Page 13 of 23
 Kochubeynyk O. CONFINED SPACES: 
SYMPTOMS OF NON-DIALOGIUNESS 
DISCOURSE 

Kochubeynyk O., Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Senior Research Officer, Head of the Laboratory of Psychology communicate Institute of Social and Political Psychology of NAPS Ukraine 

Abstract 

The article proves the need for social and psychological support of various procedures for the effective construction of social dialogue. It is argued it is a tool for achieving a conflict-free coexistence of different groups and mechanism for resolving «problem areas» in the space of their life together. The author believes that modern society consists of different discourse community. A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals.Each discourse community has its own unwritten rules about what can be said and how it can be said. Most people move within and between different discourse communities every day. The author notes social dialogue is one of constructive responses to the challenges of modernity that arise due to increasing cultural diversity. Further, the author analyzes in detail the obstacles that arise as a result of the radicalization of discourse (its non-dialogueness). The article pointed out that the common denominator of all forms of non-dialogic discourse is the need to protect the «correct» picture of the world. This leads to substantial reconstruction of the main parameters of meaning and sense reproduction that construct this picture. The author also claims that the isolated symptoms should be seen as different manifestations of this protection.
As a conclusion, the author emphasizes that the main source of difficulties in social dialogue (which is contrary to the idea of cooperation) is agonistic discourse. She argues that social dialogue as communicative practice which carried out among communities of modern society is rather ambiguous. On the one hand, it should enrich the sociality, making different discourses through its various articulations, while helping relieve contradiction «friend or foe» (cooperation). On the other hand, it tends (due to agonality of discourse) to sharp expansion, resulting in absorption other ones.

Keywords:  conflict;  discourse agonality;  discursive boundary cooperation;  social dialogue.

References
  1. Balabanova N. V. Sotsialnyi dialoh. Sotsialne partnerstvo. Sotsialna derzhava [Social dialogue. Social partnership. The welfare state] /N. V. Balabanova – K. : Vyd-vo Akademii pratsi ta sotsialnykh vidnosyn, 2002. – 189 s. (ukr).
  2. Debord G. Obshhestvo spektaklja [The Society of the Spectacle] / G. Debord– M.: Logos, 2000. – 224 s. (rus).
  3. Zhukov B. Sotsialne partnerstvo v Ukraini : navch. posib. [Social Partnership in Ukraine] / B. Zhukov – K. : Vyd-vo UADU, 2001. – 120 s. (ukr).
  4. Kochubeynyk O. M. Sotsialnyi dialoh yak komunikatyvna praktyka suspilstva [Social dialogue as communicative practice of society] / O. M. Kochubeynyk // 10×20 : Zbirnyk naukovykh prats / NAPN Ukrainy, In-t sotsialnoi ta politychnoi psykholohii. – K. : Lira-K, 2014. – S. 65-74. (ukr).
  5. Kochubeynyk O. M. Sotsialnyi dialoh: sotsialni ta psykholohichni peredumovy komunikatyvnosti [Social dialogue: social and psychological conditions of communicativeness] / O. M. Kochubeynyk// Naukovi studii iz sotsialnoi ta politychnoi psykholohii. – 2014. – №34 (37). – S. 150-160 (ukr).
  6. Spencer H. Nauchnye osnovanija nravstvennosti [The Evolution of Morality] / H. Spencer – M.: Izd-vo LKI, 2008. – 336 s. (rus).
 Full Text: PDF (ukr)