Affiliation:
1. İZMİR DEMOKRASİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Abstract
A quadruple dialogue model was built on the components of "agreement" and "being constructive”. As a sub-model "deconstructive disagreement" dialogue, Carnage (2011) was examined through document analysis. With the content analysis, (1) content, (2) direction and (3) process of deconstructive dialogue of disagreement were explained. (1) For the content, subject of discussion, argument, demonstration, counter-argument and conclusion were revealed. (2) For the direction, intentions, perspectives, and personality traits of the individuals were brought to light. (3) For the process, arguments, counter-arguments and demonstrations produced by individuals were taken into consideration. As a result of the tripartite analysis, the differences in terms of content, direction and process were found out in the quadruple dialogue model. (1) Content is ineffective for the formation of the structure. While (2) direction is explained by the components of (2.a) self and otherness, (2.b) pressure and resistance, (2.c) self-confidence, (2.d) kindness, harmony, and benefit, and (2.e) flexibility; (3) the process is distinguished by the features of (3.a) acceptance and objection in reasoning, (3.b) taking an active and passive role, (3.c) reckoning with oneself, (3.d) seeking information, and (3.e) applying universal intellectual standards. With the help of these features, deconstructive dialogue of disagreement is uncovered.
Publisher
Electronic Journal of Social Sciences
Reference33 articles.
1. Ackerman, Bruce. (1989). Why dialogue?. The journal of philosophy, 86(1), 5-22.
2. Arıkan, Pınar (2016). Ulusal Çıkar Çatışması ve Mezhepsel Kutuplaşma Arasında İran-Suudi Arabistan Gerginliği. ORSAM Bölgesel Gelişmeler Değerlendirmesi, 38, 1-13.
3. Babacan, Mehmet. (2021). Ortadoğu’da Bölgesel Kutuplaşma Dinamikleri ve Teorik Yansımaları. Anadolu Strateji Dergisi, 3(1), 53-64.
4. Brodbeck, Felix C., Rudolf Kerschreiter, Andreas Mojzisch, Dieter Frey, and Stefan Schulz‐Hardt. "The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision‐making groups: The effects of pre‐discussion dissent." European Journal of Social Psychology 32, no. 1 (2002): 35-56.
5. Bohm, David, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett. "Dialogue: A proposal." Retrieved April 24 (1991): 2006.