Preview

Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences

Advanced search
Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Dialogue as a Search for Common Ground

https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-YJFQSY

Abstract

The article explores the social dimension of dialogue as manifested in the joint search for truth, the overcoming of alienation, the formation of social institutions, the reproduction of linguistic forms of communication, and the enactment of social action. The study of dialogue lies at the intersection of several fields of social inquiry, including philosophy, sociology, and psychology. In Plato’s works, dialogue serves as a means of jointly seeking truth, justice, and virtue, linking the interlocutors’ movement through physical space with the intersubjective movement of thought. In the philosophy of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, dialogue is understood as a relation to the Other that opens up the possibility of self-knowledge and provides the foundation for an ethics of mutual responsibility. In the Russian intellectual tradition, these questions were further developed by Mikhail Bakhtin, who described the dialogical organization of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s works as an interaction among the autonomous voices of the characters, the author, and the reader. The disruption of dialogical relations leads to alienation, various forms of which are examined in Robert Merton’s sociological theory and in the Marxist tradition. Alienation restricts the possibility of mutual understanding, reinforces relations of domination and subordination, and may result in institutional domination, whereby the individual becomes subordinated to a norm embodied in the Generalized Other. At the same time, dialogue creates conditions for the transformation of social institutions, the expansion of social rights, and the reconciliation of institutional norms with the experiences of individual subjects. In the theoretical framework of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, norms are reproduced and transformed within the intersubjective space of everyday interactions. In contemporary society, internal dialogue also plays an important role, enabling individuals to relate the demands of the Generalized Other to their own experience, needs, and interests. Dialogue remains an underestimated resource in the social sciences: on the one hand, as an independent object of inquiry that allows for a more precise understanding of the formation of solidarity, institutional change, and social development; and, on the other hand, as an instrument of social regulation that cannot be reduced to administrative intervention but is capable of creating a space for social transformation and for the coordination of meanings, positions, and norms. Dialogue is an immanent form of social life and is indispensable to its key domains, including politics, civic self-organization, and artistic and other forms of creative activity.

About the Author

Mikhail F. Chernysh
Institute of Sociology, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation


References

1. Бахтин 1979 – Бахтин М.М. К переработке книги о Достоевском // Бахтин М.М. Эстетика словесного творчества. – М.: Искусство, 1979. С. 308–327.

2. Бахтин 2024 – Бахтин М.М. Проблемы поэтики Достоевского. – М.: Издательство АСТ, 2024.

3. Бергер, Лукман 1995 – Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности. – М.: Академия-центр, Медиум, 1995.

4. Бубер 2024 – Бубер М. Я и Ты. – М.: АСТ, 2024.

5. Выготский 1982 – Выготский Л.С. Мышление и речь // Собрание соч.: в 6 т. Т. 2. Проблемы общей психологии / под ред. В.В. Давыдова. – М.: Педагогика, 1982. С. 5–360.

6. Гегель 1972 – Гегель Г.В.Ф. Наука логики. – М.: Мысль, 1972.

7. Гидденс 2011 – Гидденс Э. Последствия современности. – М.: Праксис, 2011.

8. Давыдов 2023 – Давыдов А.П. Индивидуализм и коллективизм как предмет социально-философского анализа (размышления в преддверии научной конференции «Индивидуализация и коллективизм в современном российском обществе») // Философские науки. 2023. Т. 66. № 4. С. 140–159.

9. Давыдов 2024 – Давыдов А.П. «Середина» как метод: поиск социоиндивидуального // Философские науки. 2024. Т. 67. № 4. С. 114–135.

10. Левинас 1998 – Левинас Э. Время и Другой. Гуманизм другого человека / пер. с фр. А.В. Парибка. – СПб.: Высшая религиозно-философская школа, 1998.

11. Маркс, Энгельс 1955 – Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Немецкая идеология // Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Сочинения. Т. 3. – 2-е изд. – М.: Политиздат, 1955.

12. Мертон 2006 – Мертон Р. Социальная теория и социальная структура / пер. с англ. Е.Н. Егоровой и др. – М.: АСТ, Хранитель, 2006.

13. Павлова 2018 – Павлова Т.В. Делиберация как фактор конституирования поля современной политики // Политическая наука. 2018. № 2. С. 73–94.

14. Рисмен 2013 – Рисмен Д. Одинокая толпа. – М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара, 2013.

15. Тургенев 1980 – Тургенев И.С. Гамлет и Дон Кихот // Тургенев И.С. Полное собрание соч. и писем: в 30 т. Т. 5. – М.: Наука, 1980. С. 330– 348.

16. Archer 2007 – Archer M. Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

17. Bandura 1986 – Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. – Stanford: Prentice Hall, 1986.

18. Bramsen 2023 – Bramsen I. The Micro-Sociology of Peace and Conflict. – Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2023.

19. Correll et al. 2007 – Correll J., Park B., Judd C., Wittenbrink B. The Influence of Stereotypes on Decisions to Shoot // European Journal of Social Psychology. 2007. Vol. 37. P. 1102–1117.

20. Dryzek et al. 2019 – Dryzek J.S., Bächtiger A., Chambers S., Cohen J., Druckman J.N., Felicetti A., …, Landemore H. The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation // Science. 2019. Vol. 363. No. 6432. P. 1144–1146.

21. Mead 1972 – Mead G.H. Mind, Self, and Society. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.

22. Mills 1956 – Mills C.W. White Collar: The American Middle Classes. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

23. Nussbaum 2000 – Nussbaum M. The Costs of Tragedy: Some Moral Limits of Cost‑Benefit Analysis // The Journal of Legal Studies. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 1005–1036.

24. Pickering, Garrod 2021 – Pickering M.J., Garrod S.C. Understanding Dialogue: Language Use and Social Interaction. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

25. Putnam 2000 – Putnam R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. – New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

26. Skinner 1948 – Skinner B.F. Walden Two. – New York: Macmillan, 1948.

27. Skinner 2014 – Skinner B.F. Science and Human Behavior. – Harvard: B.F. Skinner Foundation, 2014.


Review

For citations:


Chernysh M.F. Dialogue as a Search for Common Ground. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2026;69(3):12-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-YJFQSY



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 0235-1188 (Print)
ISSN 2618-8961 (Online)