Dialogue is not a scarce word, but it is one that is often used without a lot of thought as to what it truly means. The terms “conversation,” “discussion,” “talk,” “dialogue,” “negotiation,” can tend to get tossed around somewhat equally, but when one pauses to define dialogue, it stands out. The following table describes dialogue in contrast to debate.
|
Dialogue |
Debate |
|
Collaborative – two or more sides work together toward common understanding. |
Oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. |
|
Goal: finding common ground. |
Goal: winning. |
|
One listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. |
One listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. |
|
Enlarges and possibly changes a participant’s point of view. |
Affirms a participant’s own point of view. |
|
Reveals assumptions for reevaluation. |
Defends assumptions as truth. |
|
Causes introspection on one’s own position. |
Causes critique of the other position. |
|
Opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. |
Defends one’s own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. |
|
Creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to chang. |
Creates a closed-minded attitude: a determination to be right. |
|
One submits one’s best thinking, knowing that the other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. |
One submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. |
|
Calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs. |
Calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs. |
|
One searches for basic agreements. |
One searches for glaring differences. |
|
One searches for strengths in the other positions. |
One searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other positions. |
|
Involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. |
Involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person. |
|
Assumes that many people have pieces of the answer that together they can put them into a workable solution. |
Assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. |
|
Remains open-ended. |
Implies a conclusion. |
Compiled from the
Co-Intelligence Institute: http://www.co-intelligence.org/index.html
There are many ways in which dialogue is used in more structured arenas, and descriptions of a sampling of these follow. The Nansen approach outlines the work they do in dialogue in conflict, with examples of activities that explore, teach, and encourage dialogical communication and thinking. Open Space technology is an adaptable tool that incorporates practices of dialogue with time and group structure. SFiT is similar to the work Nansen does, and is another Norwegian approach to dialogue in conflict. Finally, two practitioners offer consulting services to a variety of groups and organizations.
Information about the Nansen Centers and their approach is based on a personal interview with Dr. Bryn on November 10, 2005, observations during the “Interethnic Dialogue in Divided Communities” course at the Nansen Academy from November 18 – 29, 2005, and the “Norway and the Balkans: Dialogue and Conflict” course during January term at Pacific Lutheran University in 2007.
The
Nansen conducts
two kinds of dialogue seminars: one in which participants come to the
There are four components on which Bryn focuses the seminars that he believes are crucial to dialogue: educational, social, physical, and cultural. The educational portion focuses on identity, its construction and the actual dialogue methods and processes that will be used and encouraged during the groups’ time together. He begins each session with a traditional lecture, an activity that also serves to establish himself as a legitimate and trustworthy authoritative figure who does know about their specific conflict and region. History is extremely important in understanding conflicts. It Balkan, it is highly stressed in schools in an encyclopedic manner with focus on years, dates, and cities. Bryn is well-aware of this importance and the lecture is also a way of acknowledging that he recognizes and respects it. Bryn establishes authority in several other ways. In the social settings, he is friendly do everyone, yet shows his knowledge in his lectures. His large stature also helps and he compares the effect and perception his presence to the smaller, quieter one of his colleague Erik.
The social
component is also very present at the beginning of sessions, as people tend to
arrive on guard. They go out on the town together, have dinners (often with
lots of good wine), dance, sit around the fire, etc. Bryn usually invites them
to his home one of the first nights for informal conversation and to admire the
view of the water from his veranda. The social aspect also ties into the
physical and cultural activities in which participants partake. In the winter,
they go skiing together. In the summers, they swim in the lake. They visit the
Olympic ski jump and walk around town. If there is a concert in town, they
often attend, as well as visit
The first exercise Bryn usually begins with is dividing participants into ethnically balanced dialogue groups. He then asks them to talk about how the conflict has affected their lives in terms of work, family, education, etc. The goal is to understand not only how the others were or are affected, but how they feel they were or are affected. In explaining this exercise, Bryn stressed that what people believe happened in a conflict, or any other situation, is an important part of our identity as it constructs our reality of the situation. He also introduces a simpler version of the dialogue/debate table listed above, encouraging participants to focus on and strive to engage in dialogue, not debate.
