Social Dialogue as a Problem and Prerequisite for Mediation

Abstract

The article examines the efficacy of social dialogue as a mechanism for addressing societal issues. While social dialogue was once viewed with great optimism, its effectiveness has waned in recent years, despite participants employing various persuasive strategies. The study distinguishes between two forms of dialogue: formal and substantive (productive), emphasizing that only the latter genuinely catalyzes shifts in participants’ perspectives. By analyzing historical examples and contemporary cases, the study identifies key factors that influence the success of social communication. Employing J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, the article frames dialogue not merely as an exchange of information but as a form of social action, where the utterances of participants are performative, possessing the power to directly transform social reality. A historical case study is presented, examining the dialogue between Western-oriented Russian liberals who viewed their nation as socially and economically backward, and thinkers who challenged this assessment, perceiving Russia’s unique spiritual potential to address pan-European challenges. The statements of P.Ya. Chaadaev and F.M. Dostoevsky are analyzed as performative acts that shaped a new vision of Russia’s role in world history. Additionally, the author explores the role of identity in social dialogue, showing through examples from the lives of A.S. Pushkin and M.I. Tsvetaeva how identity structures can influence one’s openness or resistance to personal transformation in the face of internal conflict. The study hypothesizes that dialogue effectiveness correlates with participants’ ability to integrate new values into their identity without compromising its core. Furthermore, the author argues that rhetorical commitment to mediation alone is insufficient for bridging deep social divides and examines the historical social conditions required for effective mediation, such as a shared cultural foundations, formal dialogue platforms, robust legal frameworks, and flexible power structures. In conclusion, the author considers the question of whether it is inherently possible to create effective mechanisms for social dialogue under the current conditions of globalization and information society.