In Search of Dialogue
By Frances Forde Plude
Psychological tests seem to indicate that my introvert and extrovert tendencies are in balance; I have almost the same amount of each.
This may account for the fact that, even in the solitude of study, I have long been interested in dialogue as a specific subject of analysis. In this connection I have accumulated writings and files on collaboration, cooperative interaction, systems, interactive technologies, negotiation strategies, and various types of dialogue. Early on I recognized the communicative power of the telephone – never dreaming that it would emerge as the interactive tool of the 21st century. A computer itself, the telephone – especially in its mobile form – demonstrates the interactive nature of all computers, tools that respond to commands with utter logic.
My personal (and professional) interest in dialogic communication tools relates – beyond the tool – to the potential the technologies represent for the improvement of human communication, for social, cultural, political improvements. This has always seemed connected to the skill of listening, the basis for two-way communication. All this has seemed to me to be inherent in larger efforts to promote respect for individual human dignity and social justice.
In a sense human activity has run ahead of my theoretical reflections and archives. In the United States my lifetime has witnessed some democratic and participative victories over dictatorial powers in Germany and other nations. Internally we have witnessed the birth of many social programs called ‘safety nets’ and various human rights movements among African Americans, women and gay activists. As these have been negotiated the dialogue has not always been calm but it has been nonetheless fruitful.
The Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement (along with the Tea Party) forced global society to ‘hear’ varied voices with various results. Dialogue is not always easy or productive in clean-cut ways; however, it is usually effective. Interestingly, the Occupy Wall Street group maintained that it did not have a specific agenda, was not advocating for specific policies. Their generic big idea was “We are the 99%.” The group had many discussion groups and each worked toward consensus.
This basic idea of suspending “positions” lies at the heart of the best dialogue literature. Along with Deborah Tannan, the expert on how conversations work, my two favorite thinkers about dialogue are the renowned physicist David Bohm (On Dialogue) and William Isaacs (Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together).
Isaacs says “People do not listen; they reload… The aim of a negotiation is to reach agreement among parties who differ. The intention of dialogue is to reach new understanding and, in doing so, to form a totally new basis from which to think and act… We do not merely try to reach agreement; we try to create a context from which many new agreements might come.”
Bohm puts it this way: the challenge in dialogue is simply allowing multiple points of view to be. “The thing that mostly gets in the way of dialogue is holding to assumptions and opinions and defending them. This instinct to judge and defend, embedded in the self-defense mechanisms of our biological heritage, is the source of incoherence.”
It is helpful to reflect for a moment on the concept of incoherence, which appears a lot in Bohm’s thinking. This incoherence is a conceptual reality within many marriages, within many families and within our culture-at-large – both nationally and internationally. It infuses many conversations. It is not, apparently, just a question of a lack of clarity when we interact; our ways of thinking interfere with achieving clarity and this prevents us from creating “a new context from which many new agreements might come.”
I have often been frustrated by the lack of creative dialogue within the Catholic Church. Years ago, I published a book chapter entitled “Interactive Telecommunications: A Model for a More Dialogic Church.” In reflecting on the inspired dynamics of the Second Vatican Council, I urged that dialogue in the church be two-way, interactive in a truly authentic way. Often it has not happened.
In a major presentation at the University of Bochum, in Germany the noted theologian Hermann Pottmeyer noted that God opened an authentic dialogue with humanity when God’s Son entered human history – modeling mutuality and reciprocity. He asks: why, then, can’t the church have an internal dialogue based on reciprocity?
Pottmeyer answers that the church views participation in the decision-making process as a limitation of the decision-making power of its office holders. Secondly, the church puts great weight on the clergy’s role as God’s messengers. However, Pottmeyer adds that their job is not only to convey the truth; it is also to help find the truth. In fact, he notes, examples of dialogue among people of faith do exist – in small Christian communities, in parishes that are not priest-centric.
Not to pick exclusively on religious institutions, our political arena is not truly dialogical either. Televised debates among candidates force a confrontational style of conversation allowing some candidates to win by making their competitors look like losers. This hardly qualifies as negotiation or discussion, let alone dialogue.
I think there are at least two factors that promote tensions and interfere with authentic dialogue. Let me tackle the big one first: the media.
All ‘old’ media – newspapers, radio, TV – are fighting for their lives. As our media model shifts to the internet and social media these earlier forms of media are losing audiences, advertisers, and, therefore, financial support. To stay alive as they transition to new media formats, older forms of media get louder and more drama driven. In political discourse they focus on scandals and what is called ‘gotcha’ journalism. Rarely are important issues discussed in depth as media focus on most elections as if they were horseraces.
There is another factor that does not make it into the headlines – a growing awareness of the sense of the self. Beginning with the work of Freud, the world and individuals within it have become more aware of the individual and his or her psyche. As liberation movements have developed, the importance of the individual has been stressed. Many women and many poor societies now feel they are important in ways not imagined in previous decades or centuries.
This self-awareness has emboldened individuals and whole societies. People are now more aggressive in their demands and the media are a megaphone, broadcasting these demands within nations and around the globe. This has fueled independence movements and made them messy and unpredictable. In their attempt to have their own voices heard these individuals often do not listen enough to promote productive dialogue.
To begin we need to study the dialogue literature – to listen to people who have done a lot of thinking and on-the-ground research about what dialogue is and how it can be productively practiced.