|
|
|
Sign up for our Inspiring
Thought
for the Day
delivered to you
3 times a week.
Share them with your
friends, use them in your speeches,
presentations and in your conversations
or use them in your daily life.
You will also receive a
free
"Resource of the Week"
link.
|
|
|
What you
do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson (bio)
More
Inspiring Quotations
The need for Conflict-Resolving
Government challenges us to establish civil
discourse.
The following three articles raise our
awareness and give strategies:
|
THE WAY THAT YOU SAY IT
|
Dr Keith Suter, Author,
Lecturer,Consultant for Social Policy
We live in a society divided by debate. We urgently need a society that
makes greater use of dialogue.
There is a difference between "debate" and
"dialogue". In a debate, the atmosphere is
usually threatening, with interruptions
expected. The participants express unwavering
commitment to their own point of view. There is
often a great deal of heat but little light.
In a dialogue, by contrast, the atmosphere is
more exploratory, where participants express
uncertainties as well as deeply held beliefs,
and where the participants listen to, understand
and gain insight from others.
In a standard debate, the statements are
predictable and offer little new information. In
a dialogue, new information comes to the
surface. In a dialogue, objections will be
raised; disagreement based on non-negotiable
convictions will still hold firm; but the tone
is different. The goal is changed from
conquering to growing; from silencing to
knowing; from telling to asking. When questions
are employed they are used to learn and grow,
not to defeat and conquer. This is a path to
greater creativity and expanding horizons.
How one says something is as important as what
one says. Much the same goes for politics.
Imagine what an election campaign would be like
if all the parties adopted a dialogue style
rather than the current debate style. Well, we
might want to listen to the political candidates
for a start. The voters are much smarter than
the politicians. They have moved on. Voters
already prefer a dialogue style of considering
public affairs. But the politicians - or at
least their campaign advisers - are keeping them
locked into an old-fashioned style of
campaigning.
Political parties are built into our
democratic system. The Conflict Resolution
Network (CRN) is not advocating their
disappearance. Rather, CRN promotes creativity
and diversity, and it supports a more productive
and professional response to the electorates'
issues. It is not so much a matter that a
particular political party should win but that
the democratic system itself is enhanced by the
election process. Therefore, we need to move
from the old-fashioned adversarial system of
politics to a more productive system based on
dialogue and creativity.
|
THE ELEMENTS OF
DIALOGUE |
|
True dialogue is not a life
jacket when the boat is sinking. It is
the boat itself and the very careful
crafting required to hold it together
when the storm of diversity inevitably
crashes it about.
Carolyn Schrock-Shenk
|
|
|
The
term "dialogue" comes from the Greek "dialogos"
(dia = through, logos = word). The literal
translation suggests its meaning; the use of
words moving conversants through an interaction
to a place where new meaning is uncovered. In
dialogue, speech moves beyond simple interaction
on the one hand, and through a competitive
exchange on the other hand, to an activity in
which participants work together as a team in
search of new light and truth.
On their way to a public dialogue between
psychotherapist Carl Rogers and anthropologist
Gregory Bateson, the moderator for the evening
asked Bateson, "How will I know whether or not
we have done our job tonight?" Bateson
responded, "If either Carl or I says something
that we haven't said before, we'll know that
it's a success.
The teamwork of dialogue moves the
conversation away from win/lose, either/or. At
least for the duration of the dialogue,
adversaries become allies, working together to
break new ground. Objections will still be
raised; disagreement based on non-negotiable
convictions will still hold firm, but the tone
is different. That goal is changed from
conquering to growing; from silencing to
knowing; from telling to asking. Questions are
employed as tools for probing, not weapons for
stabbing. New possibilities are considered. As
David Bohm says, we dialogue "so that creativity
can be liberated".
When personal positions are offered to the
team, there is a better possibility that one's
convictions or assumptions can be viewed more
objectively by both the team and the individual,
allowing participants to see points of
incoherence as well as insight in their
position. Incoherence is more than being
illogical; it is also thinking that is producing
undesired consequences. In the abortion
conflict, for example, most pro-life advocates
do not want the result of their conviction to
mean that low-income women who decide to abort
will be forced to obtain medically dangerous
abortions, nor do they want to see children
raised by parents who do not want them.
Similarly, most pro-choice advocates do not want
the result of their position to mean that
abortion will be casually used as a form of
birth control.
In dialogue, new implications of a position
may be uncovered which will cause the position
to be re-examined for coherence. Thus, the
dialogue sends participants deeper into
themselves in order to explore their positions
and their implications more carefully.
Written by Joseph Phelps for Conciliation
Quarterly, a publication of the MCC US Mennonite
Conciliation Service, Vol. 15, No. 2: PO Box
500, Akron PA 17501-0500 USA. |
|
DISTINGUISHING DEBATE FROM DIALOGUE |
DEBATE |
DIALOGUE |
Pre-meeting communication between sponsors and
participants is minimal and largely irrelevant
to what follows. |
Pre-meeting contacts and preparation of
participants are essential elements of the full
process. |
Participants tend to be leaders known for
propounding a carefully crafted position. The
personas displayed in the debate are usually
already familiar to the public. The behaviour of
the participants tends ot conform to
stereotypes. |
Those chosen to participate are not necessarily
outspoken "leaders" Whoever they are, they speak
as individuals whose own unique experiences
differ n some respect from others on their
"side". Their behaviour is likely to vary in
some degree and among some dimensions from
stereotypic images others may hold of them. |
The atmosphere is threatening: attacks and
interruptions are expected by participants and
are usually permitted by moderators. |
The atmosphere is one of safety; facilitators
propose, get agreement on, and enforce clear
ground rules to enhance safety and promote
respectful exchange. |
Participants speak as representatives of groups. |
Participants speak as individuals, from their
own unique experience. |
Participants speak to their own constituents
and, perhaps, to the undecided middle. |
Participants speak to each other. |
Differences within "sides" are denied or
minimised. |
Differences among participants on the same
"side" are revealed, as individual and personal
foundations of beliefs and values are explored. |
Participants express unswerving commitment to a
point of view, approach, or idea. |
Participants express uncertainties, as well as
deeply held beliefs. |
Participants listen in order to refute the other
side?s data and to expose faulty logic in their
arguments. Questions are asked from a position
of certainty. These questions are often
rhetorical challenges or disguised statements. |
Participants listen to understand and gain
insight into the beliefs and concerns of the
others. Questions are asked from a position of
curiosity. |
Statements are predictable and offer little new
information. |
New information surfaces. |
Success requires simple impassioned statements. |
Success requires exploration of the complexities
of the issue being discussed. |
Debates operate within the constraints of the
dominant public discourse. (The discourse
defines the problem and the options for
resolution. It assumes that fundamental needs
and values are already clearly understood.) |
Participants are encouraged to question the
dominant public discourse, that is, to express
fundamental needs that may or may not be
reflected in the discourse and to explore
various options for problem definition and
resolution. Participants may discover
inadequacies in the usual language and concepts
used in the public debate. |
This table
contrasts debate as commonly seen on television
with the kind of dialogue we aim to promote in
dialogue sessions conducted by the Public
Conversations Project.
© The Public Conversations Project of
the Family Institute of Cambridge, 46 Kondazian
Street, Watertown MA 02172 USA, e-mail:
thepcpteam@aol.com, phone (617) 923-1216, fax
(617) 923-2757. |
|
|
© This CRN
material can be freely
reproduced provided this
copyright notice appears on each
page.
Conflict
Resolution Network |