Dialogue Studies

In this chapter, I first discuss assumptions of dialogue theory based on the work of Martin Buber’s (1958) classic “I–Thou” relationship in terms of shared perspectives and the mutuality of dialogue. Second, I discuss the processing of dialogue through imagined interactions (IIs). IIs explain how individuals envision messages for productive and unproductive outcomes. I compare and contrast Buber’s notion of “inner dialogue” with the contemporary construct of II. II conflict–linkage theory is highlighted, including sample dialogue accounts as well as a sample of theorems.

Exploration of INTERSUBJECTIVITY is continued. Different kinds of if are differentiated and signs for its presence and effects are shown. The difference between it, subjectivity and objectivity are explored.
Intersubjectivity is crucial and universal for general everyday discourse in all cultures, sub-cultures, institutions, communities and socio-cultural practices such as religion, sport, etc or the so-called Manifest Image. It is essential for specialized areas, for example religion, sport and disciplines such as the humanities, arts, sciences, philosophy and all institutions.
It is a necessity for both cultural, social, interpersonal as well as intra-personal existence, emotions, attitudes, values and norms. But, it is not limited to human existence, life-worlds, realities and worlds, but also for animals and all organisms. Object Oriented Ontology would emphasize that is it not merely something anthropocentric and restricted to human existence and consciousness (and anthropocentric interpretations of and projections on other objects, non-human creatures and all organisms, as well as all objects.. In the case of the latter one would probably replace the notion of intersubjectivity with terms such as energy and other ways of action and interaction for example intra- and inter-atoms.)
In the Appendix is included work related to the above by others such as Sellars, Brandom (and his two images, Manifest and Scientific), Davidson, Dennett, Habermas, Nagel, etc.

I esteem this essay to be one of the most significant essays I have ever written; it performs with John 6 something similar to what J. Louis Martyn achieved with John 9. Note, however, that four or five crises, or dialogical engagements, within the Johannine situation are herein involved, not just a Johannine-Jewish dialogue. Also, rather than being "off limits" for Johannine Gospel studies, the Epistles and other writings are here drawn into the contextual situation, evincing a variety of issues, not simply one. It was first published in Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. by Alan Culpepper for the Biblical Interpretation Supplemental Series #22;  Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997; reprinted in 2006, Atlanta: SBL), 1-59. This is a slightly revised version.

In Syria, interfaith dialogue constitutes a public practice that speaks to ethical, social and political imaginaries. As an official practice, it helps to provide the regime with religious legitimacy, though unofficially it often functions as a euphemism for missionary efforts. On a more abstract level, a careful analysis of Syrian interfaith dialogue reveals that different ethical traditions inform the participants' vision of "good." The Muslim sheikhs in this case-study follow an Aristotelian model of ethics that presupposes pious individuals for the creation and preservation of a moral society. Accordingly, they aim at fostering inter-communal harmony by teaching people how to perform virtues, rather than teaching them about other religions. Conversely, the Christian priests share a model that combines post-Enlightenment rationalism with "Christian love," and thus they strive to advance tolerance by encouraging unconditional affection, intellectual and experiential awareness of others. Together, these discrepancies facilitate miscommunication among the participants of dialogue.

What, if anything, is the correlation between the specialized or technical ideas of the philosopher and the rest of his existence? His everyday life outside his philosophical role.
In the specialized reality and reality constitution, when employing the discourse and discipline of philosophy, the philosopher subscribe to many things in an explicit manner and he employs a number of implicit things and assumptions that are not stated explicitly.
These things concern the different branches, areas and domains of the philosophical discourse, for example metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, ontology, cognition, consciousness, mind, perception, thinking, etc.
Is there a relation between these technical 'beliefs' of the philosopher and other, not philosophical areas of his existence? Does and can all of his non-philosophical existence reflect his philosophical beliefs, statements and expressions? Is it possible that the everyday existence or life world of the philosopher can resemble, confirm and express his philosophical ideas? If this is not the case, what are the factors that are involved in such discrepancies?

Do they imply a lack of integrity, of wholeness of integration on behalf of the philosopher? What are the causes of such an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between these sets of two or more facts? What are the things that we can look for in such a lack of compatibility – things such as the following? -
inconsistency, difference, disparity, variance, variation, deviation, divergence,

disagreement, dissimilarity, dissimilitude, mismatch, lack of similarity, contrariety, contradictoriness, disaccord, discordance, incongruity,

lack of congruence, incompatibility, irreconcilability, conflict, opposition?

I illustrate the above by means of four examples.
1 Let us assume that the embodied human person consists of both voluntary and involuntary processes and activities. Do the philosophy of an individual reflect or express these activities or is it completely or partially unrelated to them? Do the voluntary processes and activities or the voluntary aspects of perception, cognition, brain processes and other activities resemble or express the philosophy of a thinker? 2 Some thinkers are seriously concerned about the importance of discourse and dialogue and the equality of all those involved. We find their concern about the ideal discourse and dialogue described in their written work and talks, but to what an extend do their own discursive and dialogical actions and behaviour reflect the ideal situation they preach?
3 Ethics and morality can be find in and are emphasized in all sorts of disciplines, of course they are major subjects in providing ways to live off for philosophers and we even find institutions devoted to their teaching and investigation. Do the lives, the lived morality and ethics of those individuals who preach the ideals of ethics or ethical ideals reflect the ideals they preach and that provides them with ways to earn a living? Or, is it the case that morality and ethics are merely faked by those individuals living off their preaching of ethics? And, that they merely employ the values, norms, customs and attitudes of a culture, sub-culture, community, group or another social grouping? In other words are the preachers of ethics really more ethical than the rest of the community and society?
4 When the philosopher expresses his ideas by means of all sorts of philosophical tools he is aware of the fact that he employs them, or at least aware of some of them being intentionally employed by him while he is unaware of others that he employs. Do the tools the philosopher employs to theorize (identify problems, the nature of the questions he asks, the nature of his ways of questioning, the assumptions he makes, the forming and testing of hypotheses, the making of generalizations, etc) or philosophize (perceive things, think, think about things, reason, argumentation etc) resemble what he beliefs, asserts and says about thinking, perception, cognition, understanding, subjects, objects, relationships between subjects and objects and other features and processes of epistemology?
In short – does the lived philosophy, ontology, epistemology, ethics etc of the philosopher resemble, represent, confirm, substantiate, back, endorse, support, authenticate and corroborate the ideas, assertions and speculations that are expressed by the statements his philosophy or philosophizing consist of? Does he walk the walk of his talk? Are they similar and identical, the same things and merely expressions of the same things in different mediums?

Dialogue is hardwired into the very matrix of video games, not only because they are an interactive medium but because they are an active one: they react to input by players and can offer their own input. From the beginning, rule structures in video games were communicated through language. The more emphasis a game put on narrative the more this turned into a dialogue with the player. Video games are usually at least implicitly cast as second-person narratives, hinting at or enacting a dialogue between the narrator/game master and the player. The player’s avatar also communicates within the game. This chapter looks systematically at the relationship between ludic and dialogic structures and at the various forms that dialogue has taken in video games.

The rhetoric of dialogue is sometimes adopted rather uncritically in academic, organizational, and policy circles. Too often that rhetoric is deployed with little understanding of the variety of principles and practices enacted in dialogic communication. How can dialogue be conceptualized and distinguished from other forms of communication? On what assumptions is it based? How is communication understood? What does it take to facilitate it? What kinds of processes make it possible? What ideas about democracy underpin it? What kind of changes in academic and policy-making cultures does it call for?

This booklet seeks to speak to people involved in creating public forums for meaningful conversations. In particular, I have taken as imaginary readers those practitioners and students that I have had the fortune to work with. If, with pragmatist and deliberative thinkers, we agree that communication is the very fabric of democratic life, then pondering over the quality of communication in public forums becomes critical. Thinking about dialogic communication encourages us to interrogate our public engagement work, the role our research institutions should play in society, and the ways in which we can develop collective capacity to deal with complex problems.

The better quality pdf is downloadible from here: "http://www.leoalmanac.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/LEAVol19No3-Mailman.pdf
Through recent artistic practices and technology of interactive systems for music, composition and improvisation have more and more blended and interconnected with each other – a sui generis situation now called comprovisation. The concept of comprovisation applies equally well to the spontaneous generation and manipulation of computer graphics, especially as such graphics are systematically coordinated audio-visually, while being subject to spontaneous manipulation by a performer.
This is explained in terms of the Fluxations and FluxNoisations Human Body Interfaces, interactive dance systems that generate music and graphics spontaneously in response to hand and body movement. They enable spontaneous expressive shaping of coherent complexity and variety. Thus a multi-layered multimodal experience arises. The aesthetic experience of this multimedia spectacle relates to experiences of various prior music and visual art of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, as well as to hypothetical physical realities. Thus a kind of cybernetic phenomenology of art is pursued and enacted through an embodied cybersynthesis of art with simulated alternate reality. Call it a pragmatic speculative realism, an adventurous technoetic ‘what if.’ As compared to more traditional forms of improvisation, the opportunities for risk-taking and aesthetic exploration rise to a new level of uncertainty, as the reactions of the improviser simultaneously draw from and target both visual and aural modalities, such that the intentions toward each fuse together."

"This publication is the first manual for the inter-religious dialogue in the youth work. In the youth-friendly way it presents the theoretical basis for this dialogue, good examples, sample scenarios, lists what's important to remember and what are the potential reasons of conflicts. What one shall consider while organizing such an event: from the gender sensitivity issues to the calendar or the dietary needs.
An important aspect of this book is also that it has been written (and the concept for this book has been founded) by the representatives of youth faith-based organizations which had worked in a close cooperation, so this book has been an inter-religious dialogue already in the process of writing.

Published in 2008 by the European Youth Forum in the framework of the 2008 - European Year for Inter-cultural Dialogue."

In Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies; Semeia Studies 63. Edited by Roland Boer (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2007, pp. 133-59). This essay connects the Johannine misunderstanding dialogues with Jesus with several crises in the Johannine situation over seven decades--identifying likely rhetorical targets in original audiences with existential implications for later readers.

Estudio del diálogo en el Quijote desde el punto de vista funcional, para poner en evidencia los conflictos de autoridad sobre la enunciación entre el narrador y los personajes. El modelo de la novela moderna, con su dialogismo implícito comienza a fraguarse en este conflicto.

When historians claim to maintain a “dialogue with the past,” this metaphor is usually interpreted in epistemological terms. Although this is not necessarily wrong, the present article presents a broader reading of the metaphor by arguing that the imperative to engage in “dialogue with the past” can be understood as an ethical claim to scholarly integrity. This argument proceeds from the assumption that historians are usually engaged in multiple “relations with the past” as well as in multiple relations with present-day instances, varying from colleagues and readers to publishers and university administrators. These different relations, in turn, can be seen at least in part as corresponding to a range of different I-positions, some of which tend more towards the monologic than towards the dialogic. Maintaining a dialogue with the past, then, means that the I-position of what this article calls an “inquisitive listener,” characterized by dialogic virtues such as curiosity, imagination, openness, attentiveness, and humility, is cultivated and, if necessary, protected against other, more dominant I-positions, such as the “ground-breaking scholar” and the “best-selling author.” In sum, this article reinterprets the metaphor of a dialogue with the past to such effect that historians are encouraged to critical self-reflection: how dominant or recessive are their respective I-positions and to what extent should they, for integrity’s sake, be challenged or supported?

The article analyzes the Raggionamento della Signora Amorosa (1569) by Gasparo Boschini, a rare and little known love treatise which is interesting for the study of women’s role in Italian Renaissance dialogues. It allows enriching of the representation offered by Virginia Cox in her Seen but not Heard: the Role of Women Speakers in Cinquecento Literary Dialogue (2000). If compared to the other dialogues mentioned by Cox, the female protagonist of the Raggionamento is peculiar, because of both her preponderance in the dialogue and her philosophical-poetic literacy. Her expertise in Aristotelian philosophy, which she applies to the analysis of the various aspects of the love theory, is especially remarkable. She is also very fond of contemporary lyric poetry. Thanks to the many poetic texts she plays, the Raggionamento can be considered a prosimetrum.

