In educational discourse dialogue tends to be viewed as being (morally) superior to monologue. When we look at them as basic forms of communication, we find that dialogue is a two-way, one-to-one form and monologue is a one-way, one-to-many form. In this paper I revisit the alleged (moral) superiority of dialogue. First, I problematize certain normative features of dialogue, most notably reciprocity. Here I use Socrates as my example (the Phaedrus). Second, I discuss monologue, using Jesus as my example (St. Luke’s gospel). I argue that there are values in the monological form that tend to be overlooked and unrecognized, for example the freedom of the audience not to respond.
I should like to point out that I have not argued that as of now we should stop dialoguing, stop discussing or stop using question-answer sequences. Nor have I argued that as of now we should use monologues as sole form of communication. What I have done, is to problematize certain features of the normative dialogue model, and to argue that monologues have values we should not overlook. Dialogues are two-way and monologues are one-way, and in education as well as in everyday life we employ both forms of communication.
Learning Change 