Revisiting Dialogues and Monologues
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8857744 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tone Kvernbekk (0000-0001-6597-4015, University of Oslo, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 9 |
| Pages | 966-978 |
| Publication date | 2010-11-10 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Educational Philosophy and Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0013-1857 • E-ISSN: 1469-5812 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00695.x |
| OpenAlex | W2031945988 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 6 |
In educational discourse dialogue tends to be viewed as being (morally) superior to monologue. When we look at them as basic forms of communication, we find that dialogue is a two‐way, one‐to‐one form and monologue is a one‐way, one‐to‐many form. In this paper I revisit the alleged (moral) superiority of dialogue. First, I problematize certain normative features of dialogue, most notably reciprocity. Here I use Socrates as my example (the Phaedrus). Second, I discuss monologue, using Jesus as my example (St. Luke's gospel). I argue that there are values in the monological form that tend to be overlooked and unrecognized, for example the freedom of the audience not to respond. Keywords: communicationdialoguemonologueasymmetry/symmetryJesusSocrates
Epistemology · Gospel · Normative · Reciprocity (cultural anthropology · Social science · Sociology · SOCRATES · Theology · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Philosophy · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education · Religious Education and Schools
| Citations per year | 0.6 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2025 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |