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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more