Abstract: The challenges of the leadership faced by the dialogical coach, are: to succeed in opening a permanent thoughtful and reflective space, focusing on dialogue. The dialogical coach faces the growing complexity and acts as a service transformational, participative leadership, which makes a 'generous listening, meaning to be deeply conscious of the other’s aim, of the meaning of his future possibilities. A leadership capable of crossing and going beyond boundaries, that divide and at the same time link, capable of being 'social, a leader who is a capable and active follower. The coach is capable of 'causing' capabilities, of widening these capabilities, he is capable of negotiating among the different parts, among the different points of view. The coach considers leadership as relational action in an evolving context.
Key words: Dialogue, Coaching, Leadership, Exotopia, Awareness, Transformational

Imaginary dialogues had the advantage of emphasizing rationalism and removing argument from the realm of passion and violence.  While they were used often in both anti- and pro-slavery literature of the United States, along with other rhetorical genres they did no more than expose the fault lines in US society created by slavery.  These dialogues were polite addresses to slavery’s daily violence and could not resolve what required a civil war to end.  It was part of the reform literary culture to produce such set-pieces and this type of polite literature was part and parcel of what made much reform writing so ineffective, since it was a drawing-room rendition and philosophical abstraction of raw human experience under slavery.

WHEN the ARTICLE ‘If Philosophy Won’t Diversify’ by J. L. Garfield and B. W. Van Norden appeared in The New York Times (May 11, 2016), some friends urged me to write a rejoinder. And so I did, while in the midst of marking essays and exam scripts. I sent the piece I am ‘publishing’ here below to the Editors of The Stone - the well-known philosophical column in the NYT - but, alas, it was rejected: “I'm afraid we can't use your essay”, was the reply. I guess I must postpone my ‘moment of glory’ to be published in a BIG newspaper, and so be it...

This paper’s aim is to explore Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics in order to draw out implications for the ethics of dialogue. Through examining key interconnected components in Gadamer’s theory, I highlight the openness to the other and otherness as a key normative ideal for dialogic understanding and their influence on the core practical ethos that underpins dialogue encounter, including the ethics of alterity, self-cultivation, equality, reciprocity, and solidarity. We further consider hermeneutical application or praxis by way of a guide insofar as to how one might act in the world through dialogue construed through these ethical dimensions.

This article suggests that culturally appropriate conflict resolution edu- cation in cross-cultural settings can best be achieved through a dialogi- cal approach to education. The article briefly summarizes the discussion about the connection between culture and conflict resolution and pres- ents the two mainstream approaches to conflict resolution training: the prescriptive and the elicitive approach.

This paper seeks to identify the role of play in the design and function of Socratic dialogue as practiced in community of philosophical inquiry (CPI) in classrooms. It reviews the ideas of some major play theorists from various fields of study and practice—philosophy, cultural anthropology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, psychoanalysis, and education—and identifies the epistemological, ontological, and axiological judgments they share in their analyses of the phenomenon of play. It identifies five psychodynamic dimensions in which the Socratic play of “following the argument where it leads” can be identified: the “play space,” the “time of play,” “the rules of the game,” “the stakes in play,” and “play and power.” Finally, it suggest that there is a historical relationship between the reconstruction of Socratic dialogue in CPI and the cultural reconstruction of “child” in post-modern philosophy, with special attention to Gilles Deleuze’s and Felix Guattari’s notion of “becoming-child” as emblematic of an emergent “post-human” style of subjectivity.

