Skip to main content

Dialogue that is anything but

By Saqib
Zoller's piece on the TABD again slices through the notion of dialogue as a form of civic participation and legitimate tool for public progress. What can we expect from state and TNC operators, a body that eases the flow of capital between countries or that actually seeks to involve consumers and work for the public good? Dialogue as a term simply props up the oligarchs' status quo and anesthetizes any real resistive potential in the masses. There is a dialogue going on, but its not the dialogue that the public is interested in or dialogue that has any substance. As Zoller puts it, "TABD draws on this theory of dialogue to argue for a credible competition among civil society groups and business organization. The TABD invokes the concept of a pluralistic, democratic dialogue to justify its relationship to government."

The TABD however in my opinion is not a mere front group with a placard of 'dialogue' but a facilitator for big business and governing elites. In reality, they are interested in pluralism, just not pluralism for interests that don't possess the capital to join the conversation. In the dialogue, it's only money that speaks.

This is just one case study, but does it do enough to remove all legitimacy of dialogue in the current system? I do think dialogue has a role to play, a position that may draw some scorn from my classmates. But that dialogue only works on a more level playing field. The challenge is to reach the point where powerful stakeholders have no choice but to react to concerns. Dialogue as a tool should not be scrapped altogether but used concurrently with other methods to combat the larger interests. If you are against dialogue for the sake of dialogue, I am with you there. Talking heads produce a lot of hot air.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more