Away from monologue towards a polylogue
It seems that we have forgotten the eloquent title of the leading newspaper of Lithuania 25 years ago. Published until 1994, the newspaper was called Tiesa (The Truth), and claimed a monopoly on the only “right” truth. It represented the attempt by Soviet society and the state to consolidate a monologue culture.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since that time, and Lithuania has changed.
We can describe the change as a journey from a closed one-truth society to an open pluralist one. Many lances have been broken and many decisions made under pressure from the inside as well as the outside. Lithuania has joined international organizations and alliances. Reforms have been attempted and sometimes successfully accomplished in many public sector areas. The “independence generation” has grown up.
Yet, have we reached the end goal of the journey? Is our society open?
Is it achievable? What is the open society of today’s Lithuania? Have we shifted from a monologue to dialogue, or maybe even a polylogue culture?
This article focuses on the polylogue culture, a fundamental feature and a goal of contemporary open society, and the reality thereof in Lithuania.
Dr. Vytautas Kavolis, a social thinker of Lithuanian origin, created the polylogue concept. He applied it in the context of the comparative study of civilizations to emphasize the diversity of their values, aims and means of action.
Dr. Vytautas Kavolis, a social thinker of Lithuanian origin, created the polylogue concept. He applied it in the context of the comparative study of civilizations to emphasize the diversity of their values, aims and means of action.
Coined by Kavolis, the notion of the polylogue of civilizations is applicable to today’s societies where social groups stay in permanent transformation based on their diversity of opinions.
These processes are visible in Lithuanian society. Collecting signatures for petitions is one example of how advocates of different ideologies and political beliefs can join forces to oppose violence against children or to defend a woman’s choice between giving and not giving birth. By doing so, they practice freedom of expression and demonstrate their values.
Kavolis used the term of “tolerance” to describe a dialogue. Tolerating another’s opinion is not sufficient, since, as critics of an open society claim, a “thanks for sharing” response is the only outcome of merely listening without inclusion or participation, let alone empowerment. Too often, the “thanks for sharing” response fails to address the next question of: “So, what? What is the alternative? Is this the only right truth?”
An abundance of voices longing for only a “correct” opinion in our public realm leads to a question on whether we are on the right track. All levels of society are affected by a shortage of public discussion. An inability to discuss, to look for common ground and to define conflicting positions affect each of us, with an impact on the quality of our co-existence.
Rather than producing innovations, an imitation of a discussion with fake or imaginary divisions only drags us down to the bottom of the ladder. To put it differently, quite often we limit a discussion to an exchange of opinions, followed by a return to our “bubbles”.
Certainly, an ability to exchange opinions is a step ahead compared to a monologue culture where self-expression could easily lead to ending up in a mental hospital ward or a disciplinary cell. However, is it enough to enable an opponent to speak out without being ready to hear, understand and empower?
The historian William R. Hutchison covered the need to go beyond tolerance in contemporary societies. Having analyzed the history of religious pluralism in the US, he outlined three types and stages thereof: tolerance, inclusion and participation.
Tolerance constitutes the first level of religious pluralism. The scholar highlighted the period of tolerating the existence of various religious groups, marked by the co-existence of Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Jews with no interaction. Inclusion, the second type of Hutchison-described religious pluralism, was about deliberate involvement of concurrent groups in religion-related decisions, with power-holders involving excluded groups into discussions. Yet, according to Hutchison, inclusion alone is not enough either, since the excluded groups must also demonstrate a will to contribute to the common well-being. The third type of religious pluralism that came later was that of participation, with religious minorities taking an active role in co-creating public life.
The stages of religious pluralism described by Hutchison are applicable in the broader context of opinion pluralism in today’s communities. To paraphrase Kavolis’ point on a dialogue as a synonym for tolerance, we can label polylogue as one for inclusion and participation.
In other words, polylogue promoters aspire to involve as many opinions as possible and to ensure the participants’ meaningful participation by actually listening to and hearing the opponents. Well beyond two clashing viewpoints, the diversity of opinions in current societies covers an entire spectrum of stances. Including everyone who has articulated positions and ensuring their conscious participation is the essence of a polylogue.
In this way, a polylogue transforms itself into a culture that permeates and empowers society. Just like an open society, the polylogue culture is always in process and can never be complete.