This paper explores the potential use of Gadamer's hermeneutical concept of play as a tool to understand and explore interreligious dialogue. In particular it brings this into a discussion about interreligious dialogue understood as theological or spiritual encounter and exchange, especially in the form of Comparative Theology. Thinkers like David Tracy and Ludwig Wittgenstein are engaged for their related discussions, while Gadamer's own concept of the Fusion of Horizons, which it is argued is best expressed as the Opening of Horizons in this context, is used to show how and why such dialogue is justified in hermeneutical theory. It is argued that play provides a useful model both for understanding the seriousness of interreligious dialogue but also how it stands apart from yet elides with many traditional perspectives within religious traditions.

Multi-stakeholder dialogues (MSDs) are initiatives devoted to participative processes of consultation and decision-making (Hemmati, 2002). They involve national and international actors such as businesses, governments, NGOs and civil society. Over the last decade, MSDs have come to the forefront to address pressing global challenges such as sustainable development, climate change, the fight against corruption and the role of business in conflict prevention. The academic literature on those processes has so far highlighted their potential to foster collective learning (Payne and Calton, 2002; Calton and Payne, 2003), consensus building through problem-solving (Turcotte and Pasquero, 2001) and interactive decision-making (Yosie and Herbst, 1998). However an important aspect which has so far been neglected by the academic literature is the way participants experience and conceptualize those initiatives. This paper will analyse a case study of two MSD initiatives organized by the UN Global Compact (UNGC) and Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) as part of the project of " Responsible Business and Investment in Conflict-affected Areas ". According to the data being gathered it will be shown how MSDs are primarily described as communities of practitioners in which interpersonal relationships among the participants involved are nurtured through discussions and dialogues on common areas of interest. By showing the similarities between the participants' descriptions of these two initiatives and the main tenets defining a " community of practice " as conceptualized by Wenger (1998), Wenger et al. (2002), conclusions and recommendations for further studies will be proposed.

From restorative justice literature in general. two conceptions of restorative justice processing can be discerned. The one is a
modest conception based on individual (dispositional) theories of crime and the other is an expansive view which is closer to peacebuilding and has a further distinction. One distinction is based on situational theories of crime which hold that structural factors are responsible for crime. The other distinction is based on integrative theories of crime which hold that there is an interaction between individual and structural factors that produce crime and that structural factors should be taken into account during restorative justice processing.

Three significant questions arise when we consider the compatibility of religion
and human rights. Each of these questions is at the heart of the encounter between
religion and the State. More specifically, in the context of this discussion, the
question of human rights is tested against the two poles of Judaism and of Israel’s
secular democracy.
The first question is to what extent religion (or religious practice) is entitled
to protection as a matter of human rights? Conversely, what price can religious
practice be expected to pay (in terms of sacrificing its norms) in order to earn that
protection? Furthermore, what potential threat to human rights does the Jewish
religion pose? Can a Jewish state contain that threat, and under what conditions?
Finally, to what extent is it reasonable to view religion as a full-fledged foundation
for human rights? In other words, can religious norms be fully compatible with
the value systems that control humanistic discourse? If, from the point of view
of religion, they indeed are, what limitation will this impose on the values and
concerns of human rights?
These questions are all expressions of a “clash of cultures,” made especially
acute by the effort to build a humanist democratic state on Jewish traditional
foundations. In what follows, we will take a bird’s-eye view of these problems
in the hope of singling out what strikes us as the core of the tension between the
politics of Judaism and the politics of human rights. We wish to make it clear,
however, that this tension does not arise simply from specific issues or cases.
Neither is it the product of the great confrontation between “religion” and “state”
or between “Judaism” and “democracy.” Rather, in more preliminary terms, this is a conflict between opposing forces. Our interest is in how clashes between opposing forces are constructed and how these conflicts are to be dealt with. The different ways in which opposites come into being and relate to each other say something very deep about the nature of dialogues, the problems of the “political,” and, finally, the concept of “truth,” which does not seem to accept the coexistence of stark contradictions. By showing the interconnection between these concerns we hope to offer a new Jewish perspective on the specific clash or opposition between religion and human rights.
Religion and human rights may perhaps be seen to advance opposing concerns. If we go beyond the specifics of this clash, however, religion and human rights seem to propose two very different kinds of discourse, each of which treats the conflict or opposition between them very differently. Being aware of the differences in the discourses is a necessary prerequisite for trying to overcome them. However, this is not easily accomplished. Consider the setting in which this paper is being given. We are at a conference, in a room where scholars have come together to share and debate their ideas. Presumably, this gathering would appear to present an optimal or neutral context for free investigation, deliberation, and clarification of ideas. However, it is clear that this setting is itself constructed according to a particular world view. It adheres to the conventions that are typical to the settings best suited to the discussion of human rights (conventional perhaps to those engaged in clarifying the legal boundaries of human rights). It is precisely those conventions that we mean to call into question. All of us sitting around the table are intellectuals committed to “democratic discourse.” The invitation to participate in this discussion in the particular way it is being conducted can be seen as a statement that seeks to bolster democratic discourse—or at least ensure its survival—in the face of an ostensible religious opposition to it. The nature of the discussion is reflected in the phrasing of its questions, which clearly single out religion as an adversary, either to be tolerated or not. The opposition created between religion and democratic discourse does not view religion as a partner capable of shaping a discourse of its own in which its capacity to tolerate the discourse of democratic rights is also being evaluated.
In what follows, we will attempt to confront the questions this situation raises, on two levels. First, we will describe in detail how opposition and adversity are dealt with in conventional diplomatic, political, or academic discourse; then we will attempt to set out the foundations of our proposed alternative to it

