The Need for Dialogue
"Dialogue means we sit and talk with each other, especially those with whom we may think we have the greatest differences. However, talking together all too often means debating, discussing with a view to convincing the other, arguing for our point of view, examining pro's and con's. In dialogue, the intention is not to advocate but to inquire; not to argue but to explore; not to convince but to discover." -- Louise Diamond, The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
|
People often lack the ability to converse about subjects that matter deeply to them without getting into a dispute. As a result, public discourse about divisive issues is often characterized by destructive debate that can lead to group division and violence.
This is often because parties are operating from different interpretations of facts and events that may not even be fully understood by the parties themselves.[1] When public conflicts are long-lasting and involve seemingly irreconcilable differences of identity, worldviews, and values, parties tend to cling to their own positions and denigrate views of the opposing side. They rarely ask each other questions or genuinely listen to what the other side is saying. In many cases, while one person is talking, the other person is thinking of what he will say when it is his turn to talk. Effective communication is blocked by competition, prejudice, and fear, and parties' ways of relating start to deteriorate. They tend to make impassioned statements about the issues and to focus on moral or logical flaws in the other side's position. Opponents often rely on rhetoric, and become defensive in the face of evidence that their position is invalid or that an opposed opinion is valid.[2] They also tend to stereotype each other and misunderstand each other's positions, causing them to become increasingly polarized. As a result, the atmosphere of conversations is often threatening, characterized by personal attacks and interruptions. Even if parties are secretly undecided about any aspect of the issue, they will not voice these reservations. They may fear that if they do not hold on to their positions, they will look weak or be criticized by their compatriots.[3]
Additional insights into dialogue are offered by several Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
These destructive shouting matches do not help to address long-standing conflicts over public issues. Repetitive communication that is based in entrenched positions tends to close people's minds to new ideas. Parties simply argue more loudly and refuse to be receptive to others' views. These polarized ways of relating pose significant barriers for collaboration, and make informed and empathic problem-solving impossible. Opportunities for social learning are often lost. In addition, because such conversations are filled with rhetoric and accusations, the public is exposed to a very limited discourse in public debates. This detracts from the involvement and education of citizens.[4] In order to move toward productive collaboration, parties need to find new ways of relating to each other that help them to more fully understand the beliefs, meanings, values, and fears held by both their opponents and themselves.[5] Before they are willing to sit down to negotiate or discuss resolution, parties to deep-rooted, identity- or value-based conflict may be willing to partake in such a conversation.
What is Dialogue
Dialogue is a both a kind of conversation and a way of relating.[6] It is a small-scale communication process in which participants may say or hear something they never said or heard before, and from which they may emerge irrevocably changed.[7] The approach emphasizes listening, learning, and the development of shared understandings.[8]
Dialogue differs from other central modes of communication, including mediation, negotiation, discussion, and debate. In discussion, for example, parties try to persuade each other of the accuracy of a particular point of view. The goal is to bat ideas back and forth, evaluate multiple perspectives, and select the best one. Parties try to justify and defend their assumptions and convince one another that their opinion is the right opinion.[9] In discussion, disputants have a tendency to become defensive and reactive.
Dialogue, on the other hand, seeks to inform and learn rather than to persuade. It is a conversation "animated by a search for understanding rather than for agreements or solutions."[10] One is concerned not only about oneself and one's own position, but also about the other party and the position that that party advances. Participants focus on their relationship and the joint process of making sense of each other, rather than winning or losing.[11]
Dialogue has no fixed goal or predetermined agenda. The emphasis is not on resolving disputes, but rather on improving the way in which people with significant differences relate to each other.[12] The broad aim is to promote respectful inquiry, and to stimulate a new sort of conversation that allows important issues to surface freely. While opponents in deep-rooted conflict are unlikely to agree with each other's views, they can come to understand each other's perspectives.
Most dialogue processes involve people who are engaged in protracted conflict, sitting down together to explore their feelings about each other and their conflict. The following conditions help to ensure productive dialogue:
- Participants sit in a circle, so that there is no hierarchy of physical position and everyone can communicate directly.[13]
- While it may be useful to have a facilitator to get the dialogue moving, this role should be limited.
- In a good dialogue, all participants can be heard as they speak to one another across the circle.
- People speak openly, and listen respectfully and attentively. Derogatory attributions, attacks, and defensiveness have no role in dialogue.
- Participants do not make assumptions about the motives or character of others.[14]
- Questions are sincere, and driven by curiosity.
As they listen to one another and relate in new ways, participants learn new perspectives, reflect on their own views, and develop mutual understanding. In dialogue, when one person says something, another person's response expresses a slightly different meaning. This difference in meaning allows parties to see something new, which is relevant both to their own views and those of the other party. The conversation moves back and forth, with the continual emergence of new meaning.[15]
Through inquiry and conversation, parties try to integrate multiple perspectives and unfold shared meaning. This involves uncovering and examining their assumptions and judgments. When people enter into conversations with others, they bring with them basic assumptions about the meaning of life, their country's interest, how society works, and what is most valuable. Most of these basic assumptions come from society and are rooted in culture, race, religion, and economic background. As a result, people coming from different backgrounds have different basic assumptions and values, and these clashing views and perspectives often lead to conflict.
