دانشگاه اصفهان فنون ادبی 20088027 مقالات آماده انتشار 2026 04 05 A Critique of Bakhtin’s Logic of Dialogue Theory نقدی بر نظریۀ منطق مکالمۀ باختین 1 16 30341 10.22108/liar.2026.147020.2522 FA هادی طیطه دکتری تخصصی زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران فاطمه مدرسی استاد گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران Journal Article 2025 10 12 Mikhail Bakhtin is among the most influential thinkers in the fields of literary criticism and the philosophy of language in the twentieth century, who proposed the "logic of dialogue" as the core of his thought. This theory, by emphasizing polyphony, intertextuality, and the dialogic nature of language, has transformed our understanding of the phenomenon of dialogue and the formation of meaning. The present research, employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library sources, aims to critically examine the theoretical foundations of the logic of dialogue and its implications in the field of literary criticism. The findings of the research indicate that although this theory is rich and revolutionary philosophically and aesthetically, it faces fundamental challenges such as ambiguity in the definition of dialogue and neglect of the role of power relations in the realm of discourse. Furthermore, this theory is deficient in explaining the role of the author and the ethical responsibility of the work, and shows obvious methodological limitations when applied to non-novel texts and specific cultural-historical contexts. On the other hand, due to the plurality of truths, dialogue alone cannot capture the entire truth. Keywords: Literary Criticism and Theory, Bakhtin, Logic of Dialogue, Polyphony. Introduction The concept of the "logic of dialogue" (dialogism) stands as the central pillar in the theoretical, linguistic, literary, and sociological works of Mikhail Bakhtin. While Bakhtin did not invent dialogue, he uniquely systematized it as a fundamental epistemological and aesthetic principle. This study aims to analyze the genesis, evolution, and philosophical underpinnings of Bakhtin’s dialogism, examining its distinctions from monologism and its roots in Kantian philosophy. The closest philosophical antecedents of the logic of dialogue should be sought in the efforts of the Neo-Kantians, who aimed to bridge the gap between matter (body) and spirit. Following Hegel’s death, this gap became significantly more pronounced, stemming from the contradiction and incompatibility between science and philosophy. Consequently, the logic of dialogue is part of that European intellectual inclination and desire to establish a correspondence between epistemology and the new forms of subjectivity, thought, and revolutionary paradigms emerging in the natural sciences of the 19th century. This endeavor sought to encompass the theory of knowledge in an era dominated by the theories of physical relativity and cosmology, which had raised numerous questions about the existence and life of thought and mind. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this research traces the historical context of dialogism, noting that while contemporaries like Martin Buber and early Russian Formalists (e.g., Vinogradov) explored dialogue, Bakhtin elevated it to a core theoretical framework. The study investigates Bakhtin’s assertion that meaning is not inherent in isolated words but emerges through social interaction and the interplay of multiple voices. It highlights Bakhtin’s critique of monologism, which assumes a single, authoritative consciousness, in favor of polyphony, where diverse, equal voices interact without hierarchy. Furthermore, the paper explores the philosophical foundations of dialogism, linking it to Kant’s epistemology and Neo-Kantian efforts to bridge the gap between subject and object. Unlike Kant, who posited an unbridgeable gap between mind and world, Bakhtin argued that consciousness itself is constituted through "otherness". Meaning is generated relationally; words are "second-hand," carrying the traces of previous users, and require dialogue to acquire significance. This perspective rejects the notion of an isolated, self-sufficient ego, suggesting that individuality is recognized only through the reflection in others. Materials and Methods This research has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources. The primary materials consist of Bakhtin’s own works, such as Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, as well as critical secondary sources and scholarly interpretations of his ideas by other theorists and commentators. The methodology involves a critical exploration and analysis of the core concepts of dialogic logic, such as polyphony and intertextuality, to identify its strengths and inherent theoretical limitations. Research Findings The findings of this critical investigation reveal several fundamental challenges in Bakhtin's theory of dialogic logic. Key issues identified include: 1) A conceptual ambiguity in the very definition of "dialogue", which Bakhtin uses across various levels from everyday conversation to an ontological philosophical principle, leading to methodological confusion; 2) A significant neglect of the role of power relations and social inequality in discourse, presenting an idealized space for dialogue that overlooks how institutional and material structures can suppress or co-opt voices; 3) A deliberate downplaying of the author's role and their ethical responsibility for the work's content, which can lead to ethical ambiguity, especially when discriminatory discourses are presented within a polyphonic framework; 4) A lack of sufficient attention to specific historical-cultural contexts, as the theory, largely shaped by 19th-century Russian conditions, lacks the tools to analyze how different cultural frameworks shape discourse; and 5) Difficulties in applying the theory to non-novelistic genres like lyric poetry, which Bakhtin himself considered inherently monologic. Discussion of Results and Conclusions The discussion confirms that Bakhtin’s theory of dialogic logic, by centering "dialogue" as the foundation of speech and meaning formation, offers a dynamic and fluid understanding of meaning production, standing in opposition to monologic and authoritarian discourse models. However, a critical analysis exposes a complex set of weaknesses, internal tensions, and methodological limitations that challenge its universal and uncritical application. The most fundamental flaws are the conceptual ambiguity of "dialogue," the neglect of power dynamics, the diminished role of the author and ethical responsibility, insufficient consideration of specific historical-cultural contexts, and challenges in applying the theory to non-novelistic texts. Philosophically, the theory grapples with a paradox: by denying any absolute truth and emphasizing the fluidity of meaning, it opens the door to radical relativism, while Bakhtin himself implicitly upholds the value of equal voices—a principle not firmly justified within his own theoretical framework. This study concludes that, despite its revolutionary insights, Bakhtin’s theory alone does not constitute a complete or sufficient framework for literary criticism and discourse analysis. Its true analytical power flourishes when integrated with complementary approaches, such as Foucauldian power theory, New Historicism, postcolonial studies, and psychoanalytic or sociological analyses, allowing for a more comprehensive and critical explanation of the objective, material, historical, and ethical complexities involved in the production and reception of meaning in the real world. میخاییل باختین از جمله تأثیرگذارترین متفکران حوزۀ نقد ادبی و فلسفۀ زبان در قرن بیستم است که «منطق مکالمه» را به‌عنوان هستۀ مرکزی اندیشۀ خود مطرح کرد. این نظریه با تأکید بر چندصدایی، بینامتنیت و سرشت دیالوژیک زبان، درک ما را از پدیدة گفت‌وگو و شکل‌گیری معنا دگرگون ساخته است. پژوهش حاضر با روش توصیفی‌تحلیلی و با تکیه بر منابع کتابخانه‌ای با هدف واکاوی انتقادی مبانی نظری منطق مکالمه و دلالت‌های آن در حوزة نقد ادبی انجام شده است. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان می‌دهد که هرچند این نظریه از لحاظ فلسفی و زیبایی‌شناختی غنی و انقلابی است، با چالش‌های بنیادینی همچون ابهام در تعریف مکالمه و غفلت از نقش روابط قدرت در عرصۀ گفتمان مواجه است. همچنین، این نظریه در تبیین نقش مؤلف و مسئولیت اخلاقی اثر با کاستی روبه‌رو است و در تطبیق با متون غیررمان و بافتارهای فرهنگی‌ - تاریخی خاص، محدودیت‌های روش‌شناختی آشکاری از خود نشان می‌دهد. از سویی دیگر، مکالمه به سبب حقیقت متکثر نمی‌تواند به‌تنهایی بازگوی تمام حقیقت باشد.

https://liar.ui.ac.ir/article_30341_576fd47e30305d92feefd2b3c151445f.pdf