Journal Review

Running head : JOURNAL REVIEWJournal ReviewClient s NameUniversity AffiliationJournal ReviewA Failed Dialogue ? Revisiting the 1975 Meeting of Gregory Bateson and Carl RogersBrief SummaryOn may 28 , 1975 , Gregory Bateson and Carl Rogers engaged in a much-awaited chat intentional to follow the precedents set by earlier duologues . The 1975 negotiation failed the expectations of umpteen , and went down in history as a inferior event However , Cissna and Anderson claim in their article A Failed Dialogue that the said parley was non as worse as it was decl atomic number 18d to be . As a matter of fact , the authors posit that the intercourse showed the insights of Bateson and Rogers and satisfied two of the master(a) expectations for dialogic conference namely the extension of important ideas into new territories and the erudition and friendliness of important distinctions between the ideas of the participants in the dialogue (Cissna AndersonAfter winning a second look at the words verbalise at the dialogue , Cissna and Anderson conclude that while the dialogue is slight than ensample , it was a manifestation of the laudable functions of a dialogue , much(prenominal)(prenominal) as clarification of disagreements and discovery of agreed pointsCommentary and QuestionsThe ca-ca of Cissna and Anderson go throughs to the formulation of several observations and closures . First , the authors illustrated the relevance and utility of victorious a second look at things . It should be known that the dialogue that is subject of their article had been condemned by the participants and the audience as a failure despite this , the authors deemed it best to reconsider and plant that the dialogue had several redeeming characteristics . It is clear that second chances argon important and they al low the opportunity to discover something th! at was not seen beforeSecond , the authors commove off forward several signifi tusht changes in the path that a dialogue must be taken .

A dialogue should not be judged using erroneous standards , such as persuasive power and effect . A dialogue cannot be considered a failed one merely because one caller did not succeed in convincing the some some other of the merits of his position . frankincense according to the authors , two criteria must be used to check up on the success of a dialogue , which atomic number 18 extension and distinctionThe authors lead one to perplexity , the real routine of a dialogue . Does it aim to prepare a new truth or expose a wrong interpretation or conclusion made by one of the participants ? Is an ideal dialogue actually possible and if yes , how can this ideal dialogue be achieved ? How is a dialogue adjudged to wee been a success or a failure ? Who are the persons who should judge such success or failureThese questions that are provoke by the article written by Cissna and Anderson break the habitual misconceptions of the public about the nature and purpose of a dialogue . They also bring light to the other functions of a dialogue which , when considered , will make a evidently failed dialogue a success through the use of a different set...If you neediness to get a full essay, articulate it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper