Dialogic emergence and the monologic imagination of culture/society
Anthropology is one of the social sciences that attempts to explain various aspects of human life to understand the evolutionary origins and patterns. While describing culture, anthropologists have categorized culture into dialogic emergence and monologic imagination. When one thinks that a specific group of people speak with one voice, anthropology sees it as a monologic culture. Dialogic emergence comes out from the word dialogue, which means to converse. Therefore, dialogic development refers to the engagement and interactions that occur among people in society, which classifies them with a specific culture.
In his book, Looking Like Language, sounding like a Race, Rosa Jonathan has highlighted some of the features that distinctly compare monologic imagination and dialogic emergence (Rosa, 2019). According to the author, language and identity are inseparable, and they help in creating a specific identifiable culture. The works of Mikhail has made other people in society to see the issues in social life as dialogical. No one can speak to himself since words that people talk are influenced by other people or events. Monologic imagination focusses on language as a major contributor to the creation of culture while dialogic emergence combines both language, history, and other elements in the creation and development of a culture.
In dialogic emergence, various issues such as societal practices, linguistic practices, fashion designs, and music contribute to the development of a specific culture. For example, the author denotes in Mendoza’s case, that girls in the North and those in the South stereotype one another as of either US orient or American orient. On the other hand, monologic imaginations address issues that arise from the idea of a single individual. They may not involve the interaction and stereotyping ideas of one society over the other.
Since dialogic emergence involves the dialogue between individuals, it leads to the development of a culture of peace and sharing as individuals can express their ideas to other people in society. Monologic imagination, on the other hand, makes people keep to themselves as they are not willing to share ideas with other people.
The two ideologies have certain similarities. Some of the similarities in dialogic emergence and monologic imagination include responsivity. In this case, all ideologies in both terms have some casual relationship to the environment with specific communicative actions. Additionally, most cultural acts in both ideologies aim at addressing a particular person or situation. The person or situation under discussion may be real or imaginary. Most actions in both ideologies presuppose a history or something that has occurred prior. The activities also rely on communicative languages which form the sociocultural practices. It is, therefore, clear that dialogic emergence relies on communication to develop a culture with interactivity.
In conclusion, both monologic imagination and dialogic emergence contribute to the formation of a culture. The monologic activities occur in a dialogic cultural setup. It is not very easy to eliminate them from society. Anthropology has structures that enable it to identify a community based on the ideologies that have formed it. Although there are dynamics, most of the conditions in monologic imagination and dialogic emergence apply in the formation of a culture.
Reference
Rosa, J. (2019). Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race. Oxf Studies in Anthropology.