Often in this exercise, participants discover that there are commonalities in their stories (in how it affected their education, living situations, their losses, etc.). Another underlying goal is for participants to realize that the “other side” see themselves as victims as well. When people see themselves the victims, it is often accompanied by the belief that the other side must know that they were the offenders, so it is a big step to realize that the other side feels victimized as well. In this exercise, Bryn is not interested in individual stories when the participants regroup. Rather, he wants them to talk about how the dialogue went as a process. Were they able to practice the self-discipline and tolerance required to listen and try to understand the others’ stories, or did they debate?
Another exercise draws in the creative component of the dialogue guidelines. Each participant is given a large sheet of paper, and they help each other trace the outline of their bodies on the paper. Then, they are asked to tell their life stories with these outlines. Some people use different colors and symbols, writing all over the paper. Others make several points with words, only using one color. These illustrations are then hung around the room so everyone can see each other’s. This activity provides a visual representation of how the conflict has affected people’s lives. As one can imagine, they are also a great conversation starter.
One of Bryn’s favorite exercises, one that he often starts with, is very simple. He divides the participants into their respective ethnic groups and asks them to come up with things they want to know about the other side. What did you feel when you did this? Why did you think that? Did you know…? Sometimes he will do a warm-up activity mirroring this one, dividing the group into men and women. This warm-up draws on the humor component and also serves as a bit of an ice breaker. In this warm up however, people often break the dialogue guidelines by laughing and playfully debating, and Bryn uses this as a springboard to point out these non-dialogical behaviors before starting the main exercise. Sometimes this activity can take days and they will only get to a few questions. As is essentially true of the entire seminar, Bryn stresses the importance, or perhaps unimportance, of time in this activity. He gives the participants all the time they want and need to create the questions, think, and answer them.
Participants also engage by starting to look at solutions, following the question of how many ways there are to share an orange (a brief discussion that inspires creativity – share half, make orange juice, etc.). Often, people only see two solutions, so Bryn mentions others just to show more options. In this activity, participants are exploring how they feel about the solutions – not negotiating with one another. However, clarifies Bryn, dialogue must precede the negotiating process. If people do not try and understand the other person and their “side” (not necessarily agree with) first, they will be focused on defense and their position.
Another activity that often comes towards the end of a seminar is one in which Bryn presents the group with the situation that they both have “lost.” Again, in their respective ethnic groups, he asks them to come back with a list of what they will need from the international community to accept this loss. The groups tend to come back with very similar lists, often including security, education in their mother tongue, media, and jobs in equal terms. He is then able to point out that their side does not have to “win” in order for these things to be promoted or worked on since they are common desires shared by the people.
Two “traps” Bryn sees that make dialogue more difficult during the session that are outside distractions (computers, lounge areas in the seminar venue) and having one or two strong debaters in the group that limit the presence of dialogue. There are other variables that affect the dialogue environment as well, mostly within the participants themselves. For example, this was an English speaking seminar, so there was no formal translation. Because participants’ English skills varied, large group discussions tended to be dominated by those who were more comfortable and competent in their English.
Bryn also clarifies
his role as a facilitator versus a “magician.” There are no tricks, he says,
just several principles he follows: humor, that it is not enough to be right,
neutrality in the classroom, there are multiple truths (or that truth is
relative), creativity, and the shift from positions to interest. Bryn’s
reputation among Nansen alumni, staff, and often new participants is also
significant to note here. Bryn is clearly well respected for the work he does,
and this is evident in the participants upon their arrival.
Information about Open Space
is from my experience interning at Information Insights, Inc and assisting with (and attending as a participant) Open
Space facilitations. It is supplemented by information from Lisa Heft (http://www.openingspace.net/)
http://www.openspaceworld.org/
Open Space Technology is facilitation style developed by Harrison Owen in 1998. It is based on his observations of coffee breaks at conferences: he noticed that during breaks, around the coffee table, people were the most enthusiastic as they talked about what they wanted to with no imposed structure to their discussion. These breaks seemed to be when the best work of conferences was taking place, and Owen designed his tool around this notion.
Open Space Technology is commonly described as being most successful “when the work to be done is complex, the people and ideas involved are diverse, the passion for resolution (and potential for conflict) are high, and the time to get it done was yesterday. It's been called passion bounded by responsibility, the energy of a good coffee break, intentional self-organization, spirit at work, chaos and creativity, evolution in organization, and a simple, powerful way to get people and organizations moving - when and where it's needed most.” As this description implies, Open Space events flow loosely and their flexible agendas are determined by the participants.
