Listening to Dialogue

In accordance with Progressivism, Matthew Lipman, introduced an educational model for renewal and change by means of the child. With his Philosophy for Children programme he wished to offer an alternative for the intellectualistic oriented education which silenced children. The answer to the search for freedom and change, Lipman finds in the symbioses between ‘Philosophy’ and ‘Children’. Philosophy expressed in critical thinking and communication, was the basis to emancipate the child from the oppression of the adult and to cause change. According to Lipman the main purpose of philosophy is to free every individual from determination. This plea is being elaborated by dialogue. The main issue of our paper concerns the question whether Lipman’s alternative ‘Philosophy for Children’ can fulfil the promise of change and freedom. To answer this question we will investigate thoroughly where dialogue and change in Philosophy for Children stand for. Finally we will propose another perspective of dialogue. A dialogue stressed on listening. Listening to how the world appears to us and how we appear to ourselves. Nancy Vansieleghem is working on a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education at the Department of Education at the University of Gent, Belgium. Her main area of research is philosophy of dialogue and public space.     

Public prejudice as collaborative accomplishment: towards a dialogic social psychology of racism

Existing social psychological perspectives tend to overlook the fact that public expressions of racial, ethnic or national prejudice normally constitute collaborative accomplishments, the product of joint action between a number of individuals. Awareness of the inherently dialogical character of prejudiced talk affords appreciation of the ways in which expressions of ethnic or racial antipathy need not simply be used to display a speaker's private attitudes or to defend a group position, but may also be oriented to the local context of talk in action. Recognizably prejudiced talk may be used to claim the floor, to bully, to amuse, to shock, to display intimacy and solidarity, to mark a variety of personal and social identities or to key the informal, backstage, character of a social encounter. The fact that prejudiced talk can be intricately woven through the delicate choreography of everyday sociability may greatly complicate any attempts to challenge it. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hans-Georg Gadamer “The Incapacity for Conversation” (1972)

In his 1972 essay “The Incapacity for Conversation” (“Die Unfähigkeit zum Gespräch”) Gadamer takes up the question of whether changes in society have made it such that we are losing our ability to participate in dialogue. By the end of the essay he argues that this is not the case and that the claim that someone is incapable of dialogue is merely an excuse for not listening to the other person. Over the course of the essay Gadamer provides a clarification of what exactly counts as a conversation and of how conversation is connected to friendship.     

论心理学与文化关系

心理学与文化之间的关系历来是心理学研究中所关注的核心问题,也是根本问题。考察与探究心理学与文化之间关系,可关联和涉及到心理学的新视野、新领域、新理论、新方法。心理学与文化心之间关系走过了一条复杂而又深刻的道路。深入考察与解读心理学与文化之间不同历史阶段的不同关系,其中折射的不仅仅是心理学研究思维和方法论的根本转变,更重要的也是心理学科学观的深刻变革。     

The World in Theology

This article focuses on the activity of French Protestant theologian Georges Casalis as a co‐editor of the French journal Christianisme social (Social Christianity) in the turbulent period between 1965 and 1970. The journal reflected the conflicts of the times on issues such as relations with Eastern Europe, Christian–Marxist dialogue, the new impulses coming from revolutionary movements of the South, and the events of May 1968.     

Jungian dialogism and the problem of depth

Notions of dialogical inquiry and of the dialogical self have become increasingly influential in contemporary psychology in response to the limitations of the traditional view of monologically encapsulated and radically disengaged consciousness. Conceptions of self and inquiry as intrinsically embedded in and constituted by our shared life with others seem to do better justice to the richly interconnected character of contemporary life. At the same time, our highly interconnected global world has also tended to foster a flattening of cultural and inter‐cultural horizons that undermines dialogical engagement in any deeply meaningful sense. What is needed is to enrich current conceptions of dialogue with an understanding of experiential and cultural depth. This paper seeks an understanding of the depth dimensions of dialogue through an engagement of dialogical self theory with Jungian dialogical thought. Critical to this engagement is to appreciate the expressive potential of Jungian dialogism beyond Jung's theoretical claims about dialogue.     

Does the two-chair dialogue intervention facilitate processing of emotions more efficiently than basic Rogerian conditions?

Processing difficult emotions is assumed to be of importance in therapeutic change. In this study, we examine whether a two-chair dialogue in Emotion-focused Therapy (EFT) is associated with a change in emotional processing, measured as changes in emotional arousal and emotional experiencing. In a multiple baseline design, 20 clients in treatment for depression or anxiety first received five, seven or nine weekly sessions of baseline treatment providing Rogerian conditions and affect attunement. In the second phase, two-chair intervention was added for the five consecutive sessions. All sessions were subdivided into 2 min segments which were rated using the Client Emotional Arousal Scale III and the Experiencing Scale. Analyses indicated a significantly higher number of high-arousal segment in the latter phase. Individual clients’ change trajectories were not significantly steeper in the second phase. Experiencing increased throughout both phases of treatment. However, after introducing the two-chair dialogue the Experiencing change trajectory was not significantly steeper than in the baseline phase. Findings suggest that both the two-chair dialogue and the Rogerian conditions with affect attunement focus are effective in facilitating emotional processing. Results are consistent with previous research, suggesting that the two-chair dialogue is an emotionally evocative intervention. Implications and limitations are discussed.     

Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

Baptist–Orthodox discussions could take the shape of a continuous and constructive dialogue if their historical understandings of the Bible are investigated based on their specific perspectives on doctrine. Concretely, the idea of theosis, present in Greek Patristics and later used by the Eastern Orthodox Church as deification, can be investigated by Baptists in at least three distinct ways: as Christification, as participation, or as perichoresis. All these are prevalent in the works of contemporary Baptist theologians such as Dongsun Cho (United States), Paul Fiddes (United Kingdom), and Emil Barto? (Romania). Based on the foundation provided by theosis and its range of interpretations, the Baptist–Orthodox dialogue can be further strengthened by a series of common concerns such as apologetics, evangelism, politics, economics, social work, and education.     

涉空对话中表征对齐的产生机制

人类如何处理并交换空间信息是现有空间认知领域的热点问题, 这一过程主要是通过涉空对话实现的。在涉空对话中存在着表征对齐现象, 互动双方在对话中会实现空间术语、空间参照系及空间视角等表征的对齐。空间场景物理特征和人与人的协作都会影响表征对齐的程度, 而实现表征对齐的生理基础是对话双方神经活动的一致性。未来可继续探究表征对齐的作用机制, 如与个体空间偏好的关系, 以及合作伙伴特征如何影响表征对齐的程度等。     

INTO TERRA INCOGNITA: CHARTING BEYOND PETER HARRISON'S THE TERRITORIES OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Peter Harrison's The Territories of Science and Religion throws down a serious challenge to advocates of dialogue as the primary means of engagement between science and religion. This article accepts the validity of this challenge and looks at four possible responses to it. The first—a return to the past—is rejected. The remaining three—exploring new epistemic frameworks for the encounter of science and religion, broadening out the engagement beyond the context of the physical sciences and Western culture, and looking at ways in which scientific and theological practitioners may collaborate on practical problems—are all offered as potential ways in which science and religion may engage with one another, in ways which move beyond Harrison's critique.