This study explores the idea of music being used in interreligious engagements involving Muslims, both so non-Muslims can be aware of Muslim sensitivities and so Muslims can positively contribute to such types of engagement. After explaining Muslim reservations, I identify four genres of sound art (Qurʾān recitation, the call to prayer, liturgical chants, and eulogy chants) which are deeply engrained in the Islamic tradition such that Muslims are united in attesting to their sacredness. I explain a little about the important features of the sacred music of the Islamic tradition and note that the type of Muslims who risk being left out of dialogue are the same Muslims who are most sensitive regarding music. I argue that Muslims can be both engaged and engaging through the use of music, without their musical sensitivities being side lined.

The report broaches the difficulties in naming ‘violent extremism’, offering examples of problematic language use and drawing on relevant work in the field of cognitive linguistics. This work reflects the Dialogue Society’s ongoing commitment to encouraging sensitive, reflective and reflexive dialogue.

Violent extremism undertaken in the name of religion threatens the basic premises of dialogue. In understanding the causes of this phenomenon, with a view ultimately to tackling them, we must first consider the ways that we communicate about and around the subject.

This report aims to show how certain language frames can cause and reinforce major misunderstandings. It explains how terms such as ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamist’ should not be used without first considering their etymological roots, and that the use of such terms can convey and conflate concepts distinct from their intended meaning.

Alternatives are provided to currently used linguistic frameworks that are often used in discussing violent extremism, and commends some alternative narratives and approaches that can contribute to bringing about positive change in relation to this phenomenon. The issue of demands for Muslims to denounce acts of terror is then addressed and shown to be connected to the misuse of linguistic frames and terms.

The publication was co-authored by Emma Jane Harris and Victoria Bisset, Research Fellows at the Dialogue Society and Paul Weller, Professor of Inter-Religious Relations at the University of Derby.

: One of the epistemological results emerging from this initial study, is that the different forms of co-relational inference, known in the Islamic jurisprudence as qiyās represent an innovative and sophisticated form of reasoning that not only provide new epistemological insights of legal reasoning in general but they also furnish a fine-grained pattern for parallel reasoning that can be deployed in a wide range of problem-solving contexts and that does not seem to reduce to the standard forms of analogical argumentation studied in contemporary philosophy of science. More specifically the main claim is that a dialectical framework provides the right instrument to stress three of the most salient features of this form of inference: (1) the interaction of heuristic with logical steps, (2) the dynamics underlying the meaning-explanation of the terms involved,(3) the unfolding of parallel reasoning as similarity in action. They display what we take to be the main epistemological idea behind the qiyās, namely: the open texture of the meaning of normative statements subject to this kind of parallel reasoning.

