Abstract
<p>AbstractSocial conflicts are often interpreted as disagreements over political or ideological positions. This article argues that many such conflicts emerge from deeper differences in the systems of meaning through which individuals interpret shared concepts. Using dialogic autoethnography, the study presents a composite analytical dialogue, developed from the author's lived experiences, long-term social observations, and multiple conversations within the sociopolitical context of contemporary Iran, to examine how concepts including freedom, security, justice, religion, and legitimacy acquire competing meanings within contrasting worldviews.Rather than seeking to reconstruct a single historical conversation or privilege one political position over another, the dialogue serves as a qualitative interpretive device through which competing systems of meaning are explored. Throughout the narrative, factual, historical, legal, and social claims are supported, wherever possible, by academic scholarship and documented sources.The dialogue progressively re-examines shared concepts through questioning and reflection, suggesting that meaningful dialogue becomes possible when the assumptions underlying apparently common concepts are made visible and reconsidered. The study proposes that durable social change depends not only on institutional transformation but also on critical reflection upon the worldviews and interpretive frameworks through which social reality is understood. Dialogic autoethnography is therefore presented as a qualitative methodological approach for exploring competing systems of meaning and facilitating reflective engagement across deeply divided perspectives.</p>