İdeal Diyalogtan Sivil Diyaloğa Dönüşüm Üzerine Kavramsal İzdüşüm: Tarihsel bir İnceleme

Öz

Diyalog kavramı iletişim alanında en önemli kavramlardan biridir. Genel olarak iki kişi arasında bir iletişim süreci olarak bilinse de, diyalog daha karmaşık bir içeriğe ve bağlama sahiptir. Antik dönemlerle birlikte ortaya çıkan ideal diyalog anlayışı 2000’li yıllarla birlikte sivil diyalog kavramıyla yeniden popüler hale gelmiştir. Sadece iletişim alanında değil, uluslararası ilişikler, sosyoloji, psikoloji ve felsefe gibi çeşitli bilim dallarının da odak kavramı olan diyalog yeterince tanımlanmamış ve ele alınmamıştır. Bu anlamda bu çalışma derinlemesine literatür taraması ile diyalog kavramının tarihsel olarak kavramsal değişimini ve sivil diyalog anlayışının sivil toplumla ilişkisini incelemektedir. Çalışma kapsamında öncelikle ideal diyalog anlayışının felsefi yapısı ve içeriği tartışılacaktır. Daha sonra XIX-XX yüzyılla birlikte kavramsallaşması ele alınacaktır. Daha sonra sivil diyalog kavramı sivil toplum çerçevesinde ele alınarak değerlendirilecektir. İdeal diyalog ile sivil diyalog arasındaki içeriksel benzerlikler ve farklar incelecektir. Sonuç bölümünde sivil toplumun diyalog anlayışı ne kadar yararlı ya da yarasız olduğu tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• diyalog
• ideal diyalog
• sivil toplum
• sivil diyalog

A Conceptual Projection on Transition of Ideal Dialogue into Civil Dialogue: A Historical Evaluation

Öz

Dialogue is one of the basic concepts of communication. As the understanding of two-way communication and mutual relations has become important by 2000s, dialogue has also started to be re-embraced within different fields of social sciences. Although it is known as a communication between two individuals, it includes very sophisticated context. The quality of communication is the main point in dialogic communication. Although this concept has been widely used in different research fields such as culture, political communication, religion, sociology and international relations studies, it has not been conceptualized with all aspects. It still lacks of proper conceptualization and profound research. In this vein, the current study aims to explore the historical and conceptual background of dialogue. Based on comprehensive literature review, first, the conceptualization of “ideal” dialogue will be discussed within various philosophical and sociological perspectives. In doing so, the historical context will be taken into account. Then, “civil” dialogue will be examined within the framework of dialogue. It will be focused on its contextual and structural transformation under specific characteristics. In the conclusion, the study will discuss how and why civil society is appropriate to formation of dialogue.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dialogue
• ideal dialogue
• civil society
• civil dialogue

Kaynakça

1. Acar, E. (2017). Neoliberalizm ve Sosyal Refah Devleti Ekseninde Üçüncü Yol Yaklaşımı. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (1), 248-263.
2. Alexander, J. (1991). Habermas and Critical Theory Beyond the Marxian Dilemma? In A Honneth & J. Hans (eds), Communicative Action: Essays and J. Habermas (p. 49 49). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
3. Anderson, A., Baxter, L. A., & Cissna, K. N. (2004) Texts and contexts of Dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (p. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Aristotle. (1995). Retorik. Doğan, H. M (transltaor). Istanbul: YKY.
5. Aristotle. (2004). Nicomachean Ethics. Crisp, R. (translator). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Arnett, C, R. (2001). Dialogic Civility as Pragmatic Ethical Praxis: An Interpersonal Metaphor for the Public Domain. Communication Theory, 11 (3), 315-338.
7. Atabek, N. (2002). Kamuoyu, Medya ve Demokrasi. Kurgu Dergisi, 19, 223-238.
8. Bakhtin, M, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: The University of Texas Press.

