Abstract

Dialogue is a category that is central to politics, media, and education, and yet in all of these domains it can be confusing and ambiguous. Starting from a critical framework built on the work of educational philosopher Paulo Freire, we undertake an inquiry into the meaning of dialogical intersubjectivity and its political determinations, with a particular focus on liberal models. We situate this discussion in the context of the rise of radical Right populisms, which have exposed the strength of racial resentment and white supremacy in contemporary politics, and raised questions about the meaning of social cohesion and the relationship between speech and violence. In this context, we show how liberal calls for unity and reflexive defenses of free speech obscure the exclusions and antagonisms that traverse society, while also flattening the meaning of dialogue and betraying its emancipatory vocation. Finally, we suggest that educators should understand their work as continuous with a broader landscape of struggle, and that their interventions should be informed by an awareness of the pedagogical costs of reducing dialogue to a form of talk or method that refuses ethical and political commitment.

摘要

对话是政治，媒体和教育的中心类别，但是在所有这些领域中，对话可能会引起混淆和模棱两可。从建立在教育哲学家保罗·弗雷雷（Paulo Freire）的工作之上的关键框架开始，我们对对话主体间性的含义及其政治决定进行了探究，特别关注自由主义模型。我们将这一讨论置于激进的右翼民粹主义兴起的背景下，激进的右翼民粹主义暴露了当代政治中种族怨恨和白人至上的力量，并提出了关于社会凝聚力的含义以及言论与暴力之间的关系的问题。在这种情况下，我们展示了自由主义者呼吁言论自由的统一和反思性辩护，如何掩盖横穿社会的排斥和对抗，同时还使对话的含义变平，背叛了对话的解放性。最后，我们建议教育者应将自己的工作理解为与广泛的斗争环境相辅相成的工作，并且他们的干预措施应以对将对话减少为拒绝道德和政治承诺的对话或方法的教学成本的认识为依据。