What Do You Mean, Discourse?

The term discourse is frequently used today and often garnished with the adjective "public". What exactly is discourse supposed to be? And why do we need it? Linguistically, the word discourse comes from Latin and can be translated as "walking around". In the humanities, discourse is a defined method of dealing with topics. Colloquially, the word is often equated with discussion. But while discussion tends to refer to a single conversation, discourse seems to me to be a longer-term debate in which the other party is not always known. Now that we have defined the word, the next question is how discourse works. What exactly does discourse mean in everyday or public life? Are there different methods of discourse? Are some of them better than others? Discourse can be conducted among those affected, behind closed doors, among experts, as well as among interested parties or even the general public. Discourse is conducted in direct dialogue via film and television, the press, articles and books, demonstrations and also through political elections and lobbying. Of course, there are also methods that are not based on the law, but we will leave these out here. The variety of ways to conduct a discourse is therefore overwhelming. However, it is important to realise that you do not have to master all methods and that you cannot be equally inclined towards all of them. Everyone has their preferences and everyone has their talents, so most of us automatically limit ourselves to a few selected methods of discourse. While one person feels comfortable in personal contact, another is more comfortable in the passive role of media consumer. Some people find it important to express their opinions on certain topics at every opportunity, while others tend to focus on those occasions when the conditions seem favourable to them. I have often heard disparaging or dismissive comments made about the nature of discourse. This is hardly ever helpful to the cause, but it is one of the many methods used to turn the other party into an opponent and silence them in the same breath. One example is so-called backroom discussions. People who are good at and favour this method of conducting discourse are often defamed as undemocratic or non-transparent. On the contrary, those who seek a public exchange of blows and are not afraid to speak unpleasant truths out loud are often accused of "washing dirty linen in the marketplace" or of being nest-builders. Both can be possible, of course, but on closer inspection they are usually not true - and the accusation is never helpful. On the contrary, society needs both methods because one problem can be brought closer to a solution in one way and the other in another. In addition, many topics or problems benefit from being discussed through several channels and methods in order to allow as many approaches as possible to be heard in the discourse. Let's go through some of the methods of discussion: Face-to-face dialogue The advantage of direct dialogue is obviously the personal contact and the wealth of non-verbal communication that is available to us. In addition, emotional content is easier to convey and everyone involved has many more opportunities to grasp the overall situation. The disadvantage is that with complex topics, the overall context often evaporates in such a setting. Individual participants in the discourse often lose sight of the bigger picture in a face-to-face discussion. (Don't ask me how I know...) Although this can also be an advantage in terms of an associative discussion, it is often difficult. In addition, face-to-face dialogue requires the highest degree of knowledge and the ability to reflect on the part of those involved. Even unspoken destructive ideas, thoughts or attitudes can easily block joint progress in a personal discussion. Discussion in groups Many of the same ideas apply here as for face-to-face dialogue. A larger audience allows some people to rise above themselves and scrutinise their contributions particularly carefully before expressing them. But emotions and feelings of recognition or lack thereof, vulnerability and devaluation can be amplified in a larger group. More trust is therefore needed for discussions in the group. Formalised verbal contributions The formalised exchange in individual, separate contributions, such as in interviews, at panel discussions or with the press, has other advantages and disadvantages. Here it is possible to present a position undisturbed in a flash, to respond calmly to a known objection or to introduce new strands of thought into the discussion without this being hindered by interruptions or destructive behaviour. This type of discourse requires a certain degree of rhetorical fluency. It enables the clear presentation of complex trains of thought and can lead to the containment of destructive feelings and attitudes. On the other hand, there is a greater distance between the individual participants in the discourse and the equally important emotional content can easily disappear behind a pseudo-objectivity. One characteristic that can be both an advantage and a disadvantage is that a larger audience requires a certain amount of courage, especially for personally relevant and emotionally charged statements. Publishing complex thoughts By this I mean contributions to discourse made in the form of books, articles or official documents. The obvious advantage is that authors of such contributions have sufficient time and leisure to illuminate various aspects of their thoughts and, if necessary, to address possible contradictions. This can invite us to immerse ourselves in the author's world of thought, which can be very beneficial for mutual understanding. This is the easiest method to document and archive. It can often be helpful to study a statement several times (and possibly together), which is possible here. The disadvantage is the complete decoupling from personal contact, which can have a negative impact on authenticity. For inexperienced readers, there is also the danger of considering arguments to be conclusive and good because they are in the overall context without mentioning important counter-arguments or even devaluing them. However, this aspect can be alleviated through practice. In addition, checking the source carefully also helps to counteract this effect. Elections and other sorting. Discourse can also be conducted by people assigning themselves to or joining certain opinion leaders without directly making their own contributions. The advantage of this is that even those of us who do not have in-depth knowledge or are not directly affected by the discourse topic can participate. The disadvantage is obviously that we run the risk of recklessly giving our voice to other people who are perhaps only superficially credible or whose intentions are unknown to me. Overall, however, it is a good thing that this method also exists, because none of us can be equally well versed in all the important issues. In all of this, experience has shown that it is easy to perceive the other person as an opponent, to feel hurt. We often react to things that are unspoken or unnoticed. But that shouldn't stop us from taking part in discourse, because we are all human and that's how we function. In our society, however, discourse is the seed from which the future grows. Every idea, every change, every law and every opportunity begins with a discourse in which we slowly reassure each other about what we need, what we can do and what we can tolerate. Ideally, the result is often a collection of (new) considerations and compromises. These make developments possible without crossing the boundaries of those who do not yet want to go down this path. At the same time, those who want change are not prevented from taking the path towards it. My recommendation is to familiarise yourself with the advantages of discourse and to develop them. This can avoid a lot of frustration because it prevents you from building at the wrong end and repeatedly disappointing expectations (your own and those of others). In my view, discourse is not something that needs to be scary, even if it is sometimes not easy to remain the best version of yourself or to put up with others who are not. But discourse is the seed of all development and therefore our best friend in a changing world in which many people are currently feeling and expressing their dissatisfaction. Let's throw ourselves into the fray, raise our voices confidently and don't despair if they are not always heard - others feel the same way.