Skip to main content

Operationalizing Dialogue Theory



In ‘Dialogue Theory in Marginalized Settings: A Subaltern Studies Approach’, (Dutta and Pal, 2010) propose that dialog in marginalized settings can be used to question the co-optation of subaltern populations into neoliberal agendas, and secondly dialogue can be used as a resistive strategy to engage the subaltern with the spaces of knowledge production that are inaccessible to them. The authors emphasize the importance sincerely listening to subaltern voices, finding the alternative knowledge claims that disrupt neoliberal hegemony and building solidarity with the subaltern.

This approach to dialogue theory in marginalized settings has immense potential to bring about change in the ways knowledge is created and practiced in the academe as well as in society where the Eurocentric civil society maintains hegemony over public opinion and public discourse. Yet, when operationalizing this approach to dialogue theory, certain peculiar issues occur. The subaltern, traditionally marginalized and subjugated, finds herself to be incapable of putting her thoughts in words. In fact language and words are themselves tools in the hands of hegemonic knowledge structure. Yet, this is not to suggest that dialogue is not possible in marginalized settings, but to suggest that bodily presence in the field by a researcher is necessary along with verbal dialogue. I believe embodied dialogue is important for more reasons that one. Besides the fact that the subaltern is often not equipped to articulate her thoughts, she also communicates through body language.


I believe Culture-Centered Approach proposes a way out of the seeming impossibilities, or rather, difficulties in operationalizing the dialogue theory. The CCA speaks about foregrounding the ‘dynamic, contextually situated, and active role of culture as a site of constructing alternative epistemologies that offer alternative rationalities for organizing life worlds’ (Dutta, 2012). I find that there is an acknowledgement of multiple and diverse forms of communication in this approach as it foregrounds ‘dynamic’ nature of culture, emphasizes the ‘sites’ of contestation, and speaks about understanding the ‘life worlds’ which are more complex than what a verbal communicative process can capture.

Popular posts from this blog

The whiteness of binaries that erase the Global South: On Communicative Inversions and the invitation to Vijay Prashad in Aotearoa

When I learned through my activist networks that the public intellectual Vijay Prashad was coming to Aotearoa, I was filled with joy. In my early years in the U.S., when learning the basics of the struggle against the fascist forces of Hindutva, I came in conversation with Vijay's work. Two of his critical interventions, the book, The Karma of Brown Folk , and the journal article " The protean forms of Yankee Hindutva " co-authored with Biju Matthew and published in Ethnic and Racial Studies shaped my early activism. These pieces of work are core readings in understanding the workings of Hindutva fascism and how it mobilizes cultural tropes to serve fascist agendas. Much later, I felt overjoyed learning about his West Bengal roots and his actual commitment to the politics of the Left, reflected in the organising of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a political register that shaped much of my earliest lessons around Global South resistance, collectivization, and orga...
Read more

Libertarianism, the Free Speech Union, and the Life of Disinformation

The rise of the far-right globally is intertwined with the globally networked power of libertarian think tanks, funded at the base by the global extractive industries . In this blog post, through an analysis of the disinformation-based campaign I have personally experienced since October 2023 mobilised by the communicative ecosystem of the Free Speech Union (FSU), I will attend to the lifecycle of disinformation in libertarian networks, arguing that the disinformation ecosystem is invested in upholding both white supremacy and extractive capital. The FSU’s investment in disinformation I argue that the FSU is invested in producing and circulating disinformation. In response to my analysis of the hypocrisy of the Free Speech Union (FSU) that positions itself as a champion of free speech in Aotearoa while one of its co-founders, council members and spokespersons David Cumin (who is also one of the key actors representing Israel Institute of New Zealand) actively targets the freedom of a...
Read more

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute ...
Read more