9. Baxter, A. L. (2004). A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory, The Journal of Family Communication. 4 (3-4), 181-192.
10. Baynes, K. (2016). Habermas. New York: Routledge.
11. Beger, N. (2004). Participatory Democracy: Organized Civil Society and the “New Dialogue. Online Paper, 9 (4), 1-8.
12. Bignami, F. (2007). Civil Society and International Organizations: A Liberal Framework for Global Governance. Access Link: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1933&context=faculty_scholarship
13. Birand, K. (1958). İlkçağ Felsefesi Tarihi. Ankara: Ajans-Türk Matbaası.
14. Bohm, D. (2006). Birlikte Düşünmek: Diyalog. Atalay, O. (Translator). İstanbul: Etkileşim Yayınları.
15. Bravo, H. (2007). Augustinus’ un Varlık ve Bilgi Görüşleri. SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15, 111-128.
16. Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
17. Calabrese, A. (2004). The Promise of Civil Society: A Global Movement for Communication Rights, Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 18 (3), 317-329.
18. Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks and Global Governance. AAPS, 616, 78-93.
19. Chakraborty, L, S. (2016). Gramsci’s Idea of Civil Society. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies, 3 (6), 19-27.
20. Cicero. (1967). De Oratore. Warmington, H. E. (Translator). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Cicero. (2006). Academic Skepticism. Brittain, C. (Translator). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
22. Cissna, N, K. & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing About Dialogic Moments: The Buber-Rogers Position and Postmodern Themes. Communication Theory, 81, 63-104.
23. Cooper, K., & Dal Santo, M. (2009). Boethius, Gregory the Great and Christian Afterlife of classical Dialogue, In S. Goldhill (ed), The End of Dialogue in Antiquity (p. 173-191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Duignan, B. (2011). Early Medieval Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
25. Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as Method: Its Nature, Its limitations and Its Uses. Speech Monographs, 37 (2), 101-111.
26. Fazi, E. & Smith, J. (2006). Civil Dialogue: Making it Work Better, EU Civil Society Contact Group. Access link: http://act4europe.horus.be/module/FileLib/Civil%20dialogue,%20making%20it%20work%20better.pdf
27. Freeman, M. (2016). Neo-liberal Politikalar ve İnsan Hakları. D.E.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (2), 165-188.
28. Freire, P. & Shor, I. (1987). A Pedagogy for Liberation. London: Macmillan LTD.
29. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Continuum.
30. Gadamer, G. H. (2008). Hakikat ve Yöntem I. Aslan, H. & Yavrucan, I. (Translator). İstanbul: Paradigma.
31. Garcia, B, L. (2010). From Civil Dialogue to Participatory Democracy: The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Sharing the Agenda in the Debates on the European Constitution. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 6 (1), 85-106.
32. Geoffrey, R. (2003). Defining Dialogue: From Socrates to the Internet. New York: Humanity Books.
33. Gramsci, A. (1992). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
34. Grudin, R. (1996). On Dialogue: An Essay in Free Thought. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
35. Grunig, J, E. (2005). Yönetimde Mükemmelik Nedir? In J.E. Grunig (ed), Halkla İlişkilerde ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik (p. 237-271). İstanbul: Rota.
36. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason on the Rationalization of Society, Volume I. Boston: Beacon Press.
37. Habermas, J. (1991). A Reply, In A. Honneth & J. Hans (eds), Communicative Action: Essays and J. Habermas (p. 244-265). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
38. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Hammond, S. C., Anderson, R.& Cissna, K, N. (2003). The Problematics of Dialogue and Power. Communication Yearbook, 27, 125-157.
40. Hançerlioğlu, O. (1995). Düşünce Tarihi. Ankara: Remzi Kitabevi.
41. Hegel, G.N.F. (2001). Philosophy of Right. Ontario: Batoche Books.
42. Heuberger F., & Schawarel, M. (2013). The Chances for Participatory Democracy and a Citizen- Powered Europe, ENNA/ European Network of National Civil Society Associations. Access Link: http://www.b-b-e.de/fileadmin/inhalte/themen_materialien/europa/Chances_for_Participatory_Democracy_Final.pdf
43. Johannesen, R, L. (1990). Ethics in Human Communication, 3rd Edition. New York: Waveland Press.
44. Kenny, A. (2005). Medieval Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45. Kent, L. K. & Taylor, M. (2002). Towards a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21-37.
46. Keyman, F. E. (2016). Türkiye’de Sivil Toplumun Serüveni: İmkansızlıklar İçinde Vaha. Ankara: STGM.
47. Laing, D. R. (1969). Self and Other, 2nd Edition. New York: Pantheon Books.
48. Levinas, E. (1999). Alterity and Transcendence. New York: Colombia University Press.
49. Locke, J. (1998). Concerning Civil Government “Second Essay” An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.
50. Macedo, S. (2000). Constituting Civil Society: School Vouchers, Religious Non Profit Organizations and Liberal Public Values. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 75 (2), 417-452.
51. Marenbon, J. (1988). Early Medieval Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
52. Marx, K. (1978). On the Jewish Question, In R. C. Tucker (ed), The Marx-Engels Reader (p. 26-46). London: Norton & Company.
53. Murphy, J. J. (1981). Rhetoric in The Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
54. Onuf, N. (2005). Late Modern Civil Society, In D.R. Germain & M. Kenny (eds), The Idea of Global Civil Society: Politics and Ethics in a Globalizing Era (p. 45-66). New York: Routledge.
55. Özbek, M. (2004). Kamusal Alanın Sınırları, In M. Özbek (ed), Kamusal Alan (p. 19-91). İstanbul: Hil Yayınevi.
56. Pearce, W. B. & Pearce, K, A. (2000). Combining Passions and Abilities: Toward Dialogic Virtuosity, Southern Communication Journal, 65, 161-175.
57. Pichler, W. J. (2015). Civil Dialogue and Participatory Democracy in the Practice of European Union Institutions, European Economic and Social Committee Press. Access Link: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-02-15-397-en-n.pdf
58. Plato. (2013a). Devlet. Demir, S. (Translator). İstanbul: Ataç.
59. Plato. (2013b). Sokrates’in Savunması. Çelik, Ö. (Translator). İstanbul: Say.
60. Plato. (2014). Diyaloglar. Genç, T. (Translator). Ankara: Alter.
61. Price, A. J. (2008). Understanding Philosophy: Medieval and Modern Philosophy. Chelsea: Chelsea House Publishing.
62. Ricardo De Querol. (2016). Social Media are a Trap. Conversation with Zygmunt Bauman El Pais. 25 June 2016. Access link: https://elpais.com/elpais/2016/01/19/inenglish/1453208692_424660.html
63. Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflon.
64. Rogers, C. (1994). The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change, In R. Anderson, K.N. Cissna & R.C. Arnett (eds) The Reach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice and Community (p. 126-140). New Jersey: Hampton Press.
65. Schofield, M. (2009). Ciceronian Dialogue, In S. Goldhill (ed), The End of Dialogue in Antiquity (p. 63-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. Scholte, H. J. (2007). Global Civil Society- Opportunity or Obstacle for Democracy. Development Dialogue, 49, 15-29.
67. Seyidov, I. (2018), The Analysis of Civil Society Program of EU within the Framework of Dialogue (Doctoral Dissertation). Ankara University/ Social Sciences Institute, Ankara.
68. Smarr, L. J. (2008). Joining the Conversation. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
69. Smismans, S. (2003). European Civil Society: Shaped by Discourses and Institutional Interests. European Law Journal, 9 (4), 473-495.
70. Stewart, J. & Zediker, K. (2000). Dialogue as Tensional, Ethical Practice. Southern Communication Journal, 65 (3), 224-242.
71. Taylor, M. & Kent, L. (2004). Congressional Web Sites and Their Potential for Public Dialogue. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12 (2), 59-76.
72. Ünder, H. (1994). Sokratik Diyalog. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2 (27), 1301-3718.
73. Van Eemeren, H. F. (2001). Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
74. Vassilopulou, P. (2009). Introduction, In P. Vassilopoulou & S.L. Clark (eds), Late Antique Epistemology: Other Ways to Truth (p. 1-19). UK: Palgrave McMillian.
75. Von Aster, E. (2005). İlkçağ ve Ortaçağ Felsefe Tarihi. Okur, V. (Translator). İstanbul: IM.
76. Zappen, P, J. (2004). The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates and the Rhetorical Tradition. Albany: State University of New York Press.
77. Zoller, H, M. (2000). A Place You Haven’t Visited Before: Creating the Conditions for Community Dialogue. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 191-207.