Dialogue as Thinking Together
By Frances Forde Plude
If I were to use a single term to describe myself, it would probably be “thinker.” I recall in junior high school history class ruminating seriously about what life would be like living in the Middle Ages. What student that age spends much time thinking about that?
And much of my personal and professional life has been spent thinking alone. I get most of my insightful and creative thoughts inside my own mind. And yet… Some of my best insights have come from interacting with others – with other individuals and within groups – as ideas bounce off other people and provide new insights within me.
And, realistically, most of the world’s problems have been – and will continue to be – solved as people think and work collectively. Walter Isaacs refers to Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together in his book with that title. Isaacs states: “…neither the enormous challenges human beings face today, nor the wonderful promise of the future on whose threshold we seem to be poised, can be reached unless human beings learn to think together in a very new way” (p 6).
As I write this the United States population (and, especially, its politicians) are in a state often called, quite accurately, gridlock. On the national and local scene, those in elected office are worried about remaining in office. Much time is devoted to getting financial support and creating stark contrasts between themselves and their opponents. This has led to almost a total loss of credibility since politicians and people adopt a stance that is stark and unbelievable. This division is made worse by the fact that some cable news channels cover one side almost exclusively. I must confess it is so bad that people who parrot positions that are not at all credible force me to simply hit the mute button when they speak. How healthy is that for someone who longs to be open to the ideas of others?
All right, how can we break through this gridlock? And how can we achieve the goal of “fluid structures of interaction” within families, among political opponents, and even within nations? Isaacs says there are three levels of action in a fruitful dialogue and they create a foundation by which we can think productively together.
The first level is to develop a capacity for new behavior, producing coherent actions and avoiding outcomes we do not intend. When individuals or groups or nations are fiercely embracing starkly opposing positions it may seem almost hopeless to develop this new behavior capacity. And yet there are previous models. There’s South Africa’s President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela talking in prison. And John Hume, the Ulster politician and Nobel laureate, talking behind the scenes with Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein. Perhaps the lesson is that we need bold individuals who will take these steps when it is difficult for lesser mortals to do so.
The second level Isaacs calls creating fluid structures of interaction. He says we do not always see the forces that are operating below the surface of our conversations. We can learn to develop predictive intuition – the ability to see these forces more clearly. I cannot resist recalling that people often refer to ‘women’s intuition’ – the fact that many women are able to read these underlying forces better than many males. Thus, one way to nurture this predictive intuition in groups is, quite simply, to systematically include women in more of these groups! While many workshops are held for businessmen to facilitate these intuitive insights, this strategy of simply including more women in the groups is often overlooked. Remember, as Deborah Tannen’s keeps reminding us: not all women are intuitive, but most women are. And not all men lack intuition, but many of them are not naturally intuitive.
Finally, the third level of action in dialogue, according to Isaacs, is providing wholesome space for dialogue. This, he says, will allow us to become more conscious of the architecture of the invisible atmosphere in our conversation. I suggest that allowing space means listening. What could almost be called authentic listening, really listening, not just reloading so we can fire back. One exercise used in many workshops is that after every speaker, whoever responds next must summarize what the previous speaker just said. This respects the previous speaker’s input and it also allows a moment to correct immediately any misinterpretations of what that speaker really said. Wholesome space for dialogue also requires the letting go of assumptions as urged by David Bohm, the dialogue theorist.
Stepping further back from these reflections of levels of action in dialogue, Isaacs notes: “Our habits of thinking are part of a complex web that links us all together; it is our ‘ecology of thought.’ This ecology is the living network of memory and awareness…held collectively. It is the matrix that informs us that the world is a certain way and problems can be solved in only a certain way” (p 35).
One again I suggest here that women’s presence in dialogue groups may facilitate an ‘ecology of thought.’ Sally Helgeson’s research shows that women’s networks tend to be very inclusive. Deborah Tannen’s studies show that women’s conversations tend to be relational rather than confrontational (most of the time, not all the time). Of course, women bring their assumptions to a dialogue, just as men do, so both sexes must struggle to let go of their preconceived ideas if a safe space is to be achieved. However, most of the dialogues in the world (at least those with real power) tend to be male dominated if not totally male. (Women were amazed and annoyed recently when the U.S. Congress held hearings on women’s health issues and there was not a single woman among the ‘experts’ called in to testify!)
There is an “enormous amount of untapped or repressed energy” among the people of the world, according to Isaacs (p 30) and most people would agree. We have accomplished incredible things since humanity first harnessed fire. But just imagine how much more we could achieve if we could institutionalize authentic dialogue – make it a social habit, which is what institutionalization means.
And, on the other hand, reflect on the enormous cost (in human lives and in other resources) of the continuous wars waged among people historically – wars where men are the direct victims in the armies, but where women and children pay an incredible price also. It would seem that training in the tools of authentic dialogue would be a huge practical investment for all of humanity!