Monologizing in a Dialogical World

William Costanza
Reading Tutorial
LSHV-911-29

April , 2010
 Monologizing in a Dialogical World

Professor Per Linell in his book Rethinking Language, Mind, and World

Dialogically offers a clear and concise perspective on the dialogic nature of the self,

mind and its role in human sense-making. His penetrating insights into the ways that

individuals can be dialogically understood within their sociocultural context forces us to

“rethink” the nature of everyday lived experience by offering us a comprehensive

synthesis of dialogical theory that enriches and sharpens our analytic focus. The result

is that we acquire an even greater appreciation of how deeply embedded human beings

are in their specific cultural environments. In this paper I will focus on one aspect of

Linell’s synthesis that I found particularly relevant to my work on constructing an

interpretive framework to understand the radicalization process, namely, monologizing

(or undialogizing) practices that inhibit all varieties of dialogue. I will suggest how these

practices become particularly potent when viewed through the lens of Vygotsky’s zone

of proximal development. I will also comment on how monologizing practices may be

understood from a semiotic perspective.

THE MONOLOGICAL DIMENSION

Linell asserts that despite the assumption of a dialogical framework, there will be

enormous variation in the cognitive and communicative practices that are experienced in

“the real world”. The various modes of dialogical interaction, for example, texts and

2
discourse, can be viewed as existing along a continuum in which some forms of

communicative interaction will be more monologizing while others would be dialogizing.

He draws on the work of Morson and Emerson to define five properties of discourse

and communication which can be used to contrast monologism with dialogism.

According to Morson and Emerson the first three properties are inherent in all cognition

and communication. First, every cognitive or communicative act is selectively

responsive to contextual conditions including interaction with others. This is referred to

as responsivity. Second, each act is directed to a specific target audience whether it

is another individual, group, collective to include real, imaginary or virtual others. There

is a built-in expectation that there will be potential responses which influence the

speakers choices regarding the manner and mode in which the communication takes

place. This concept is referred to as addressivity. Third, there is a presupposition that

every act has a history or biography of past use that is dependent on languages,

routines and communicative modes that relate it to sociocultural practice. This concept

is known as genre-belongingness. Taken collectively, Morson and Emerson claim

that these three properties constitute the dialogical basis for cognition and

communication. Linell points out that the first two concepts essentially define

“interactivity” as understood in contemporary interpretive frameworks.

The two addition properties proposed by Morson and Emerson underscore the

potential monological nature of certain types of communication. Their concept of

perspectivity/voicedness denotes the number and types of voices that may be present

in a dialogical communication. For example, a written or verbal communication may be

3
expressed in only one voice or a singular perspective such as in a legal notice. One

variation of this would be a multi-voiced discourse by several speakers in which they all

make a presentation expressing the same ideas and themes. In this sense they are

dialogically discoursing to a target audience with the aim of presenting a fixed set of

ideas organized to have a a monological effect. An example might be a think tank

roundtable on the “Dangers of Nuclear Proliferation in the Third World” in which the

panelists hold the same assumptions and espouse similar views. In contrast,

perspectivity may be expressed through the expression of many voices, what Bakhtin

and others have referred to as polyvocality. Using the roundtable example, polyvocality

would describe a situation in which the think tank includes speakers on the panel who

challenge basic assumptions of the other panel members in arguing for alternative

interpretations. This condition shares philosophical kinship with Nietzsche’s

perspectivalism in which there is no fixed way of seeing the world in making claims of

truth or value. Some have interpreted Nietzsche’s “God is Dead” pronouncement as

meaning the death of a single “God’s eye view of the world” which undergirds

Nietzsche’s perspectivalism..

The other condition listed by Morson and Emerson, which is tied to

perspectivity, is imposition of response (coerciveness). In this type of discourse or

communication a single, monological message is imposed on the addressee. It is

authoritarian in nature and is structured so that there is only one possible way of

understanding the message and, more importantly, only one option of responding.

Linell notes that political propaganda would fall into this category. The implication is

4
that over time a steady stream of political propaganda that remains dialogically

unchallenged will create what Linell calls a “ideological hegemony” in which the “super-

author” (authoritarian voice) sits in judgement of all actions and communications of

societal members. In this situation all deviant voices are identified and subjugated.