Dialogue attempts to expose these assumptions and the thought processes that lie behind them.[16] It calls on participants to pay attention to their thinking, feelings, assumptions, and patterns of communication. Their patterns of thought include feelings, desires, and ways of interpreting information. Individuals typically have a sense that their way of interpreting the world is the only way that it can be interpreted. They are not immediately aware of the degree to which their conception of reality is biased and influenced by their personal needs and fears.[17] (The essay on cultural frames examines this phenomenon more.)
In dialogue, participants explore the presuppositions, beliefs, and feelings that shape their interactions; they discover how hidden values and intentions control people's behavior and contribute to communication successes and failures. For example, it begins to become clear why a group avoids certain issues, or why it insists, against all reason, on defending certain positions. Participants can collectively observe how unnoticed cultural differences often clash, without their realizing what is happening.[18] These observations help participants to determine what is blocking effective communication.[19]
However, this can happen only if people are able to listen to each other without prejudice and without trying to influence one another. Because its broad goal is to increase understanding about parties' concerns, fears, and needs, dialogue centers on inquiry and reflection. Participants refrain from assuming that they already know the thoughts, feelings, and intentions of the other.[20] Instead, they assume that the other is speaking honestly from experience, and listen closely. This process of deep listening and reflection typically slows down the speed at which parties converse. The slower interchange enables individuals to observe the conversation while it is actually occurring, so that they become more aware of both the content of the communication process and the structures that govern it. They gain insight into the "assumptions and unspoken implications of what is being expressed along with that which is being avoided."[21] Each participant can examine the preconceptions and prejudices that lie behind his or her opinions and feelings, and then share these insights with one another. Participants not only expose ideas to one another's scrutiny, but also open themselves up to the possibility that their ideas will be changed. This means that they try to appreciate what the other side is saying and keep their ears open, even when they do not like what they hear.[22] To be fully open to new ideas, participants must be ready to abandon their old ideas in the face of new and better ones. They must be willing to change their minds and emerge from the dialogue as altered people. If they instead strive to convey their own points of view and defend their positions, genuine dialogue will not be possible.[23]
Different groups have varying ideas about the specific ways in which meetings should be organized and structured.[24] For example, some suggest that dialogues should involve five to eight people and take about two hours,[25] while others assert that 20 to 40 people should be involved and meetings should be ongoing.[26] However, the dialogue approach has common central elements, which are discussed in detail below.
Immediacy and Spontaneity
In dialogue, communicators are available to each other in the here and now. Their interaction is not rehearsed, but is instead characterized by spontaneity. Rather than trying to protect their positions and egos, participants wish to discover what emerges through their encounter with the other. Parties do not know exactly what they are going to say before the conversation actually takes place. Instead, dialogue presumes that communication among participants is largely unscripted and that the course of the conversation cannot be predicted.[27] It requires participants to view one another as unique and dynamic entities, who are constantly changing and making choices. This spontaneity and unfamiliarity among the participants provides the ground for new learning. As a result, dialogue has unanticipated consequences.
Identifying Assumptions
Our assumptions play a large role in the decisions we make and how we behave. They affect the way we experience things and the way we select and interpret information.[28] However, assumptions are so embedded in our ways of thinking that we typically do not notice they are there. This failure to recognize our underlying assumptions and beliefs often leads to ineffective problem-solving strategies. Therefore, dialogue participants are asked to pay attention to their reactions, impulses, feelings, and opinions as they occur, and work to uncover the deeper meaning underlying their thought processes. Identifying assumptions is a way of exploring differences with others, working to build common ground, and getting to the root of misunderstandings.[29] The friction between contrasting values that emerges in dialogue allows participants to notice the assumptions that are active in the group, as well as their own personal assumptions. They can then recognize the self-destructive nature of their current ways of thinking and relating.
Suspension of Assumptions and Judgments
Suspension requires stepping back and looking at how certain assumptions and feelings affect one's behavior.[30] Once they have begun to identify these assumptions, parties should neither act on nor suppress them, but should instead examine them, observing the thought process that underlies the conversation and allowing opinions to come to the surface. Rather than reacting in a hostile way to each other's opinions, parties must examine the meaning of these opposing opinions and assumptions. This requires opening to new and alternative views of reality, rather than trying to defend one's position.[31] When they are tempted to state an assumption about the motives or beliefs of the other person, participants should instead ask a question.
Suspending assumptions makes people aware of their thought processes and brings about an enhanced level of consciousness.[32] It enables participants to become aware of things they would not have otherwise seen, and allows thought to move more freely so that truth can emerge. In addition, when parties' judgments are not fixed, an environment of trust can be created in which parties are open to different points of view.
