The Dialogue Space
Gizem Özer Özgür
Published Apr 14, 2021
The fact that the environments in everyday life of an urban system are the regions experienced by the subjects and they contain different lifestyles and multilayered cultural and social structures is what “the speech act means in language and in statements added into the language” (De Certeau, 1984). Life strengthens the time- space relationship and establishes a dynamic structure within the networks of social relations. This enables us to repetitively perform the analysis of everyday life practices at different layers of production processes of spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). Similarly, the dynamical structure of speech-based practices occurs in a world/location, where the characters play role in and where the events and spaces actively participate in and which are open to change and placed within the time. The experience emerging through the vales within the sociality emerging during the conversations between the individuals via open-ended dialogue means is social, as well as it is very personal; so, it is very dynamic. Dialogue dimension of the dialogue space emphasizes the open and multiple nature of dialogue establishments at the level of conversations and the private or – such as regularity – social formations. In the dialogue space, the dialogue, which is characterized by its potential arising from the conflicts and differences without the clear mandatory resolution is very reflective and embodied. The dialogic dimension is the point, where the social formations and the dialogue space production become visible around the establishment of conversation. In the union of individuals included in the dialogue due to wider social formations and space production, the effects, limitations, and opportunities are experienced in an unexpectedly repeatable way; thus, the dialogue space does never lose its dynamism. Considering the dynamical structure of it, the Space dimension of the dialogue space is not a constant or hierarchical space. On the contrary, this space dimension is socially and culturally very important as space - by borrowing the Derrida’s (1976) term “spacing” - for counter-possibilities, where the conceptual, emotional, affective, identity and other searches can be made.
The dialogue space, where the actions are taken locally, as an observable, decodable, and photogenic “moment” during the movement cannot be degraded to a tailored sample. But, at this point, what is recommended with this conceptual expansion is to articulate the open-ended dialogue establishment means, the transcription of the action itself, and the theoretical connections in the way. That allows us to understand the characteristics of the dialogue spaces constantly changing, transforming, and having the potential of working. It should also be expressed that, the production of the dialogue spaces is not homogenous. Depending on the everyday life and many conditions (economic, political, cultural, etc.), it has a non-linear character. Which spatial or temporal layer transformed another one during the production or under which circumstances the spatial practice gains functionality against the sociocultural and social formations, are the results of specific conditions of that city. So, we could say that there is a “reciprocal” relationship between socialization and spatiality. Following this idea, we argue that the establishment of dialogue would not only ensure the social construction of spatiality but also the spatial construction of socialization. We propose that the social spatiality that occurs in everyday life through the “reciprocity” and is formed over the real, natural, and overlapping dialogues creates the dialogue spaces. Thus the dialog spaces have the potential to reveal the difference, complexity, variation, and coincidence network that is hidden in the “attitude, habit, and implementations” of everyday life which normally seems ordinary, uniform, and uninterested. Based on “the dialogue space” by discussing the distinguishing characteristic of open-ended dialogues (conversation) as an everyday life practice in terms of social spatiality, we can understand and begin to map the instrumentalism of dialogue in the processes of (re)production of space.
BORLANDI, M., BOUDON R., CHERKAOUI, M., VALADE, B. (2011) (ed.) Sosyolojik Düşünce Sözlüğü [Dictionary of Sociological Thought]. Trans. by Bülent Arıbaş, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.
DE CERTEAU, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DEGENNE, A., FORSÉ, M. (1999). Introducing Social Networks. London, SAGE Publications.
DERRIDA, J. (1976). Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore,Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
LEFEBVRE, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK, Blackwell.
SCHEGLOFF, E.A. (1972). "Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place." In D.N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York, Free Press.