Cover not available
Part of
Dialogic Ethics
Edited by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren
[Dialogue Studies 30] 2018
► pp. 127–148

Differing versions of dialogic aptitude

Bakhtin, Dewey and Habermas

Discussing dialogical ethics implies that people have the aptitude to participate in dialogue. We also surmise that a dialogical ethic would co-construct meaning on moral, ethical and normative issues. Can we make sense of a dialogical ethic at all the relevant levels of our social life, which includes the interpersonal, organizational and social contexts? We need a theoretical frame that will permit circulation between these levels without demanding too much from dialogue. Bakhtin, one of the main theoreticians of dialogue, will be discussed along with Habermas and Dewey (Bakhtin 1981; Dewey 1925; Habermas 1981). To test the idea that they might also have value for guiding social practices, I discuss them while examining the typical preoccupations of water basin governance.
Keywords: dialogical ethics, dialogical aptitude, Bakhtin, Habermas, Dewey
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Network participatory governance
  • 3.Dewey’s pragmatism
  • 4.Reading Habermas with Dewey in mind
  • 5.A dialogical applied ethics
  • 6.Bakhtin’s contribution
  • 7.Discussing this theoretical ensemble in relationship with the situational case
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.30.05let
References (42)
References
Agrawal, Arun, and Clark C. Gibson. 1999. “Enchantment and Disenchantment. The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation.” World Development 27 (4): 629–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhaïl. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1975. Esthétique et théorie du roman. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1968. «  La mort de l’auteur  ». In R. Barthes, Œuvres complètes III. Paris: Seuil, 1993, 40–51.Google Scholar
Bégin, Luc. 2011. «  La compétence éthique en contexte professionnel  ». In L. Langlois (dir.), Le professionnalisme et l’éthique au travail, Ste Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval, 105–122.Google Scholar
Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthes. 2001. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cooren, François. 2015. Organizational Discourse: Communication and Constitution. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1939. Theory of Valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
. 1925. Experience and Nature. Jo-Ann Boydston, 1981 (ed.), The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume I: 1925. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Edgar, Andrew. 2005. The Philosophy of Habermas. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans Georg. 2011; 1960. Truth and Method. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discussion Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1984, 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. V. 1 and 2, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halley, Paule & Julia Sotousek (ed.). 2012. L’environnement, notre patrimoine commun et son État gardien. Aspects juridiques nationaux, transnationaux et internationaux. Cowansville (Qc): Yvon Blais/Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1996. The Struggle for Recognition. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 2010. Habermas: Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Johannesen, Richard L. 1996 Ethics in Human Communication. Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press (5th edition).Google Scholar
Kim, Gary. 2004. “Mikhail Bakhtin: The Philosopher of Human Communication,” Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology 12 (1.8): [URL]
Létourneau, Alain. 2014. “An Example of the Plurality of Levels of Communication Ethics Analysis in a Newspaper Article.” In Philosophy of Communication Ethics: Alterity and the Other, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and Pat Arneson, 233–252. Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Towards an Inclusive Notion of Dialogue for Ethical and Moral Purposes.” In (Re)Presentations and Dialogue, ed. by François Cooren and Alain Létourneau, 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. «  Pour une éthique de l’environnement inspirée par le pragmatisme : l’exemple du développement durable  », VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement 10 (1): [URL].DOI logo
. 2007. “A Discussion of Habermas’ Reading and Use of Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation.” In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by dans F. Van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, Bart Garssen, 881–88. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
. 2002. La tension qui caractérise une éthique des communications. Sherbrooke Qc: GGC.Google Scholar
. 1999. L’herméneutique de Maurice Blondel. Son émergence pendant la crise moderniste. Montréal Qc: Bellarmin.Google Scholar
Lewicki, Roy J., Gray, Barbara and Michael Elliot. 2003. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Lipari, Lisbeth. 2012. Listening, Thinking, Being: Towards an Ethic of Attunement. University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Misak, Cheryl. 2013. The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, Brian G. 2015. Sustainable Values, Sustainable Change: A Guide to Environmental Decision Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 2001. “Vulnerability and Polycentric Governance Systems”, Update IHDP 3, [URL].
. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paquet, Gilles. 2009. Crippling Epistemologies and Governance Failures: A Plea for Experimentalism. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1878, “How to Make our Ideas Clear”. In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by J. Buchler, 23–41. (1955) New York: Dover.Google Scholar
1905. “The Principles of Phenomenology”. In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by J. Buchler, 74–97. (1955) New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Schön, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Volosinov, Valentin N. / Bakhtin, Mikhaïl. 1973. Marxism and Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Von Wright, Georg H. 1967. “Deontic Logic”, American Philosophical Quarterly 4 (2): 136–153.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weidner, Helmut & Martin Jänicke (eds). 2002. Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

RACINE, Eric & Abdou Simon SENGHOR
2024. Diversity in Neuroethics. In Neuroethics and Cultural Diversity, ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Létourneau, Alain
2019. Dialogue considered as a social ensemble of voices. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Létourneau, Alain
2024. Different levels of co-construction in dialogue. Language and Dialogue 14:3 ► pp. 452 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.