Inquiry and Reflection
Inquiry elicits information; one gains insight into someone else's perspective through asking questions. In reflection, one thinks about this information creatively, which enables parties to build on past experiences and allows for collective learning. As parties ask questions and listen, they gain greater awareness into their own and others' thought processes, and discover issues that separate or unite them. By pausing to reflect, parties also slow down the pace of conversation. This makes it easier to identify assumptions and patterns of interaction, as well as to look for new ideas.[33]
Listening
Effective listening contributes to our capacity to learn and build relationships with others. When parties suspend judgment and genuinely listen to diverse perspectives, they can begin to expand their worldview. Listening allows for the development of new insights and allows parties to be influenced by one another. It also makes parties aware of one another's assumptions and helps them to recognize shared meaning. Once they have listened carefully, parties can make better choices about their actions. Finally, listening is an important part of "confirmation," one of the central aspects of dialogue. Confirmation means that parties endorse each other, recognize each other, and acknowledge each other as people.[34] They acknowledge an affiliation with each other and validate each other's experience. Genuine listening is one of the central ways that parties can confirm each other's existence and worth.
Collective Thought and Collaboration
In dialogue, people think together. One person gets an idea, another person takes it up, and someone else adds to it. Respect for difference supports dialogue. The idea is that all participants have an important contribution to make, and that the full range of their perspectives and ideas is necessary for developing an integrated, whole view.
The goal is for parties to learn from each other, rather than to evaluate perspectives and determine who has the "best" view.[35] They participate in the conversation together, as equals. As they interact and listen to one another, participants become aware of all of the different opinions that have surfaced, and begin to examine them. Rather than trying to persuade or convince one another, they regard their opinions as existing on the same level as the opinions of others. Once they have laid all of the assumptions and opinions of group members out on the table, they can begin to do something that none of them can do separately. They begin to talk with one another rather than at one another, and to listen to one another's opinions. While they may very well continue to disagree, they can begin to think and work in some common area beyond these different opinions.[36] The content of their conversation does not exist prior to or independently of dialogue, but rather arises as they collaborate and relate to one another.[37]
Fostering the New[38]
In order to prevent the recurrence of old, destructive patterns of communication, there must be space for a new sort of conversation to take place, one that avoids the old ruts and dead ends. Parties with radically different views must find constructive new ways of communicating, which can stimulate the formation of new ideas and open up the possibility for change. Deep-rooted conflict is often rooted in issues that people consider nonnegotiable. However, dialogue leads people to question whether their ideas really are absolutely necessary, transforms the way they approach these issues, and opens up opportunities for creativity.[39]
There are various ways to introduce fresh content into the conversation. First, parties must be committed to creating an environment conducive to conversation. An atmosphere of safety and respect is crucial. Parties should ask each other sincere questions, and listen to responses carefully and openly. They should refrain from rhetorical questions or accusations. In order for participants to feel safe enough to loosen their hold on their positions, they must feel that there is no threat to their security, identity, or dignity. This sense of security can be enhanced through the establishment of a set of ground rules and careful facilitation.
Second, participants should encourage personal rather than positional presentations. When communicators appeal to group rhetoric, they tend to get stuck in old arguments, personal attacks, and defensiveness. Instead, parties should tell personal stories about their experience with the issue at hand. These stories complete with human idiosyncrasies, surprises, and compelling moments, draw the attention of listeners and suppress the impulse to argue.[40] They also guide the conversation away from entrenched positions and toward individual perspectives and experience. Participants begin to connect to each other as unique human beings, rather than as advocates for their group or position.
Third, ideas and experiences that are typically dismissed or omitted should be included in the conversation. For example, participants might be encouraged to speak about values that are incongruent with their primary beliefs. Information that is often suppressed in conversation may emerge. As participants note the complexity of one another's views, they are likely to become genuinely interested in what others are saying. This enlarges participants' understanding of the issues, and the subtle nuances of people's views with respect to those issues.
Finally, the dialogue group can participate in exercises to break down stereotypes. For example, participants can list stereotypes commonly held about themselves or their group and then explain which stereotypes are understandable, which totally inaccurate, and which are most painful.[41] This helps other participants get to know them more fully and to see them as multidimensional. It also helps to diminish hostility and distrust and to develop a sense of empathy.
Preparing for Dialogue
As previously noted, participants in a dialogue do not plan what they will say or who they will be. No standard method or recipe can ensure dialogue, and parties should not approach it in terms of technique or a set of rules that govern its use. Rather, they should focus on the relationship between self and other that is created through interpersonal communication. Nevertheless, while the content and the dynamics of dialogue cannot be predetermined, parties can be prepared for dialogue and can develop certain abilities that will make them more equipped for dialogue.[42]
Much of the work required for an effective dialogue is done before the meeting takes place. First, those invited to participate are generally not outspoken leaders. Instead, they are individuals whose unique experiences and viewpoints are likely to differ from the stereotypical images associated with their "side." The meeting invitation indicates what participants should expect, and what will be expected of them. It also explains the broad objectives of dialogue. Participants should agree to attend only if they can commit to participating for the full duration of the process, and if they feel able and willing to participate in a conversation of this kind.[43] This initial preparation of participants is an essential part of the dialogue process.
Once parties have agreed to attend, facilitators usually conduct telephone conversations to get a sense of what participants hope to get out of the dialogue and what they are concerned about. The facilitators can learn much about the fears and hopes of participants in these initial conversations, and can also come to understand the controversy more fully.
Using what they have learned in this direct telephone contact with participants, facilitators then outline a broad plan for the dialogue. This includes aspects of convening and greeting people, procedures by which participants will introduce each other, and opening questions and exercises.
Before the meeting takes place, facilitators collaborate with participants to reach agreements about meeting times and establish ground rules. Participants typically agree to keep meetings confidential, refrain from interruptions or negative attributions, ask genuine, nonrhetorical questions, and speak for oneself rather than for one's "group." They also make a commitment to use respectful language, adhere to limits in speaking time, and give everyone the right to decline to answer a question without explaining why.[44] These ground rules make participants feel safe and help to promote respectful conversation. They also help participants to express intense feelings in a way that is authentic but not attacking. This helps to ensure that parties do not slip back into habitual, unproductive ways of relating and communicating, and helps them to deal with any passionate and fundamental differences they may have. However, beyond these basic ground rules, no firm rules can be laid down. Dialogue is exploratory and is intended to be "an unfolding process of creative participation between peers."[45]
Because dialogue is by its very nature a conversation between equals, controlling authorities or hierarchies have no place in it. However, some guidance is often needed in the early stages of dialogue, to facilitate the process and help it run more smoothly.[46] Rather than telling participants what to do, facilitators provide a context in which constructive conversation can occur. They contribute ideas and try to keep the conversation going through questions and reflections. However, facilitators have no investment in any particular outcome, and the conversation ultimately centers on topics of interest to the participants.
Benefits of Dialogue
Dialogues are commonly used in public-policy conflicts, international conflicts, and ethnic conflicts to build up mutual understanding and trust between members of opposing groups. They do a great deal to enhance public conversation and transform the way parties interact. Through dialogue, public discourse can become more complex, inviting, and informative.[47] Those who engage in dialogue may bring their new ways of thinking and relating back to their organizations, friends, families, or citizen groups. They may question derogatory attributions made about their opponent and may work to combat stereotypes in their larger society. They may also be less likely to accept extremist leaders.
When participants are activists, they can influence the organizations at which they work or can affect key decision makers. When parties themselves are leaders, the impact on public discourse may be even more direct and immediate.[48] Although dialogues do not lead directly to resolution, and this is not their immediate goal, they can help parties to develop new understanding that leads to formal negotiations. This paves the way for effective problem solving and increases the possibility of eventual resolution. Constructive public conversations about divisive controversy thus decrease the costs and dangers typically associated with deep-rooted conflict.
Dialogue also has various transformative effects on relationships. Like transformative mediation, it puts the relational development of disputants ahead of settlement.[49] When people are stuck in protracted conflict, they often view each other as inferior beings with inadequate moral or cognitive capacities. Through dialogue, disputants learn to articulate their own voices clearly and to recognize each other's viewpoints as valid.[50] Disputants honestly express uncertainties about their own position and explore the complexities of the issues being discussed, which can help them to let go of stereotypes, distrust, and reverse patterns of polarization. Thoughts and feelings that are often kept hidden are thus revealed. Disputants can begin to incorporate their different subjective viewpoints into a shared definition of their different needs, motives, and values.[51] As they become aware of the fears, hopes, and deeply held values of the other participants, parties may begin to trust each other more and feel closer to each other. People begin to realize that they have important things in common, which allows for collective learning, creativity, and an increased sense of fellowship. This can help to create a community-based culture of cooperation, collaboration, partnership, and inclusion.[52]
But in addition to the transformation that takes place at a relational level, dialogue can also transform parties at an individual level. Because participants do not know beforehand what they will say, they must listen not only to one another, but also to themselves. Parties must inquire into what conflict means to them and how their own processes and behavior have negatively shaped the course of conflict. As they begin to express themselves in new ways, they come to better understand their own motives and needs. This sort of interaction makes growth and real learning possible, and allows parties to more fully realize the potential that lies within them.[53] In one sense, the self comes into existence through dialogue.
Limits of the Dialogue Approach
Dialogue is effective in a wide variety of cases. It has been used in community settings to address disputes over a variety of divisive public issues: abortion, teen pregnancy, homosexuality, the environment, land use and development, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and education. However, the approach does have some limitations.
First, participants must be willing and able to participate in the process. Dialogue is not appropriate in cases where either side refuses to talk or where there are significant power differences. Because dialogue requires participants to open themselves up to one another, it may not be appropriate in cases where parties cling to their hatred and anger and refuse to listen. Efforts to de-escalate conflict may be necessary before dialogue is a viable approach. It is likewise difficult for genuine dialogue to take place between the oppressed and oppressors. There must be a power balance for constructive and honest dialogue to take place. Otherwise, the conversation may simply be taken over by those with greater power.
In addition, participants in a dialogue may sometimes experience frustration. They are devoting time and attention to a task that has no definite goal and often does not lead in any obvious direction. This may lead to anxiety and annoyance. In addition, because dialogue brings out the deep assumptions of the people who are participating, it can create intense feelings and emotional outbursts.[54] In some cases, these expressions of anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration can provide fertile ground for exploration. However, in other instances participants may try to break up the group, or dominate it and steer it in a particular direction.[55] If they feel they are getting nowhere, they may stop listening and begin to interrupt or personally attack one another. While communication ground rules help to keep this from happening, in some cases it cannot be avoided.