This paper examines the complex orality-literacy issues related to the immense popularity of the written dialogue during the European Renaissance. Three hypotheses purport to explain the attractiveness of this form in the wake of Humanism and the rise of print culture: (1) dialogues could point to a form of “residual orality” left over from the medieval oral-aural era; (2) the genre could be a transitional form facilitating the historical shift from an aural to a visual culture; (3) dialogue’s popularity could be seen as a rhetorical-oral reaction to the abstract logic of earlier scholasticism. However, the incompleteness of these hypotheses warrants the proposal of a fourth—more encompassing and “media ecological”— hypothesis based on what I propose to call the “dialogocentric” perspective of humanist writing.

ABSTRACT
What makes the co-construction of a new alliance between school-adolescents-family and territory topical, necessary, vital and imperative?
The 21st century started with one of the most significant and profound educational emergencies of all times. The following elements characterize this crisis:
- the progressive loss of trust in the institutions and in the adult world;
- the disruption of communities and the solitude of families;
- the absence of new paradigms able to interpret and face changes under way, with the subsequent poor awareness of the impact on young generations and on the planet of the two revolutions under way: digital and biotechnological. The fourth revolution, as Luciano Floridi defines it (2018), which is transforming the world, does not find any critical space yet in educational curricula. A sort of “anthropological mutation” of digital adolescents is taking place which may appear as a surprise to the world of adults and in particular to all those who are in charge of education.
A dialogue-based approach can represent an effective “counter-device” (Agamben, 2006) capable of fighting dementia and digital solitude (Spitzer 2013, 2016), and of contributing to co-construct a new educational alliance based on responsibility, commitment and understanding. Dialogue is an inclusive practice where the entire educational community is involved, which is generously, carefully and profoundly listening to adolescents.
Dialogue, as a bridge with and between generations, develops higher awareness and critical skills with respect to the continuous and sudden changes under way and provides the ability to imagine the future.
In this article, the possibility to co-construct a new educational alliance between school – students – families – territory is analysed. School managers and teachers, “coach facilitators” of this process, are in charge of generating dialogue, facilitating it and keeping it open.

Keywords: Educational alliance, Dialogue, Concern, Reflexivity, Responsibility, Responsiveness, Polyphony, Generativity, Coaching, Mindfulness, Imagining the Future.

AUTHOR NOTE: Please address all correspondence regarding this article to Prof. Marco Braghero [email protected]

The term ‘dialogue’ has its origin in the study of human language, where it is regarded primarily as a form of discourse, and hence as a pragmatic-level phenomenon. However, ‘dialogue’ is nowadays also used to denote human-computer interaction; and in this field it tends to be described in syntactic rather than in pragmatic terms. But to treat dialogue as though the term had two distinct senses is unsatisfactory and unwarranted. Instead, we show how it is possible to maintain a consistent, discourse-based view of dialogue that encompasses not only interpersonal communication but also multimodal human-computer interaction.

Violence and conflict still continue all over the globe. Much of this violence stem from ethnic, religious and other “mental fences” that people have been educated from childhood. These boundaries and loyalties divide people in the planet. The third of the four pillars of education in the 21st century recommended by the UNESCO Delors Commission is “learning to live together” or “learning to relate.” Clearly, there is a need to come to a global consensus on what concrete actions we need to consider in overcoming these harmful and tragic boundaries. This paper explores several options towards a global action agenda in transboundary learning and innovation. Transboundary learning covers learning processes that occur across boundaries, whether political, ethnic, geographical, religious, corporate or administrative. Transboundary innovation is innovation that redefines or transcends such mental fences, boundaries and affiliations.