The facilitator begins the gathering by walking around the inward facing circle of chairs and welcoming everyone, sharing some of the basic ideas of Open Space:
Along with these guidelines is one “rule” for the process: the law of Two Feet or as facilitator Lisa Heft calls it, the law of Motion and Responsibility (as not everybody has two feet). This “rule” explains that if a participant feels he or she is neither learning nor contributing to a session, it is that person’s responsibility to get up and move to a group where he or she will feel more useful and inspired. At the end of the opening circle, the facilitator advises participants to prepare to be surprised and not carry their own agenda, which may cause them to miss out on something amazing that may come out of the group’s collective creativity.
After the opening circle, the facilitator invites participants to go to the middle of the circle and write a topic they would like to discuss (related to the theme of the session) on a piece of paper. Generally, people are hesitant to take the first step, but once a few have bravely submitted their topics, confidence and ideas flow. The agenda is then created using these topics, depending on the number of participants, topics, and the length of the session. It is important to note that as mentioned in the guidelines, time is flexible. While the topics may be organized into allotted time slot, this is only a loose construction and if a group feels they need more or less time, they are free to conclude early or carry over into the next session.
Facilitators in the topic groups are essentially absent from the groups themselves. Unless they ask for or look like they may need some assistance or guidance from the main facilitator, groups are self run. There is a note taker in each group, and the all the notes for the entire event are later shared with everyone. Throughout the day(s), people are wandering from group to group and taking breaks as needed.
Much like the gathering begins, participants convene in a closing circle. A microphone or some variation of a “talking stick” is passed around and participants share thoughts and reflections from their time together.
The role of the facilitator in Open Space events is almost invisible. Aside from opening and closing the circle and assisting when necessary in small groups when asked or necessary, they are not involved in the dialogues or conversations. Most of the time, facilitators are outside persons from the issue at hand (or theme of the session). They may be hired or invited by the administration of an organization, a government, community leaders; the list goes on and on. Open Space Technology is employed in a wide variety of “levels,” from church groups and small community settings, to international gatherings on peace building.
Events that use Open Space always have a theme and usually have some intended result, whether it is creating an action plan or developing recommendations on an issue. Worth noting is that people generally do not have to agree on one particular solution. Rather, the ideas are generated from dialogue in small groups and all (or most) ideas contribute to the final “results.”
The emphasis on dialogue within the participants (which fits both the Co-Intelligence definition as well as Bohm’s) is paralleled in the overall structure of the process. People are talking about what is important to them (related to the theme, of course), and all of the topics are being heard (by becoming part of the agenda).
SFiT
http://www.isfit.org/dialogue
The International Student Festival in
Trondheim is an event held in Trondheim, Norway every summer. Throughout the
year, the festival organizers invite groups together from various parts of the
world and hosts them in dialogue groups. Facilitators are students who have
particular expertise in the conflict areas from which participants come and are
studying global issues, development, and conflict. Areas that participate
include South Africa, Guatemala, Northern Ireland, Colombia, Kosovo, Rwanda,
Kashmir, Israel, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Balkan and Russia/Chechenya.
The dialogue sessions at SFiT are
highly experiential and include role-playing, games, and reflection. This type
of focus emphasizes the “I and Thou” concept of being able to recognize
opponents or perceived enemies as humans with similar needs and desires rather
than an “it” that focuses on differences.
http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html
Practitioners Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard work with non-profit groups and businesses to help them integrate dialogical practices into their daily communicative activities. Bringing dialogical practices into a variety of setting takes flexibility and creativity. Ellinor and Gerard integrate a variety of practices into their work, including Bohm, various cultural traditions, and their own life experiences. Interestingly, Gerard has a degree in chemical engineering, while Ellinor is pursuing a PhD in clinical psychology. This variety in background and education is testament to the need for a variety of perspectives and the role dialogue and open communication can have beyond conflict settings.
Rather than teaching only skills and practices, Ellinor and Gerard help teach others how to teach others in their groups. They have also authored a book entitled, “Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation” (out of print).
This brief sampling of different ways in which dialogue is integrated into structural processes provides a glimpse of how humans can choose to communicate. There are certainly many other groups out there, working for different reasons and with different practices. The search for understanding and the willingness to suspend assumptions and truly listen cross many areas, from serious violent conflicts to some of the country’s leading businesses. There are different practices and different ways of facilitating. Each of the groups, styles, and facilitators discussed here exemplify the importance of being adaptable, trusted, and knowledgeable about the groups with which a practitioner is working. There are endless opportunities for dialogue groups, and hiring a consultant and planning an agenda is not necessarily needed.