Finally, certain cultural factors constrain parties' ability to enter into dialogue. For example, the emphasis on competitive individualism in the United States has made many people ill-equipped to develop the respect for others that is necessary for productive dialogue. Instead, Americans often assume that communication involves separate people who are simply transmitting messages in order to influence others. Rather than showing a sustained interest in what others have to say, many people tend to turn the topic of conversation to themselves and their own interests. This sort of behavior stifles collective thought, detracts from genuine listening, and makes it unlikely that parties will develop long-term relationships. When parties are unresponsive to topics raised by others and have no interest in learning about others' perspectives, dialogue cannot possibly occur. American-style individualism thus gives rise to "conversational narcissism" and self-absorption, the antitheses of dialogue.[56] These cultural tendencies are not universal and can be unlearned, however. Indeed, many productive dialogues have been held in the United States with Americans on a wide variety of issues.
[1] Jay Rothman, "Reflexive Dialogue as Transformation," in Mediation Quarterly, 13:4, pp. 345-352. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996), 347.
[2] David Bohm, On Dialogue, ed. Lee Nichol, (New York: Routledge, 1996), 11.
[3] Margaret Herzig, "Moving From Polarized Polemic to Constructive Conversation (The Public Conversations Project, 2001), available at: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/resources/resource_detail.asp?ref_id=92; Internet.?
[4] Ibid.
[5] Chasin et al, 324.
[6] Ibid. 325.
[7] Kenneth N. Cissna and Rob Anderson, "Communication and the Ground of Dialogue," pp. 9-30 in The Reach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice, and Community, eds. Rob Anderson, Kenneth N. Cissna, and Ronald C. Arnett. (New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 1994), 17.
[8] "What is Dialogue?" (The Dialogue Group Online), available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html; Internet.
[9] Ibid.
[10] "Constructive Conversations about Challenging Times: A Guide to Community Dialogue," (The Public Conversations Project, p. 3), available at: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/uploadDocs/CommunityGuide3.0.pdf; Internet.
[11] Cissna and Anderson, 14.
[12] Chasin et al, 325.
[13] Bohm, 15.
[14] Chasin et al, 325.
[15] Bohm, 2.
[16] Ibid. 8.
[17] David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett, "Dialogue: A Proposal, (1991), available at: http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html; Internet.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Bohm, 4.
[20] Cissna and Anderson, 14.
[21] Bohm, Factor, and Garrett, available at: http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
[22] "Constructive Conversations about Challenging Times: A Guide to Community Dialogue,"?(p. 6), available at: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/uploadDocs/CommunityGuide3.0.pdf; Internet.
[23] Bohm, 3.
[24] Some of these groups include: The Public Conversations Project, available at http://www.publicconversations.org/ ; Public Dialogue Consortium, available at ?www.publicdialogue.org ; Search for Common Ground, available at?http://www.sfcg.org/ ; and The Dialogue Group Online, available at?http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com
[25] The Public Conversations Project suggests that community dialogues can be organized in this way. See "Constructive Conversations about Challenging Times: A Guide to Community Dialogue," available at: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/uploadDocs/CommunityGuide3.0.pdf; Internet.?
[26] See Bohm, Factor, and Garrett, "Dialogue: A Proposal." David Bohm's approach suggests that groups should be larger and represent a microcosm of society.
[27] Cissna and Anderson, 14.
[28] Bohm, 69.
[29] "What is Dialogue?" available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html; Internet.
[30] Bohm, 73.
[31] What is Dialogue?" available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html; Internet.??
[32] Bohm, 25.
[33] What is Dialogue?" available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html;?Internet.?
[34] Cissna and Anderson, 23.
[35] What is Dialogue?" available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html; Internet.??
[36] Bohm, 27.
[37] Abraham Kaplan, "The Life of Dialogue," pp. 34- 46 in The Reach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice, and Community, eds. Rob Anderson, Kenneth N. Cissna, and Ronald C. Arnett, (New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 1994), 40.
[38] This is the term that Chasin et. al. use in "From Diatribe to Dialogue on Divisive Public Issues" to describe the need to create new spaces for constructive conversation.
[39] Bohm, 23.
[40] Chasin et al, 335.
[41] Ibid., 337.
[42] Cissna and Anderson, 22-3.
[43] Herzig, "Moving From Polarized Polemic to Constructive Conversation."
[44] Chasin et al, 332.
[45] Bohm, Factor, and Garrett, "Dialogue: A Proposal"
[46] Ibid.
[47] Herzig, "Moving From Polarized Polemic to Constructive Conversation."
[48] Chasin et al, 327.
[49] For a comparison of dialogue and transformative mediation, see "From Diatribe to Dialogue on Divisive Public Issues," pp. 337-340.
[50] Rothman, 351.
[51] Ibid., 346.
[52] "What is Dialogue?" available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html; Internet.
[53] Kaplan, 41.
[54] Bohm, 19.
[55] "What is Dialogue?" available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html; Internet.
[56] Cissna and Anderson, 17-19.
Use the following to cite this article:
Maiese, Michelle. "Dialogue." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dialogue/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Saunders, Joe. Bridging Human Rights and Conflict Resolution: A Dialogue Between Critical Communities.