Linell highlights an interesting aspect of monologically organized texts that are

dialogical and polyvocal in nature. This category includes those texts that “may contain

‘discourses’ that contradict each other, indicating an unsettledness or a struggle of

perspectives on the part of the author. As Linell notes, this notion is reminiscent of

Bakhtin’s concept of centripetal vs. centrifugal forces in which centripetal forces work in

support of dominance and authoritarianism while centrifugal forces work in support of

polyphony and dialogue. Viewed in this light, the sacred texts of the Abrahamic faiths

(Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) could conceivably be categorized as monologically

organized texts that are polyvocal in nature. The implication is that they offer

individuals who enter into a dialogue with the text an unsettled conception of

monotheism that places the individual in the middle of the struggle between the

competing perspectives that exist in the texts. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer argues in

his book Is Religion Killing US: Violence in the Bible and the Quran that ambiguity and

contradiction in the Bible and the Quran offer the potential for the reader/interpreter to

extract a “violence of God” tradition in the Hebrew and Muslim sacred texts. This

tradition stands in contrast to the “salvation of God” narrative that also permeates the

texts. The pivotal issue becomes “who” is interpreting the text and for “whom.”

5
 With these dialogical concepts in mind we can begin to gain greater insight into

what might be happening in the case of the inculcation of the Salafi-Wahhabist version

of Islam in Saudi Arabia as reflected in school textbooks in the elementary and

secondary education school system. According to Doumato, the Saudi tenth grade text

entitled The Life of the Prophet and the History of the Islamic State used during the

2001-1004 timeframe included a section titled “Waves of Enemies Against the Islamic

World” which outlined an individual’s civic obligations within the context of Saudi

citizenship. The text warned that “the solidarity of the umma depends on the unity of

doctrine, firmness of character and values, and unity in foreign policy and civilization.

Without these the Islamic umma will grow weak and fall into decay.” The teacher’s

guidance section contained within the book explains that the text is designed to insure

that students understand that the enemies that the contemporary Muslim world faces

are an extension of historical enmities that plagued Islam since the time of the Prophet.

Further, the text underscores that sectarian and deviant beliefs have always served to

support the enemies of Islam. The text even provides an enemies list that reaches back

into history to include Sufism and modern enemies to include nationalists, socialists and

Orientalists (perceived as Western scholarship on Islam).

The monological coerciveness is easily detected in the text which admonishes

students to reject any ideas that are contrary to Salafi-Wahhabi orthodoxy. The text

warns that the ideas outside of Salafi-Wahhabi doctrine are not interpretations to be

discussed and debated. In fact, students are told that any school of thought outside of

Salafi-Wahhabi orthodoxy are heretical, promulgated by non-Muslims and therefore

6
should be denounced. In addition, the textbooks omit large swaths of history relevant

to understanding the spread of Islam such as discussions of the Iranian and Turkish

civilizations. Further, a 2002 version of the text urged students to not only to correct

nonconformist Muslims but also to despise them. With regard to non-Muslims, the text

instructs student not to tolerate or even befriend those who do not accept their version

of Islam. Quotes from the Quran are selectively chosen and used out of context to

buttress claims that the dissociation of Muslims and non-Muslims are universal. ( In

the same vein, Doumato reminds us of St. Augustine’s sermon that underscored the

importance of severing relations with all non-Christians.)

It should be noted that the tenth grade textbook Tawhid was extensively revised

in 2003/2004 which included the removal of those portions that were designed to show

loyalty to the state and bear enmity to outsiders while still maintaining the tenets of

Sunni Islam. Nonetheless, the monologizing coerciveness of the text that had been in

place in the schools and exposed to the previous generation of students potentially

shaped their cognitive development. The removal of the more coercive aspects of the

textbook reflects the status of Saudi Arabia’s pedagogical strategy to build national

identity through its school system in an increasingly diverse dialogical environment.

The change appears to be the result of challenges posed by other voices within and

outside of Saudi Arabia that have gained legitimacy in the debate on nation building

strategies.

ENTER VYGOTSKY

7
 Continuing with the Saudi textbook example, it is clear that the information

contained the books was “taught” by a teacher/mentor geared to the appropriate grade

level. It is during this process that the Vygotsky’s principle of the zone of proximal

development becomes relevant. The teacher becomes pivotal in legitimating the

contents of the text. How did the teacher present the coercive version of the text? Did

the teacher present the monologizing text in a way that may have dialogically called in to

question the contents of the unrevised version? i.e., did the teacher ask what the

students thought about the text or did the instructor present the information as stern

Salafi-Wahhabi orthodoxy. How was this particular course culturally situated among the

other required courses students were required to take? In this sense, students enter

into a dialogue with the text mediated by an instructor within the context of a broader

educational curriculum. Was this required coursework viewed as a simply a

requirement to get out of the way or a critical element in their educational trajectory? i.e.

