The Invisible School

Publications Section : xxArticles in Periodicals

1) "The Power of Dialogue" Published in "Family News", Marin County, CA

2) "Engaging in Dialogue" x Published in "Family News", Marin County, CA

 

Published in "Family News", Marin County, California, April 2004

 

The first article, "The Power of Dialogue", appeared in "Family News" in March. If you missed it, you can find it on-line at click here . It describes how we can view human conversation as existing in different quantum states. We do this with physical phenomena, calling the states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. We can call the states of conversation: Debate, Discussion, and Dialogue.

The experience of a molecule of water is different as ice than as steam. One is stuck, the other free. Nevertheless, both ice and gas are valuable to humanity, because they can achieve very different results.

This analogy holds true for conversation. The experience of engaging in Debate is entirely different from the experience of engaging in Dialogue. One is fixed, the other is free-flowing, and both can produce useful results. Although the term "Dialogue" is familiar to everyone, most of us have no practical experience with it, and only a vague understanding of how it works or what it can accomplish. It is as though we haven't harnessed steam for transportation or generating electricity.

The previous article describes Dialogue by comparing it to Debate and Discussion. This approach helps to convey an initial understanding that Dialogue is a unique mode of conversation, like a different quantum reality. But it is only a beginning. It is important to understand Dialogue on its own terms.

 

Basic Conditions of Dialogue

An excellent starting point is the "Three Conditions Necessary for Dialogue", defined by David Bohm and quoted by Peter Senge. According to these pioneers in the field, Dialogue requires that:

1) Participants must treat each others as colleagues;

2) Participants must suspend assumptions; and

3) There must be a facilitator who "holds the context" of Dialogue.

Taken together, these conditions help us begin to engage in a different quantum state of conversation, and to check whether Dialogue (or another mode of conversation) is occurring.

 

Participants must treat each other as colleagues

We can define "colleagues" as "friends who work together towards a common goal". Not merely co-workers or associates, but friends: people who treat each other kindly, with respect and concern for each other's welfare. We all know who our friends are by the way they treat us. This is true in a school, family, business, or community.

The "common goal" is something which concerns, and benefits everyone. In simple terms, it is the welfare of the school, family, community, or corporation. (In the bigger picture, in includes benefits to humanity, the planet, and the future.) Conversations in which several parties benefit -- while the others don't -- is not Dialogue.

There are questions we can ask to see if our conversations constitute Dialogue. You might try this with a variety of conversations over the next week. Keep in mind that any of these conditions may be relatively blatant, or relatively subtle. Expertise in Dialogue involves becoming more sensitive to subtle differences.

x Checking the condition of "treating as colleagues" :

Do the participants treat each other like friends? Or is there competitiveness or animosity (even subtly)?

Does everyone demonstrate respect for the thoughts and feelings of the others? Or do they argue, persuade, or pressure the others to change their point of view, or take some action?

Does the conversation consider, take into account, and include the perspectives and feelings of all parties? Or does it press towards conclusions and actions which benefit some, while ignoring the needs and desires of others?

When we ask ourselves such questions after our conversations, all participants become more aware of the ways they inhibit or support a high level of Dialogue.

 

Participants must suspend assumptions

This condition refers as much to a basic open-minded, inquisitive attitude, as to any specific practice. In Dialogue circles, we can imagine that we "suspend assumptions" by floating them in the air in the center of the group, allowing us to examine them from all sides.

Assumptions are points of view, opinions, or conclusions which we hold without examining them carefully. They are unconscious beliefs.

Any superstition is an example : If a black cat crosses my path, something bad will happen. It is likely this was heard, assumed to be true, and adopted as a belief. And this belief directs behavior, for good or ill.

Another obvious example of assumption is prejudice: All people of (such-and-such religion, nationality, body-type, etc.) are (such-and-such). We meet a person matching the description and assume they will behave a certain way. Generally, if we observe closely, we will find the assumption to be false.

Another way of making an assumption is by jumping to a conclusion. Suppose I find a flat tire on my car, and jump to the conclusion (assume) that the teenager next door vandalized it; but on closer inspection, I find I ran over a nail. Or suppose I read an editorial I disagree with, and complain that the author doesn't know what he is talking about; but a friend helps me see that the piece is very well written, and the author has more experience than I. Contrary evidence may help dissolve assumptions.

Everyone holds countless assumptions, most of them unconsciously. If they match reality closely enough, we don't get in trouble. But when circumstances grate and plans fall apart -- as an individual, organization, or community -- it is likely there are unexamined assumptions leading people to make unwise decisions and take counter-productive actions.

x Checking the condition of "examining assumptions" :

Are participants in the conversation willing to consider multiple sides of an issue -- even explore the opposite of what they think is true? Or do they vigorously defend one perspective or one line of action?

Are the participants open-minded about what they hear? Or do they begin to argue or defend even before the speaker is finished?

Do participants arrive at new insights or new perspectives on an old issue? Or does everyone simply reconfirm what they thought before the conversation began?

It bears repeating that these distinctions may be relatively gross or subtle. But as we better perceive them, we begin to recognize the distinct "flavor" of Dialogue, and become more able to apply it and reap its benefits.

 

Facilitator who "holds the context of Dialogue"

This condition is more difficult to define, and illustrates the fundamental challenge of training new facilitators. These articles attempt to convey a sense of "the context of Dialogue". But, as with any craft or practice, there is an essential experiential component. One cannot know the context of Dialogue without experiencing it first-hand, under the guidance of a skilled facilitator. With The Dialogue Game, we train new facilitators by having them first learn to participate in Dialogue; they gradually gain experience, insight into the process, and wisdom about how to hold the context for others.

But what is a facilitator exactly? In The Invisible School, we say it is someone who "takes responsibility for the learning and welfare of the entire group". Someone with the understanding and skill to set the stage properly, intervene when necessary, and debrief the experience to maximize learning.

The larger the group involved, the more essential to have a designated facilitator. In a smaller group, it is possible to have facilitation without a clear facilitator. This happens any time a small group of friends talk together, and the conditions of Dialogue are created naturally.

But in larger conversations, how can one tell if there is facilitation?

x Checking the condition of "facilitation" :

Did anyone intervene to draw the quieter participants into the conversation? Or was the conversation dominated by a few, while others remained silent?

Did anyone ask multiple questions to help clarify the statements of others, request additional information, or suggest a new perspective on the topic? Or did everyone take turns making statements, with few questions being asked?

Did anyone reflect back to the group any aspects of the group dynamics, or suggest a return to a previous thought? Or did the conversation run on automatic, with no one showing concern or responsibility for the experience of all participants or the coherence of the conversation?

 

Recognizing the Benefits of Dialogue

Ask yourself these questions about your conversations, and you will begin to recognize the experience of Dialogue. And you will begin to enjoy the multiple benefits of Dialogue. When these three conditions are met, you will notice that conversations are more friendly, respectful, inclusive, insightful, cohesive, satisfying, and productive. You will see that actions taken as a result of Dialogue are wiser in the long run, and more beneficial to all parties involved.

 

Peter Winchell is a parent, classroom teacher, consultant, and author of the forthcoming book, Everyone Wins The Dialogue Game. He is the director of The Invisible School, which provides Dialogue training to groups of all sorts. Contact him at (415) 458-3508, or through his website www.TheInvisibleSchool.org.