Abstract
Delineations of dialogue within educational theory and philosophical literature often emphasize its transformative potential, whereby one is enabled to move from idiosyncratic or parochial responses and interpretations to more socially conscious and aware ones. In this essay, I examine the cognitive and hermeneutic forms of dialogue, and draw out the “fault lines” that may be evidenced in their delineations with reference to the above stated goal. I illustrate the cognitive through Ruth Grant and the hermeneutic through Rob Reich who draws on Hans-Georg Gadamer’s notion of a fusion of horizons. Each form of dialogue is linked to a particular understanding of affect that can be seen to influence educators’ understanding of how to tap into the transformative potential of students, especially in classes where issues of social justice and difference are addressed. Broadly speaking, the affective
sphere indicates the human being’s capacity for receptivity, and the phenomena of one experiencing a surrender of agency; of being moved, stirred, or excited by that which is not the self.1 I argue that the conceptions of affect within the cognitive and hermeneutic forms of dialogue are limited in that the movement of the not-self can be seen to revert back to the self or the Same, resulting in educators envisioning their educational arrangements and pedagogies in ways that may elide or stunt their students’ transformative potential.2 My purpose is not to argue for a wholesale rejection of dialogue as a means to facilitate students’ transformative capacity, but to merely map out some of the difficulties for a transformative education with the above two forms of dialogue.