Dialogue: - On Pragmatic Constructivism's Social Ontology

The conceptualising method holds a central position in pragmatic constructivism. This method states that problems, conflicts, disagreements, and quarrels are often based on, and are founded in, different uses of language, words, and concepts, in other words, in misaligned language games. This method also states that the way to overcome disagreements is through dialogue, where the interlocutors jointly speak their way towards a common meaning, towards a new conception of the basis for said disagreements.
The philosophical debates on dialogue and the I–Thou relation were previously at the forefront. Names such as Martin Buber, Karl Löwith and Edith Stein struggled with the problem. Since then, debates have surfaced occasionally such as when Michael Theunissen published his book ‘Der Andere’ (The Other, 1977/1984) where he once again confronted dialogue through analyses of the philosophies of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Buber and their specific takes on intersubjectivity.
In this paper I try to sort out some of these debates about the I-Thou relationship, intersubjectivity, and dialogue. What would happen if dialogue were to be taken beyond purely epistemological questions into the realm of ontology? And what would such a journey reveal, if anything, for pragmatic constructivism? Theunissen informs us that we are not first human (the transcendental I, Dasein, ego, subject) and then social (inter-subjectivity); rather we become human through our interaction with the Other, by being social, through our relation to others (Henriksen, 2019). This change in the conception of the intersubjective relation has consequences as it positions dialogue at the centre of our research. This raises the key question of the extent to which a pragmatic constructivist approach reveals or exhibits a social ontology? And if it does, where can it be found and what are the consequences of such a social ontology for research within this approach? In a final section I seek to reasonably plausibly respond to some of the questions that need further attention.