Three avenues of transboundary learning and innovation are explored and concrete actions are proposed under each avenue: (1) developing and application of Third Delors Technologies, (2) developing dialogue practices between religions, and (3) establishing programs to disseminate enterprise innovations. “Third Delors Technologies” is the new term proposed for those tools for helping people to “learn to live together” such as generative dialogue, training in bridging leadership and educational programs on glocality. Glocality is “thinking globally and acting locally”; it is acting locally while being informed with a broad planetary perspective. Social hostilities and physical conflicts arising from religion is increasing over the last few years. Conflict between Abrahamic religions continue to claim lives in various places in the world and even places a grave threat of nuclear war in the Middle East. The second avenue is collecting, developing and learning effective dialogue practices between religions. The enterprise is the major engine of growth in the world but its gaps and weaknesses lead to sub-optimal wealth creation and sometimes to massive wealth destruction as we had seen in the 2008 global financial crisis. The third avenue is transboundary innovation to bridge gaps in the manner that enterprises are defined and practiced.

The proposed actions are offered as contributions to what can become a global action agenda to directly address the root causes of so much violence and warfare, as well as economic losses taking place around the world today.

The Northern Ireland Troubles have featured in film since the late 1940s. While a variety of films have depicted combatants – in most cases from the republican side – a recurring trope in such representations has been the often irrationally violent paramilitary with whom dialogue or negotiation seems impossible. Popular film has also tended to employ conventional genres, in particular the melodrama and thriller, in depictions of the Troubles with often limited results. This paper considers some relevant films in this respect and argues that Hunger (2008) represented an important change in its foregrounding of dialogue and its focus on the ekphrastic potential of cinema.

This paper examines Dialogue as a managerial fashion that has emerged since the early 1990s, and has spread across various organisations. While the early parts of the paper rely on well-tried approaches to and arguments about the phenomenon, the middle part of the paper attempts to define dialogue as a fashion, and offers a discussion of the dynamics of fashion-setting.
Finally, we attempt to extend the theoretical framework by paying particular attention to the synchronic and diachronic dimension of a management fashion. The paper uses both textual and bibliometric analyses.

Dialogue, as a concept, is often seen as both central to and a prerequisite for philosophical understanding, especially across cultural divides. I wish to reposition dialogue from being a force for unity and transcendence, to being a force for distinction and immanence. This creative tension is possible only when one takes a place-based approach to philosophy, that is, when one recognises that concepts have their own provenance, a provenance which was defined and developed as questions were raised in an environment of productive inter-traditional tension. Philosophical traditions are constructed as they (to use Deleuze and Guattari’s terms) deterritorialise and reterritorialise thought, that is, as they transform concepts into usable markers of philosophical life. I will resist the impulse to move to the meta-level of ‘conversation’, which serves only to obscure the productive tension between traditions. Attending to the place of philosophy, on the other hand, makes possible both a more thorough self-critical attitude, and the possibility of a productive encounter with philosophy-in-place. African philosophy, I will argue, provides a useful and instructive space in which to rethink dialogue. If we focus on the differences between traditions (what I will term ‘thought-lives’), we will make dialogue productive, rather than regarding it as just a prior condition to reason or as a liberal ideal.

This article reflects on the jazzy nature of media ecology as a mode of inquiry, and then explores a series of media ecology related topics by proceeding in this mode. It downplays the thingness of "thought thought," and reveals the living nature of "thought thinking." As such, the article has an emergent and probing quality to it. The tacit invitation is for readers to privilege the in-between space in their own explorations.

Resum: En l'article s'analitzen dos aspectes de l'obra de Cristòfol Despuig, Los col·loquis de la insigne ciutat de Tortosa, de la segona meitat del segle XVI: un de formal, genèric (la nova historiografia), i un de pensament i actitud (el nou acostament a la natura i a l'entorn amb un objectiu pragmàtic). Ambdues qüestions es contextualitzen amb la literatura i el pensament de l'època renaixentista a Europa, i s'observa com incideixen en una valoració innovadora de l'obra del tortosí. Abstract: The article examines two aspects of the piece written by Cristòfol Despuig in the second half of the 16th Century: Los col·loquis de la insigne ciutat de Tortosa. On the one hand, it examines the formal and generic aspect (the new historiography); and, on the other, the aspect related to thinking and attitude (the new approach to nature and the environment for pragmatic purposes). Both issues are contextualised by the literature and thinking of the Renaissance period in Europe, and how they impact on an innovative assessment of the piece by this author from Tortosa can be seen.