The Conversation Begins

I had several assumptions before I began this journey, the first was that I knew where it was leading me and the second was that I already knew quite a bit about the topic. Within the first two weeks, I am realizing just how wrong I was in making these assumptions and how far this journey may take me.

Last semester I spent a great deal of time talking about talking, dialogue, and the art of conversation. I began reading and thinking about the work of foundational theorists like Mikhail Bakhtin who asserted that the only way a person might know of themselves is through a conversation with another person and that the “other” person provided the perspective and vantage point from with to see one’s “self” and know one’s true nature. Bakhtin went on to show the importance of “the utterance,” holding that “any utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication.” (Anderson, Baxter, Cissna, 2004, p. 134) The listener then plays a very active role in determining what is said, interpreting its meaning and then making an appropriate response. This give and take in dialogue, along with modality, and the issues to be discussed have given rise to many subsequent conversations, reports, theses, and research projects. Jurgen Habermas, German sociologist and philosopher, wrote extensively about the “ideal speech situation” and felt that people had the ability to communicate reasonably and rationally but that “power relationships” had an influence on conversations. (Habermas, 1984, 1987)

Stan Deetz, professor at the University of Colorado and another dialogic theorist, talks about how “power relationships” might be managed through facilitated conversations. Through the use of managed or facilitated dialogue, even the most derisive of topics can be discussed openly and by sharing opposing views, long held prejudices and opinions can be changed. Simply by hearing another person’s point of view and being allowed to share information through civil discourse, one begins to see the world from a different vantage point. Deetz holds that often times trying to seek “common ground” only serves the dominant culture or status quo and that native voices may not be well served but through facilitated conversations, civic dialogue brings about an active engagement and a deeper understanding of diversity which provides for the opportunity of getting beyond mere consensus or “common ground” understanding and moving to true transformation. (Anderson, Baxter, Cissna, 2004, p. 141-53)

Added to this mix of voices is now a new technology. It isn’t just about the art of conversation at this point, although that is still very important. It is whether or not computer mediated communication is enhancing this conversation or in some way harming it. It is also about whether or not this medium offers an appropriate or sufficient forum for real conversations. Again there are supported arguments on both sides of these issues. I believe that this medium does provide a proper forum and continues to enhance, albeit in ways we had probably never imagined, the conversation.

Some say that technology is only a tool and for many people this tool has become the life blood of their ability to communicate with the outside world. It has become the only means to power, protection, or awareness. For people in war torn countries it may be the only way to get their stories out and seek assistance from a world unaware of the problems inside the country. For young girls, access to and an understanding of the Internet, computer applications, and to some extent on-line gaming, might help to equal the playing field in a male dominated workplace. People with disabilities, life threatening illnesses, living in abusive relationships, or any number of similarly harmful situations, the Internet offers informational help and assistance through access to local services to improve the quality of one’s life. (Thurlow, Lengel, Tomic. 2004) I am not forgetting the pitfalls associated with this technology or the opposing arguments made by technology skeptics. I simply believe that when people know better and have more access to information, including the furtherance of understanding through on-going dialogue, they do better. Granted, limitations to access to technology does seem to be heavily weighted toward more advanced countries, English speakers, wealthier people, but we do see the trends moving to a more diverse demographic and as more people gain access, more voices will be heard and I think this will only add to the richness and texture of the on-going conversation.

Today, as I write the first of three reflective papers, I am struck by the amount of foundational material that exists on dialogue and how much has been written about having a conversation. I am also realizing that while much has been written, this remains a fluid, dynamic area of study. From text messaging, to Web casts, the art of conversation continues to evolve; recently I participated in an interactive Web conversation with Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She took questions from the Internet audience and elaborated on her stance about the issues confronting the country. I found it interesting that she began her campaign with this expanded use of computer mediated communication, using the Web to provide the look and feel of a face-to-face conversation. It made me want to check out the other candidates (currently only Republican and Democrats) to see if they were going to utilize this technology to “have a conversation” with voters and how well these conversations resonate with the voting public. I have to ask, will the one who masters this virtual face-to-face conversation, sway enough voters to win the White House? Hillary must think so, she says, “Let the conversation begin.”

References


Anderson, R., Baxter, L.A., Cissna, K. (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Clinton, H. (Host) 2007 Webcast located at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1 Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press

Habermas, J. (1987) The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Life world and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: Sage Publications

At first glance

It seems to me that blogging, web-chats, and other Internet conversations can be almost as "subtle, false, and treacherous" as Shakespeare's Richard III. The questions I have are: in the end, unlike mad Richard, will our culture be better off for having had these conversations? Does this computer mediated communication provide us tools with which to carry on meaningful dialogue about the great issues of the day or simply to sink to our lowest cultural point and basest instincts?

William Shakespeare's Richard III
Act 1 Scene 1

London. A street. Enter Richard, Duke of Gloucester, solus

Gloucester: Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lowered upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamped, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them -
Why I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other;
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false, and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mewed up
About a prophecy which says that "G"
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul - here Clarence comes!