how seriously did they take this course? What were some of the other sociocultural

influences that engaged the students dialogically that situated their religious study in a

wider context? How influential were other dialogical streams of input via other texts,

books, INTERNET, conversations with other students native and foreign, on their ability

to place their religious training in a broader sociocultural context? How successful were

the teachers/mentors in employing a coercive text that presents a specific form of Islam

as a unifying factor in shaping in promoting individual prosperity and civic harmony. In

sum, it is not merely the presence of a monologizing, coercive text seeking to embed a

particular world view in a dialogically conceived society. The imposition of the coercive

8
text oftentimes relies on the mediation of a teacher/mentor to ensure that the contents of

the message are appropriately understood and incorporated into the individual’s

cognitive apparatus. Turning to the issue of religious training in madrassahs,

understanding what religious content is being taught, in what way and by whom would

seem analytically important in examining the potential of a particular madrassah to

promote a virulent form of Islam.

The same analytical lens may be used to shed light on intergroup relations.

Linell notes that there is a vast array of monologizing discourses that may be employed

by particular in-groups to define themselves as well as the out-groups. He argues that

both in-groups and out-groups become “essentialized” which he defines as “the

assumption of a necessary link between a category of people and its proper

representation.” In this sense, Linell equates esentialization with

monoperspectivalism. Jargon aside, Linell believes that monologizing practices tend to

cluster in certain genres such as science, religion and propaganda. On this point I think

Linell overstates his case. With regard to science, any monologizing dialogue occurs

within a dialogical environment in which group members provide a peer review of the

scientific discourse. Any monologizing discourse not subject to peer review would be

considered outside the realm of legitimate scientific enquiry. Religion may serve as a

better example in which group tolerance of competing religious orthodoxy will determine

potency of a monologizing discourse. Does the monologizing religious discourse

demonize the out-groups or does it present its worldview as a perspective? For

example, while there are differences among Christians sects, an ecumenical movement

9
exists that builds on commonalities between their respective monologizing orthodoxies.

In contrast, as the Saudi textbook example noted above, there is no accommodation for

any version of Islam outside of the Salafi-Wahhabist interpretation. We also see the

imposition of coercive monologizing practices in religious cults that tend toward isolating

members from what they believe is the corrosive impact of outsiders that pose a threat

by offering a dialogical discourse that challenges the cult’s group cohesion. In her book

Cults in Our Midst, the cult authority Margaret Singer, a clinical psychologist and former

professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, notes that “in almost

every group, over the course of time, you break with your past. You no longer see

family or friends who did not join the group.”

SEMIOTICS AND MONOLOGIZING PRACTICES

Valsiner asserts that a regulatory sign that offers ranges of possible future

meaning-making is known as a promoter sign which refers to deeply internalized field-

like signs general in nature that operate as personal value-orientations. For example,

religion could be considered a generalized field-type of sign promoted by a variety of

signs embodied in rituals, childhood meaning etc. that color perceptions and guide

personal decision-making. The generalized notion of being “religious” or “spiritual”

would establish, in Valsiner’s terminology, a “life-course trajectory” with a degree of

flexibility dependent on the functioning of the regulatory sign system at a particular point

in time. The idea of “religious” or “spiritual” would be represented as a hyper-

generalized sign field presumably composed of a number of subfields containing

religious signs representing, for example, specific religions as understood and

10
interpreted by the individual. Within this framework, the pathway towards increased

religious extremism could be viewed as the progressive loss of flexibility within the

primary regulatory sign system (in this case, religion) resulting in the rejection or “walling

out” of signs that could be used to construct new meanings across a broader field

space. For example, being able to comprehend similarities between religious views

may be prevented by an inflexible boundary that inhibits the construction of new

meaning by the individual in a dynamically changing sociocultural environment in which

signs are created, transformed and eliminated. As Valsiner notes, “it is the unity of

flexibility and inflexibility that characterizes how human beings regulate themselves

through the construction and use of signs.”

Turning to Linell’s dialogical framework, monological practices would serve to

inhibit the construction of new meanings by reducing the flexibility of sign boundaries by

preventing the creation of new signs and eliminating those those signs that are not

validated by the monological discourse. Again, the Saudi textbook example illustrates

how monological practices can wall out dialogical discourse that would be required to

generate new signs (new meaning) by stigmatizing any discourse outside of the

“approved” monological discourse. At the group level, we can see how radicalization

can be reinforced through the imposition if rigid indoctrination that imposes and fixes

meaning through rigid monological practices.

In sum, looking through a dialogical lens offers another tool to gain insight into

the life trajectories of individuals, especially during critical moments in their lives. With

regard to the radicalization process, dialogical theory offers an approach to allow an

11
analyst to isolate and examine in detail particular areas of an individual’s life (family

relations, school experiences, peer group relations, etc.) that may have played a key

role in determining the individual’s turn towards extremism.

12