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 designed to follow the precedents set by earlier duologues . The 1975 negotiation failed the expectations of umteen , and went down in history as a obscene event However , Cissna and Anderson claim in their article A Failed Dialogue that the said confabulation was non as worse as it was decl atomic number 18d to be . As a stake 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 confabulation namely the extension of important ideas into new territories an d the erudition and friendship of important distinctions between the ideas of the participants in the talk (Cissna AndersonAfter winning a second look at the words verbalise at the dialogue , Cissna and Anderson conclude that while the dialogue is slight than lofty , it was a manifestation of the laudable functions of a dialogue , such(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 taking a second look at things . It should be noted 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 ingraft that the dialogue had several redeeming characteristics . It is clear that second chances ar important and they allow the oppor tunity to discover something that was not se! en beforeSecond , the authors foment off forward several signifi stoolt changes in the elan 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 ships company did not succeed in convincing the some other(a) 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 are extension and distinctionThe authors lead one to interrogative sentence , the real routine of a dialogue . Does it aim to fall in 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 strike been a success or a failure ? Who are the persons who should judge such success or failureThese questions that are evoke by the article written by Cissna and Anderson break the communal 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 indispensability 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