Types and Mechanisms of Dialogue (Delimitation, Coexistence, Mediation, Reappraisal)

Abstract

The article examines the types and mechanisms of social dialogue to determine the extent to which they align with the concept of mediation. The author proposes that mediation can be understood as a methodological framework, which can then be specifically applied to various forms of dialogue. The analysis begins with dialogue in the context of open communication where delimitation (separation) is possible, demonstrating that this form of interaction cannot be classified as mediation. The second type of dialogue occurs within a constrained communication environment, leading to two polarized outcomes: the renunciation of one’s position or a compromise, the latter of which can be considered a type of mediation. The third form of dialogue is one that can culminate in either formal or substantive mediation. As an example of formal mediation, the article considers the historical signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where the solution was a middle ground in name only and ultimately undermined the dialogue itself. Substantive mediation, which constructs new semantic foundations for reconciliation, is illustrated through Mikhail Gefter’s interpretation of Stalin as a figure occupying a middle ground between the extreme views of Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. The article posits, however, that dialogue leading to genuine mediation is a rare phenomenon. More common is a fourth type – dialogue as reappraisal – in which the outcome is not a compromise but rather a fundamental shift in one’s perspective on the issue and a transformation of one’s own position. This mechanism is analyzed through an early study by Sigmund Freud and the personal transformation of Alexander Pushkin, who radically altered his lifestyle following dialogues with his friends. The article concludes that, while dialogue is an effective tool for achieving delimitation, compromise, and reappraisal, only to a limited degree does it foster the coexistence of individuals and communities with opposing viewpoints.