Home
Up

 

 

 

Polemical and Dialogical Approaches to Issues

As we consider appropriate strategies to address issues and effectively move forward our agenda, we use different modes of ethical reasoning. Sometimes we use an adversarial or polemical approach.   Other times we use dialogue.  Often our approach contains elements found in both.   The polemical approach to ethical reasoning is primarily concerned to defend a point of view on the basis of certain values.  It forms the base for direct and often forceful action. The dialogical approach conceives the task to be first one of clarifying and understanding the issue.  It does not preclude taking a position or acting but in so doing seeks to understand fully alternatives.  Our choice of a mode of ethical reasoning and ultimately action is dependent on our assessment of the context and often relates to our self-understanding both individual and institutional, personal and social.   As we live and work in an increasingly globalized and complex society, understanding the differences in these approaches can assist us in choosing strategies.  The two columns below enumerate characteristics of these differing approaches.

 

Polemical     

Dialogical

                                                                                   

 

right/wrong perspectives on issues

differing perspectives on issues

combative     

seeks understanding

judgemental

reserves judgement

issues more important than relationships                                                                       

relationships important to accomplishing goal

mistrust of opponent                                    

trusting relationship

closed                                                            

open

dichotomizes issues

seeks common ground

high value on winning                                               

high value on communications

win/lose                                                                     

win/win

dominate/control opponent 

work with opponent toward common goal

common “enemy” unifies                                         

common goal unifies partners combatants

seeks to impose views on others                           

seeks to understand others point of view

sees other side as enemy                                       

sees other side as partner

dehumanizes or demonizes other side                                   

humanizes other side

adversary becomes defensive                               

partner/adversary is open

identity from common opposition                                                               

identity from sense of mission

external control                                                         

internal control

rigid/legalistic                                                           

flexible

hard sell                                                                     

emotional connection

control                                                            

empowerment

mechanical paradigm                                              

organic paradigm

fixed solutions

third alternative solutions

authoritarianism

involvement

polarization                                                               

synergy

© Andy  Smith

September 19, 1993, revised May 1999; March 2000  

Return to Top     Business        Non Profit     Religious  Developing  Sustainability   Process of Change  Resources