Available at: http://www.cceia.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/161.html.
is a very good summary of the workshop in 2001, conducted by the Carnegie Council bringing two communities together.
Coming to the Table.
Available at: http://www.emu.edu/cjp/comingtothetable/index.html.
"Human Rights Dialogue: Integrating Human Rights and Peace Work." , 2000
Available at: Click here for more info.
In trouble spots across the globe today, from Northern Ireland to Sri Lanka, from Sierra Leone to Indonesia, human rights activists often have different perspectives and priorities than conflict resolution specialists and peace activists. Our Winter 2002 Human Rights Dialogue explores some of these tensions and offers suggestions for building more constructive relationships between the human rights and peace communities. - Abstract
Constructive Conversations about Challenging Times: A Guide to Community Dialogue.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a guide intended to support people in having a constructive conversations about the September 11 attacks and their aftermath with neighbors, colleagues, fellow worshippers, etc. The guide provides a 'plan' to facilitate a structured dialogue which can also be used to bring elements of dialogue into spontaneous and informal conversations with family and friends.
Dialogic Listening.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/dialist.htm.
Dialogic listening is similar to active listening, although it emphasizes conversation as a shared activity and stresses an open-ended, playful attitude toward the conversation. In addition, the parties focus on what is happening between them (rather than each party focusing on what is going on within the mind of the other), and it focuses on the present more than on the past or the future.
Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Dialogue." , 1997
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/dialog.htm.
This page describes the use of dialogue in conflict situations. Dialogue is a form of conversation and a form of relating to people that differs from mediation, negotiation, and debate in that it seeks to inform and learn, but not to persuade or to resolve anything.
Dialogue Projects.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/dialog2.htm.
Dialogue is a structured form of communication which emphasizes respectful and attentive listening about deep-rooted feelings, beliefs and experiences.? In many cases, the parties may be unwilling to participate in a negotiation process because they don't want to compromise their deeply-held values. Nevertheless, they may be willing to participate in a dialogue where the objective is for the parties to better understand each other and establish a positive relationship with each other without being pressured to change their own views.
Factor, Donald, David Bohm and Peter Garrett. "Dialogue: A Proposal." , 1991
Available at: http://world.std.com/~lo/bohm/0000.html.
This paper discusses the process of dialogue and what it offers those who choose to engage in it as a way of resolving crises. The authors outline their conception of dialogue, why they believe dialogue is valuable, as well as what dialogue is not. In addition, they provide some practical advice on how to go about initiating dialogue in interpersonal situations and organizations.
Herzig, Margaret. "Moving From Polarized Polemic to Constructive Conversation." Interact: The Journal of Public Participation (July, 2001). , 2001
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article begins by briefly describing some common patterns of polarization regarding controversial public issues. Next, the author describes the general approach and also the specific steps that the Public Conversations Project has developed to reverse polarization patterns through dialogue. Lastly, two cases are referenced to show how private dialogue can enhance public participation in resolving public policy issues.
"Public Conversations Project: Tool Box." , April 20, 2000
Available at: Click here for more info.
Site provides useful information to promote their mission to foster a more inclusive, empathic and collaborative society by promoting constructive conversations and relationships among those who have differing values, world views, and positions related to divisive public issues.
Briggs, John and David Peat. "The Dialogue Experiment." , 1999
Available at: http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/experiment.html.
This paper describes a situation in which a group of people experimented with the process of dialogue, attempting to test some of David Bohm's theories on dialogue and collective creativity.
Ellinor, Linda and Glenna Gerard. What is Dialogue?.
Available at: http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html.
This piece describes the central elements of dialogue and emphasizes its capacity to improve communication and transform relationshipss. It contrasts dialogue with discussion and presents various skills and guidelines to facilitate constructive conversation.
Offline (Print) Sources
Anderson, Rob and Kenneth N. Cissna. "Communication and the Ground of Dialogue." In The Reach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice, and Community. Edited by Arnett, Ronald C., Rob Anderson and Kenneth N. Cissna, eds. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 1994.
This piece describes dialogue as a process of communication in which participants learn about themselves and open themselves up to new insights. It briefly describes some of the core literature on dialogue, outlines some of its central characteristics, and then discusses some cultural constraints on dialogue.
Thomas, Milt and John Stewart. "Dialogic Listening: Sculpting Mutual Meanings ." In Bridges Not Walls. Edited by Stewart, John, ed. New York: McGraw-hill, 1995.
The authors define and identify three problems with active or empathic listening. They go on to contrast dialogic listening to active or empathic listening and uncover four distinctive characteristics of dialogic listening. Click here for more info.
Teurfs, Linda and Glenna Gerard. "Dialogue and Organizational Transformation ." In Community Spirit: Renewing Spirit and Learning in Business. Edited by Gozdz, Kazimierz, ed. San Francisco: New Leaders Press, 1995.
The authors argue that the practice of dialogue has the potential to transform organizational cultures and build community. They describe the specific skills and guidelines needed to practice dialogue. They then describe the general transformative potential of dialogue, and its particular benefit to the problem-solving process. The authors close by reviewing two cases in which dialogue helped to transform organizational culture.
Click here for more info.
Isaacs, William. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together : A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. Random House, September 14, 1999.
Isaacs argues that corporate, political, and personal communication can be a process of thinking together rather than tyring to convince others of one's position. He offers concrete ideas for both listening and speaking and for avoiding the forces that undermine meaningful conversation. This collecitve observation and thought, he says, contributes much to successful business operations.
Ellinor, Linda and Glenda Gerard. Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation. John Wiley & Sons, March 1, 1998.
This book provides guidance to business people, especially managers, on how to foster constructive communication among employees through the process of dialogue. Dialogue is way of conversing and thinking together that helps to bridge diversity, foster cooperation, and increase creativity. The authors suggests that it can have a tremendous positive impact on interactions in the workplace.
Flick, Deborah L. From Debate to Dialogue: Using the Understanding Process to Transform Our Conversations. Orchid Publications, August 13, 1998.
This book discusses ways in which conflicting parties can work toward instigating productive dialogue rather than counter-productive debate. The author describes an "understanding process," in which parties make an effort to understand others from within their frame of reference rather than trying to win a debate. The "understanding process" approach to dialogue aims to transform relationsthips and allow participants to express opposing points of view without becoming polarized.
Chasin, Richard. "From Diatribe to Dialogue on Divisive Public Issues: Approaches Drawn from Family Therapy." Mediation Quarterly 13:4, 1996.
Public discourse on divisive issues is often dominated by destructive debate between polarized opponents. Applying family therapy ideas, the Public Conversations Project fosters constructive dialogue on such conflicts. Their approach includes (1) collaborating with participants, starting with extensive premeeting exchanges, (2) using ground rules and formats that prevent reenactment of the "old" conversation, and (3) fostering respectful inquiry to stimulate a "new" conversation that increases understanding of the "other" as a person, not a stereotype or position. The project's emphasis is not on resolveing specific disputes but on improving the way people with strong differences relate to each other." Click here for more info.
Schoem, David Louis and Sylvia Hurtado. Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, August 1, 2001.
This book puts forward theory, practice, and research on intergroup dialogue. It also presents case studies, and evaluations connected to this process. Click here for more info.
Bohm, David. On Dialogue. Routledge, December 1, 1996.
This work features David Bohm's conception of the dialogue process. According to Bohm, dialogue is about thinking on a different level and closely observing the content and thought patterns revealed in conversation. It centers on participatory thought and aims to change the way that thought processes occur at the collective level.
Rothman, Jay. "Reflexive Dialogue as Transformation." Mediation Quarterly 13:4, 1996.
Rothman describes his approach to intervention in identity conflicts as facilitating reflexive dialogue. He sees reflexive dialogue as a form of transformative conflict resolution.
Click here for more info.
Yankelovich, Daniel. The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. Simon & Schuster, September 1, 1999.
Dialogue is a communication process that aims to promote mutual understanding amongst those with opposing viewpoints. This book outlines fifteen strategies that can be used to iron out differences in a wide variety of workplace settings and emphasizes dialogue's capacity to build understanding and trust.
Volkan, Vamik D. "The Tree Model: Psychopolitical Dialogues and the Promotion of Coexistence ." In The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence. Edited by Weiner, Eugene, ed. New York: Continuum Publishing, 1998.
The author's Tree Model describes how improved interethnic relations achieved in facilitated dialogue may be maintained and applied to real world projects. The author goes on to describe how each part of the tree represents phases of the dialogue process. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Dessel, Adrienne. "An Israel/Palestine Community Dialogue." , 2003
Available at: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/index.asp?page_id=244.
This article tells the story of a community dialogue organized in Knoxville, TN that brought members of the local Israeli and Palestinian communities together.
Beyond the Abortion Debate - Common Ground.
Available at: http://www.co-intelligence.org/S-beyondabortiondebate.html.
This piece describes dialogues initiated by Search for Common Ground, between pro-life and pro-choice activists. The original dialogue spawned further groups, all of which allowed constructive conversation about a highly contentious issue.
Canadian Adversaries Take a Break to Dream.
Available at: http://www.co-intelligence.org/S-Canadaadvrsariesdream.html.
This brief piece tells the story of a successful national dialogue initiative in Canada, which was designed to develop a national vision for the future.
Roth, Sallyann. "Constructive Conversation in the Abortion Debate: Use of the Dialogue Process." Public Conversations Project , 1994
Available at: Click here for more info.
The Public Conversations Project works to develop models for facilitating dialogue about divisive public issues. This piece outlines some of the central elements of the dialogue process and discusses how it has proved useful in the debate surrounding abortion.
Crossfire to Cease Fire: Moving the Media from Slash and Burn to Listen and Learn. 2005.
Available at: http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=198.
An interview with Bob Barr, Thom Hartmann, Scott McConnell, and Katrina vanden Heuvel. Many on both sides of the partisan divide believe our differences threaten the very viability of our republic. In this program, we begin with the conviction that none of us alone holds the answer but that all hold pieces of the answer. Both/and rather than either/or. Join us and explore ways of engaging in conversations that mediate rather than infuriate.
