Genuine dialogue is proficient in persuading the public to being responsible for the decent behavior and establishes common

grounds on different views. According to Honeycutt (2010, 190), the traditional understanding of dialogue is to examine the massages of communications in terms of speech acts. In this essay I will determine the possibilities of honest, transparent and basically genuine dialogue in South Africa as being more rested on our societies and communities we live or rather grew up in. I will further highlight how language in particular aids to the reluctance of genuine dialogue, specifically of the reason that language s part of speech, and in most if not all societies which are wear tribal cabs, it is taken as important and sacred. According to Mittal (1993; 90), Tribalism on its own is a state of being organized or advocating for a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism can also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in a way in which people are more loyal to their tribe than their country or any social group outside their tribe. Social structure of a tribe can vary greatly because of a size of a tribe; it also implies the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. It is a precondition of members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of identity for a true tribal society to form. Language in our country causes mammoth challenges for the possibilities to enhance genuine (open, transparent and honest) dialogue amongst fellow countrymen. The screw has shifted from the age of black and white debacles known to have taken place prior 1994, it has turned to the issue of tribal language and who speaks which language in which area. This has long being an issue amongst blacks in particular; a reference is the war that broke out between the Xhosa and Zulu tribes after the release of the late Nelson Mandela in Robin Island. Many issues emerged, and as Jansen has alluded, individuals started to slide into tribal camps. The issue or rather problem of language has forever been a barrier in conducting or condoning authentic dialogues even in higher institution of learning, or it be between people of a different culture or ethnicity. I raise this point with reference to the incident that happened in the North West University (Potchefstroom Campus) involving a first year student who drowned in an Olympic pool during the first year orientation.(City Press article by Charles DuPlessis: 2012). In that particular institution Afrikaans was used as the language of communication, and as an institution is also a community, the language did and does not cater for all, thus promotes no viable or rather genuine dialogue between students. It is commonly viewed in most societies or communities that if one is of a different tribe, a different language speaker, his or her views will not be taken into consideration. This is a doctrine that is instilled and it equally roams in school levels and institutional levels which both are equally societies or rather communities of a kind.

The Dialogues at such levels must be a communal interactive process that includes all who are present within that area, but mostly it doesnt. Tribalism runs most of those levels of education in terms of language specifically. References of these institutions are the former PUKKE and UNIBO. This point, I contend in terms of a view that all tribes must be evenly represented at the managerial level of all education institutions. Thus ethical behavior and responsibility will start to be reflected from within our education system to ascending to influencing our communities. Even to this day, there some people who still believe that certain places are for certain tribes with a particular language, hence when confronted with a crisis, it is believed that running in to protect one of your tribe, no matter wrong or right is the correct thing to do. An example of that could be the way in which the ANC supports their president; reason could be that most if not all ANC upper positions are occupied by people of the same tribe as the president. According to Jansen (2010), Because tribal loyalty is so firmly in place. You do not go against your own, and if you did, you would be labeled something really nasty and excluded from all further social gatherings of the tribe. The judgment will be swift and harsh. It possibly means that dialogue between most people outside the tribe is not enhanced and their views are suppressed. In conclusion, I believe that the reluctance of genuine dialogue is caused by the way in which society and a community behave and conditions their people. I therefore agree with Jansens statement; weslide into tribal camps whenever we are confronted with crisis. South Africa would be transformed when a black man supports a white man in public on a substance of standard, rather than to take sides with the black man simply because of the person is black, equally the day a white man stands up amid his peers, inpublic, and condemns an unpleasant act towards black people because it is wrong. Jansen (2010, 2).Im of a view that the non-reluctance of open, transparent and honest dialogue, which is not altered by tribal influences, would be enhanced firstly in the societies and communities we live and grow up in. minds must be conditioned first to accept and unsuppress people of a different ethnicity language speaking.

REFERENCES:
Authentic Dialogue and Social Change Facilitation. Sam Grant, Ujima Press. 3/13/2010 Bridging difference through dialogue. Ximena Zuniga, About Campus Press. January/February 2003. Tribal lines still firmly drawn. Jonathan Jansen. Nov 17, 2010. Civil society supporting dialogue and deliberation. Kelly.U & Cumming.L, University of Bradford. March 2010.