Interreligious Dialogue as a Communicative Process: Intersubjectivity and Misunderstandings in Brescia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief Summary

The article analyses four local IRD initiatives in Italy from the point of view of sociology, communications, and a bit of theology. It is based on a larger research.

 

General Concept Comments

The article is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are mostly recent publications and relevant. The article is based on a larger research, is scientifically sound, and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypotheses. The article’s results are definitely reproducible in other parts of the world, based on the details given in the methods section. The tables are appropriate, they properly show the data, they are easy to interpret and understand. The data is interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the whole manuscript. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the paper.

The theological or religious studies part is not very long, might be developed, especially by including World Council of Churches sources on IRD.

Interreligious Dialogue is usually abbreviated as IRD.

Christianity is one religion. When Roman Catholics conduct a dialogue with Orthodox or Protestants, it is not IRD, but Ecumenical Dialogue (EC). Its aim, methods, means, context is totally different than in IRD.

“Every belief deserves respect.” (379). Traditional religions make a sharp distinction between traditional or world religions, which are participants in IRD, and new religious movements, sects, secular movements, which are not. Harmful sects, business religions, cannibals or xenophobic ideologies do not deserve respect.

 

Specific Comments

Hindu is the name of the religion and the person (not Hinduist, Induist or induist).

The plural of Orthodox is also Orthodox (not Orthodoxes or Orthodoxies).

100. image (not imagine),
101. friendship (not friendships),
102. let’s walk (not lets walk), Focolare (not Focolari) is the name of the movement in English,
103. cooperation (not mutual cooperation: co- means mutual),
104. gather (not gathered),
105. dialogical (not dialogic),
106. it is to do (not is doing),
107. allophone is not the right word here,

338–340. the verbal structure is not correct (it is urgent to de-construct),

415. WhatsApp (not Whatsapp),
416. interested in (not to).

Author Response

Comment 1: The theological or religious studies part is notvery long, might be developed, especially by including World Council of Churches sources on IRD.

Many Thanks for suggestion. I did not know the WCC production and I found it very interesting and pertinent for my article.  I have improved the Bibliography list by adding 3 new items: El Halabi, Kalsen; and WCC manifesto.

comment 2) Interreligious Dialogue is usually abbreviated as IRD.

Yes, I corrected every ID items as IRD.

Comment 3) Christianity is one religion. When Roman Catholics conduct a dialogue with Orthodox or Protestants, it is not IRD, but Ecumenical Dialogue (EC). Its aim, methods, means, context is totally different than in IRD.

I noticed this comment; I controlled every expression used in the article, but all referred to IRD and not to EC (because religions other than Christians are always involved in it). So I did not change anything.

Comment 4 ) “Every belief deserves respect.” (379). Traditional religions make a sharp distinction between traditional or world religions, which are participants in IRD, and new religious movements, sects, secular movements, which are not. Harmful sects, business religions, cannibals or xenophobic ideologies do not deserve respect.

Yes I fully agree . I cut out the sentence because it sounds too generic and rethoric.

 

5) Specific Comments:

I adjusted everything as suggested. I only checked the formal difference between “dialogic” and “dialogical” to be sure on how to use it correctly = Dialogical is to have qualities that are similar or near dialogue. Dialogic is to be like dialogue. Dialogical is related to or to be of like dialogue. Dialogic is to have the form or to be an instance of dialogue. 

https://unbook.arlecchino.org/papers/fragments-of-dialogue/dialogical-and-dialogic#:~:text=Dialogical%20is%20related%20to%20or,be%20an%20instance%20of%20dialogue.

I adjusted a very few expressions  in “dialogical”; I think this is the real meaning in my case, given that the article deals with many “attempts” to be dialogical, without guarantees that what is done is truly and already “dialogic”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the present study which I appreciate for the capability of studying a pilot experience like to one of the city of Bresciain integration migrants at the sociale civil level through the role of interfaith dialogue. I appreciated also the clarity in drafting the challenges which remain open and unsolved.

Author Response

No reply is needed. The review is positive and enthusiasatic. Thanks to the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on an interesting subject, and the fieldwork done in various Interreligious Dialogue events in Brescia is promising.  The field notes taken during the research are full of interesting reflections that could have been worked out a little more theoretically.  

The article uses mainly sociological tools of research.  The final paragraph suddenly presents a theological notion of the other that seems a little out of place.

The references mentioned in the text seem rather random and not very helpful.  There are references to philosophers (Derrida) without much elaboration on their place and use in the text.  The same is the case with other authors like Bhaktin, Cornille, etc. whose thoughts on dialogue are not actually much engaged.

The difference between performative and communicative dialogue might be worked out a little more in the introduction.  Some of the vagueness may have to do with the translation from Italian to English.  There is much editorial work to be done.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language must be improved.  There are many sentences that are missing words or do not have logical clauses.  Sentences are often not quite finished.

The term Hinduist is not really used in English.  We just use "Hindu"

Author Response

Comment 1) The article uses mainly sociological tools of research.  The final paragraph suddenly presents a theological notion of the other that seems a little out of place.

Thanks to the reviewer. I agree with this comment, the ending reference to the notion of Other by Martin Buber was out of place. I cut out BUBER’S reference.

Comment 2) The references mentioned in the text seem rather random and not very helpful.  There are references to philosophers (Derrida) without much elaboration  on their place and use in the text.  The same is the case with other authors like Bhaktin and Cornille.

Thanks to the reviewer. I agree with this comment partially. As a matter of fact, the reference to Derrida was useless (because the notion of “deconstruction” is now worldwide used, not only by the Derrida’s scholars). I CUT OUT it. The writings by Bhaktin have interested me much, but is it true that I did not used the source in a specific way, than the reference is useless. I cut out it.

As for the Cornille’s reference, I based much of my interpretation on  Cornille’s insights written in the 2013 paper: Conditions for Inter-Religious Dialogue, so I decide to keep it in the list.

Comment 3) The difference between performative and communicative dialogue might be worked out a little more in the introduction.  Some of the vagueness may have to do with the translation from Italian to English.  There is much editorial work to be done.

Yes, I acknowledge that the distinction between the two notions can be different in Italian/English. As I tried to specify on page 3 (see yellow highlight), communicative  is what is transmitted and understood in a communication; and performative  is what is achieved through communication.

Comments 4) on the Quality of English Language

The English language must be improved. There are many sentences that are missing words or do not have logical clauses.  Sentences are often not quite finished.

OK reviewed the whole text by an English proofreader. 

Comment 5) The term Hinduist is not really used in English.  We just use "Hindu"

Thanks. I adopted the correct forms in all the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is much improved with proper editing.