Abu, Alpha. "Dialogue on Justice and Reconciliation." Accord, Vol. 9 , September 2000
Available at: Click here for more info.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Dialogue on justice and reconciliation." In March 2000, well before the May crisis in the peace process, five key figures in Sierra Leone's search for peace were brought together in Freetown to discuss the prospects for justice and reconciliation and the potential impact of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) envisaged in the Lom? Agreement. The discussion was facilitated by Florella Hazely, advocacy officer for the Council of Churches in Sierra Leone, and the report prepared by Alpha Abu, who works for both the radio and television stations of the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Service. Excerpts are reproduced below.
Sarsar, Saliba. "Making a Difference: Arab-Jewish Grassroots Dialogue Groups in the United States." Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1, No. 3 , August 1998
Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/1_3sar.htm.
This article discusses the grassroots formation of dialogue groups of Arabs and Jews in the United States. The article focuses on a few such groups and the activities they carry out in order to build personal relationships and promote the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs in the U.S.
Posthumus, Bram. "Mali: Successful Mediation Effort Could Lead to Lasting Peace." , 2000
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article outlies the dynamics of the rebel insurgency in Mali in the early 1990s and the subsequent peace efforts that took place. It is noted that the mediated peace settlement has been successful mostly because of inclusive stakeholder representation and participation.
Isseroff, Ami. "Mid-East Dialog Groups: Building a Grass-Roots Force for Peace." Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1, No. 3 , August 1998
Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/1_3iss.htm.
This article discusses the highly-criticized peace process in the Middle East and the recent formation and work of the grassroots, PEACE dialog group. The article includes descriptions of the group's activities and discussion of the value of the internet and e-mail as instruments of change.
Aarbakke, Vemund. "Mutual Learning: Facilitating Dialogue in Former Yugoslavia." International Peace Research Institute, February 2002.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This is a report on the Balkan Dialogue Project from 1994 - 2001. The project works to train people of various ethnic backgrounds in Nansen Dialogue techniques to facilitate improved communication in the Balkans.
Northern Forest Dialogue Project.
Available at: Click here for more info.
During the summer of 1993, a group composed of individuals from the timber industry, environmental organizations, government offices, and community groups gathered together in Vermont to discuss their concerns, fears, and visions for the Northern Forest. This piece outlines the dialogue process that took place and explores it central aims.
Public Conversations Project: Dialogue Stories and PCP Forums.
Available at: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/index.asp?catid=66.
This page provides access to a number of personal narratives from individuals who have employed the Public Conversation Project's approach in order to convene dialogues in their communities. There are also links that allow users to participate in ongoing dialogue forums about current issues.
Saunders, Harold H. and Rana H. Slim. "The Inter-Tajik Dialogue: From Civil War Towards Civil Society." Accord, Vol. 10 , March 2001
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article examines the Inter-Tajik Dialogue and its crucial role in establishing communication between conflicting factions involved in the Tajikistan civil war.
Offline (Print) Sources
Albeck, J. H., S. Adwan and D. Bar-On. "Dialogue Groups: TRT's Guidelines for Working Through Intractable Conflicts by Personal Storytelling." Peace and Conflict 8:4, December 1, 2002.
This article explains the concept "working through" as it pertains to personal narratives associated with intergroup conflict. In essence, both parties to a conflict tell personal stories which lead to a larger dialogue between the groups. The article also gives examples of how this technique has been used in intractable situations such as in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. Dialogue, Conflict Resolution, and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel. SUNY Press, 1999.
"In his in-depth examination of intervention models in Israel, Abu-Nimer provides a fresh insight into the important role of dialogue in conflict resolution. This comprehensive study will not only serve as a useful guide for future Arab-Israeli dialogues, but also a framework for other citizen diplomacy programs in areas of conflict around the world." -- John W. McDonald, Ambassador, and Chairman and co-founder of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Explorations in Global Ethics: Comparative Religious Ethics and Inter-religious Dialogue. Westview Press, October 1, 1999.
This "volume for the first time brings the scholarly discipline of comparative religious ethics into constructive collaboration with the community of inter-religious dialogue." "The volume's contributors share this vision of collaboration, drawing explicitly from both communities of discourse in a manner that crosses disciplinary and professional boundaries to deal creatively and constructively with important methodological and global moral issue."
LeBaron, Michelle and Nike Carstarphen. "Negotiating Intractable Conflict: The Common Ground Dialogue Process and Abortion." Negotiation Journal 13:4, October 1997.
This article describes a dialogue process used in several North American cities to stress common concerns of all parties in the conflict over abortion. After spending a day in small and large group interactions, participants report increased empathy and trust toward advocates for different positions. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
Blacks and Jews . Directed and/or Produced by: Snitow, Alan and Deborah Kaufman. California Newsreel. 1997.
This film begins by examining the anger and mistrust that has grown between Blacks and Jews in the United States. It continues by showing how dialogue and cooperation can be used to build trust, and thus, narrow the divide between these two groups of people. Click here for more info.
Skin Deep: Building Diverse Campus Communities . Directed and/or Produced by: Reid, Frances. California Newsreel. 1995.
This film goes to a number of US college campuses and engages a diverse body of students in dialog about racial and ethnic issues, in its effort to bring to life the formidable racial/ethnic divide found at these institutions. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
|
