due attention by friends. Often those who feel alienated withdraw from friends and prefer to be alone. Feeling of alienation destabilizes our need to belong. One can also be alienated from nature, oneself, society and God.

Every person is affected at different levels. The self of the person is affected at the social, cultural, psychological and moral levels. In our quest for understanding the broader vision of various individuals, we forget the psychological area that marks a larger part of how and what makes a real human person. Alienation can take place in four different levels:

1. Alienated from nature which is the root of our existence
2. Alienated from our real self which is the foundation of our identity
3. Alienated from our fellow human beings who forms the basis of our socio cultural identity
4. Alienated from God who is the very substance of our inner spiritual life

When one is alienated in the above four dimension of her existence, life has no meaning or purpose for her. She finds herself angry, dull, bored and depressed.[viii] Can such an individual be open to genuine dialogue that contributes to interpersonal relationships?

MONOLOGUE

Monologue, according to Martin Buber, is the overemphasis on self in communication.[ix] Turning away from the other person which results in the dominance of ‘false dialogue’ where the participants do not think for the other’s welfare is monologue disguised as dialogue or ‘monologue dialogue’.[x]

At times one needs to ask self-centered questions like “What is in this for me?” But it can do harm when such thinking govern our relationships. In today’s world monologue and technical dialogue (information-centered conversation) have become the dominant forms of dialogue. Is such an attitude of self-centeredness conducive to the working of genuine dialogue that enriches interpersonal relationships?

INTERFERENCE OF SYSTEMS

Systems mean the expected ways of behaviour which are seen in the forces of production, political administration and other social systems. Often when someone is unable to perform her task in the expected manner she is penalized without even considering the reason for the failure. If an employee is not able to meet her target by the end of the month she would have to bear the consequences.

How many of those in authority will consider the need to enquire the reasons for her failure? Here the employee too will not be in a position to express her views. Systems are necessary. However, in the context of dialogue, the problem arises due to the ‘colonization’ of the everyday life by the systems.

We have seen that there are various elements that influence dialogue. Now we know that being open to authentic dialogue is more than mere willingness to discuss an issue. As I conclude let me remind you of the question hat asked you at the start. Do I find it hard to enter into an authentic dialogue with someone?

If yes:

• Is it because I am different from her?
• Is it because I am prejudiced against her?
• Is she a person who is alienated from friends or community?
• Am I selfish in my dealings?
• Is it because she is unable to perform something that I expect form her

Sources

[i] Hans-Herbert Kögler, “A Critique of Dialogue in Philosophical Hermeneutics”, The Journal of Dialogue Studies, 2/1( 2013) 52.

[ii] Kögler, “A Critique of Dialogue in Philosophical Hermeneutics”, 48.

[iii] Kögler, “A Critique of Dialogue in Philosophical Hermeneutics”, 49.

[iv] Kögler, “A Critique of Dialogue in Philosophical Hermeneutics”, 51.

[v] Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict Into Cooperation (California:Touchstone, 2001)

[vi]Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict Into Cooperation (California:Touchstone, 2001)

[vii] John F. Sequeira, Discipline of Dialogue (Mysore,Dhyanavan Publications,2001)50.

[viii] Mohan Mathew, The Miracle of Dialogue, (Trivandrum: Carmel International Publishing House, 2000)16.

[ix] Ronald C. Arnett, Communication and Community (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,1986)77.

[x] Friedman, Martin Buber, 123.