The World of SPLectrum
Home > Positioning > Subjects > Dialogism
Dialogism
Dialogism is the body of thought developed by Mikhail Bakhtin and the circle of thinkers around him in the Soviet Union of the 1920s. Its founding conviction is that meaning is never the work of a single voice. The real unit of language is not the word or the sentence but the utterance — an act of speech by someone, addressed to someone, answering what came before and anticipating a response — and every utterance is shaped through and through by its orientation toward others. Language lives in the exchange between speakers, not in the abstract structures of grammar nor in the privacy of an individual mind. From this principle the Circle built a philosophy of language, a sociology of the sign, a theory of the novel, and an account of culture, and the principle itself — that to mean is to be in dialogue — has spread across the humanities more widely than almost any idea of its century.
The tradition is also unusual in being genuinely collective, and contested in its very authorship. It is the work of a circle, not a single author; its central texts were published under several names; and the question of who wrote what is part of the subject rather than a footnote to it.
The Circle
The Bakhtin Circle formed after the Revolution in the provincial towns of Nevel and Vitebsk and reassembled in Leningrad through the 1920s, an informal community of friends meeting to discuss philosophy, language, literature, and religion. Besides Bakhtin its members included the linguist and Marxist theorist Valentin Voloshinov and the literary scholar Pavel Medvedev, along with the philosopher Matvei Kagan, the literary scholar Lev Pumpyansky, the musicologist Ivan Sollertinsky, and others. They shared a set of problems and a common cast of thought, and the works that came out of the Circle draw on that shared world even where they bear an individual name.
The conditions were punishing. The Circle dispersed at the end of the 1920s as Soviet cultural life closed down: Bakhtin was arrested in 1928 and exiled to Kazakhstan; Medvedev was shot in the Great Terror in 1938; Voloshinov died of tuberculosis in 1936. The work survived in fragments, suppressed or unpublished for decades, and reached the world only after its authors were dead or silenced — which is part of why its transmission, and its attribution, are so tangled.
The dialogic word
At the centre of the tradition is the dialogic conception of language. The word, for Bakhtin, is never neutral or one’s own alone: it comes to the speaker already used, already saturated with the intentions and accents of others — “the word in language is half someone else’s.” Every utterance answers prior utterances and addresses an anticipated response; it is a link in a chain, and its meaning is made in the chain, not in any single link. This holds not only for conversation but for writing and even for inner thought, which is carried on in words that bear the traces of others’ use. Addressivity (the quality of being directed to an addressee) and answerability (the utterance’s responsiveness and responsibility) are built into language as such.
From this follow the tradition’s signature concepts. Heteroglossia (raznorechie) names the stratification of any living language into many social voices — of class, profession, generation, region, moment — each carrying its own evaluations, so that a national language is not one system but a contending plurality. Double-voiced discourse is speech that carries two accents at once, as in parody, irony, or stylisation, where another’s word is both used and held at a distance. Against all this stands monologue — discourse that admits no other voice and claims a single authority — which the Circle treated not as language’s natural state but as a reduction of it.
Voloshinov and the philosophy of language
The Circle’s most systematic account of language is Voloshinov’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929). It rejects the two reigning schools — the abstract objectivism of Saussure’s structural linguistics, which makes the abstract system primary, and the individualistic subjectivism descending from Humboldt, which makes language the expression of an individual mind — in favour of an account centred on the social utterance. Its decisive moves are that the sign is ideological (every sign carries social value and refracts a reality from a social position) and multiaccentual (the same sign serves opposed interests and so “becomes an arena of the class struggle”), and that consciousness itself is a kind of inner speech, social all the way down. The fuller treatment of these arguments belongs to Voloshinov’s own page; within the tradition they are the bridge between the dialogic principle and a materialist theory of the sign.
Pavel Medvedev’s The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928) supplied the Circle’s reckoning with Russian Formalism: a critique that credited the Formalists with taking the literary work seriously as a made thing while faulting them for severing it from the social life of which, on the Circle’s view, literary form is a part.
Polyphony, chronotope, carnival
Bakhtin’s own major work carried dialogism into the theory of literature. In Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (1929; revised 1963) he found in Dostoevsky a polyphonic novel, in which the characters’ voices are not subordinated to a controlling authorial truth but sound as a plurality of fully weighted, unmerged consciousnesses. In the essays of the 1930s he developed heteroglossia as the defining feature of the novel as a genre, and the chronotope — the specific configuration of time and space that a genre projects. And in Rabelais and His World (written around 1940, published 1965) he recovered carnival and the carnivalesque: the festive culture of reversal, laughter, and the grotesque body that suspends official hierarchy and keeps alive a sense that the established order is not the only one possible. These analyses are treated in depth on Bakhtin’s page; here they matter as the literary face of the dialogic principle.
The authorship question
The Circle’s collective character became, from the 1970s, a genuine scholarly dispute. Beginning with the semiotician Vyacheslav Ivanov, it was claimed that the books published under Voloshinov’s and Medvedev’s names were in substance the work of Bakhtin, who had let others sign them. Bakhtin neither confirmed nor denied the claim. The evidence is thin and largely anecdotal — reported conversations, an alleged copyright declaration, against lost manuscripts — and the scholarly balance has shifted: many now follow Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson in holding that Voloshinov and Medvedev wrote their own books, while others maintain Bakhtin’s authorship and a third position treats the texts as the collaborative product of the Circle. The dispute is unresolved, and resolving it is less important to the subject than registering what it reveals — that this is a tradition whose thought genuinely belonged to a group, so that the line between “Bakhtin” and “the Circle” cannot be cleanly drawn.
The afterlife
Bakhtin’s rediscovery by younger Soviet scholars in the early 1960s coincided with his discovery in the West. Julia Kristeva introduced him to French theory in the late 1960s and coined intertextuality out of his dialogism — the idea that every text is “a mosaic of quotations,” woven from other texts. Tzvetan Todorov’s Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle (1981) gave the work a synthetic French reading, and the English translations and studies of Michael Holquist, Caryl Emerson, and Gary Saul Morson carried it into the Anglophone academy. From there dialogism, heteroglossia, polyphony, the chronotope, and the carnivalesque passed into literary theory, cultural and media studies, linguistics and discourse analysis, anthropology, and beyond — among the most widely borrowed vocabularies the humanities possess.
Where dialogism stops
Dialogism is a tradition of luminous concepts more than a system, and by its own commitments it could hardly be otherwise. Bakhtin’s principle of unfinalisability — that no person, and no meaning, can be summed up and closed — is turned against the very idea of a finished theory, so the tradition offers a family of richly suggestive, elastic categories rather than a doctrine with fixed definitions and testable claims. This is its ethical signature and the reason it has been taken up almost everywhere; it is also why its key terms, stretched across so many fields, have been applied more often than they have been pinned down.
Its analysis is richest at the scale of the utterance and the meeting of voices, and thinner on the durable structures that carry language beyond the face-to-face encounter. The institutions, traditions, and political orders through which utterances are organised and sustained over time are named in the tradition — carnival as a counter-culture, the novel as a genre — more than they are theorised; the passage from the dialogue between voices to the standing arrangements of a society is gestured at rather than built. Dialogism gave an incomparably rich account of what happens between speakers; what holds the conversation of a whole culture in place, and how it changes, it largely left to others to describe.
Persons
See also: Semiotics · Structuralism · Hermeneutics