Abstract
In her thoughtful essay, Shilpi Sinha raises important questions about the potential of dialogue to tap into the transformative capacities of students, enabling them to expand their understandings of others. In considering the transformative potential of Ruth Grant’s cognitive dialogue and Rob Reich’s hermeneutic dialogue, Sinha faults both for relying on conceptions of affect that do not successfully engage the not-self but rather refer back to the self. I consider whether Sinha does enough to establish that each form of dialogue in fact fails to meet her conception of affect, and then I conclude by asking whether she sets the bar for transformative education so high that it is unlikely or perhaps impossible to attain.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
