This analysis reveals ethical choices and exposes injustice in dialogue, suggesting that power dynamics influence communication outcomes.
Genuine dialogue seems to require sincere commitment to reciprocal questioning. This view is reinforced by the idea of reciprocal elucidation, which tempts us to see it as binary: both engage, and understanding flows; one refuses, and nothing happens. This makes it seem that real dialogue depends on the other's ethical choice. I challenge that intuition. Instead, I propose that by adopting an externalist view, we can see that dialogue reveals the character of its participants, regardless of intent. Thus, rightly understood, reciprocal elucidation isn’t confined to ideal cooperation—it can expose injustice and asymmetry, even when one party manipulates or withholds meaning. Its power lies beyond mutual consent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshua Nichols (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: