Numer 8/2014

Temat numeru: Dialog, komunikacja, pedagogika

Number 8/2014

Issue Topic: Dialogue, communication, education

List of abstracts

This article is an introduction to the philosophy of dialogue and communication. In the first part the central focus of discussion is the thought of Martin Buber, the problematic nature of the relation between “I” and “you” as well as the problem of responsibility. The conditions which should be fulfilled by real dialogue are also pointed out. Not every form of expression may be considered as such. Certain varieties of communication may assume the appearance of dialogue while not in fact being dialogue. Next, pedagogical moments of dialogue will be demonstrated along with the principle of partnership between subjects, which makes understanding possible. The article concludes with a presentation of dialogue and communication in the context of humanistic psychology, psychiatry and social economics, human capital and tolerance.
This work, referring to dialogical thought, concentrates on the philosophical category of speech as well as its resulting pedagogical implications. Speech appears here as an opening up of human existence towards that which is outside, and mankind himself as res loquens (listener and speaker), and not res cogitans (a solitary thinker). Taken in this sense, at the centre of the world of the human word there appears an existential drama defined by the reality of the listener and speaker. This is because the experience of human speech always means a need for the subject to play the role of questioner and answerer; the need to utter his or her “yes” or “no”.  Speech is also something which surrounds and pervades human existence, as it is not speech which resides in mankind, but mankind in speech. It is also for this reason that the anthropological formula res loquens should be recognized as a fundamental pedagogical category. For in its deepest sense, pedagogical influence refers us above all to the dialogical phenomenon of speech – speaking to others and answering others.
The problem formulated in the title is expressed in the author’s attempt to get closer to the specific “movement of thought” which would provide a clue as to what dialogue as a unique existential foundation manifests itself in and what neutralizes it or, rather, what is its complete opposite. Dialogue carries with it its own form of perception and understanding of the sense of what is one’s own and foreign, internal and external; this is a logic of the order of interpersonal states of things as well as of the dependencies and connections arising between them, which by this same measure underscore the possibility of possessing oneself (one’s own individuality), as well as of going beyond oneself towards others (readiness to act for others’ sake and in the name of/as a substitute for others). In this sense, it is possible to differentiate basic types of subjective representations (representation of oneself and representation of others) as well as their qualitative dimensions. Meanwhile, through examining the dialogical problem of forms of representation, one may point out various specific forms of correctness, peculiar algorithms of the world of human affairs and their accompanying relationships as well as specific examples describing the dialogical space of intersubjective relations.
The article deals with communication in the work of a physiotherapist. First, the question of communication as such is presented. Such aspects of communication have been singled out as: the speaker, the listener, code, interaction and others. In the communicative process, the role of imagination, outlook, exaggerations, thought patterns, etc. which have an influence on the quality of communication have all been highlighted. In the article, two basic aspects of communication are also considered: verbal and non-verbal. Next, the following problems are taken up: ethno-cultural principles in communication, the role of autonomy in the patient-physiotherapist relationship, the patient’s attitude towards physiotherapy and to his or her own illness as well as the physiotherapist’s attitude towards the patient as a member of medical personnel.  In further parts of the article, communication is discussed — as the title suggests — as a therapeutic tool in work with the patient. The article concludes with an enumeration and discussion of the most important barriers to and errors in communication.

The article concerns selected methods of communication of the physiotherapist with the patient. Discussed first are such characteristics of communication as: the speaker, message, channel, listener, interference, context and feedback. Next, features of the communication process which depend upon the communicative situation are discussed; that is: intentionality, relationality, awareness, interpretative quality, irreversibility, dynamism, creativity, transactional quality and inevitability. The next part of the article is devoted to a discussion of methods of communication in physiotherapy, such as: the interview, touch and vocal intonation. The article concludes with some notes for physiotherapists which may prove useful in perfecting communicative skills in patient relations.

Dialogue is an essential means of establishing appropriate contact between the doctor and patient. Professional ethics and the deeply-developed sense of empathy that goes alongside them allow the doctor to go beyond “invisible barriers” and enter a deeper sphere of human existence – the sphere of the soul, which is the principle space of dialogue in the mystery of suffering, dying and death.

In the dehumanizing process of modern medicine, it is typical for the doctor and not the sick patient to decide the role of illness and suffering, though it should be the reverse. The patient is brought down to the level of an object, to a unit of illness which must be diagnosed, treated and in such a way allowing the doctor to notch up another potential success.

Dialogue or the isolation of the ill, suffering and dying person are the real test of not only the medical ethos, but also of humanity and culture built by mankind (including the ill and dying), broadly understood. Only a personally detailed and soulful dialogue on hope and the meaning of suffering provides a chance for affirmation of the art of healing in the doctor-patient relationship.

Searching for the ideal of the doctor in his or her behaviour towards a dying person, it is necessary to point out the existence of an absolute ethical standard, unchanged for centuries and concerning not only doctors, but every human being. This is why the doctor’s ability to enter into personalistic dialogue, which brings the dying patient into a world of transcendental, and thus unbreakable values, opening a new horizon in front of him or her of the new prospect of an eternal dimension of life makes, at this critical and at the same time decisive moment, his or her life possible, and allows him or her to achieve hope and faith. This is not only about religious faith, but also (and perhaps first and foremost) faith in mankind, the belief that one is not left alone, and for everything which is ill, in the overwhelming suffering which he or she experiences there is a deep meaning not only for the ill person, but also for the people surrounding him or her, including the doctor himself.

Personalistic medical ethics are able to ensure authentic dialogue between the doctor and patient. The current crisis of humanity, values and interpersonal dialogue inclines us even more to accept the personalistic model of dialogue in medicine.

This article is concerned with educational problems of those who have immigrated to Great Britain. It begins with a discussion of the issues related to bilingualism and adaptation to new educational conditions. Next, an attempt is made to understand the essential elements of the British model of education, which contrasts theoretical and practical skills, and some attention is paid to the individual aspect of teaching and learning. The article concludes with a closer look at the structure of the English educational system.