A different kind of encounter
Which word best describes the type of interaction you’re having with someone when you have a conflict with them? Some of the words that come to mind might be discussion, conversation, or even debate.
I bet you didn’t think of the word dialogue. I know I didn’t until I started reading about it.
Noted physicist and dialogue promoter David Bohm describes the difference between dialogue and discussion as follows, “Discussion is almost like a ping-pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else’s ideas to back up your own — you may agree with some and disagree with others — but the basic point is to win the game … That’s very frequently the case in discussion. In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it.”
A dialogue is a more productive way to have conversations, and it’s a skill we can learn.
The key moment of the dialogue process is when a story or an idea shifts the perspective of those involved. A moment of understanding the other ends up leading to a breakthrough.
To get to that point, you must be willing to listen and to put aside your own point of view, at least for a while.
As one of the authors of the book, “Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners,” Philip Thomas, describes it, “Dialogue requires the ability to navigate the narrow ridge between embracing and expressing your own perspective while at the same time remaining profoundly open to listen and understand the perspective of the Other.”
Dan Foster, creator of an online spiritual community, illustrates what happens when we get it wrong. He wrote about one encounter he had at a wedding with someone who tried to convince him his view of God was wrong. He felt violated and noted that it wasn’t a dialogue, that “a dialogue is utterly impossible with someone who believes that they are right, and you are wrong. Because this man already understood and knew everything, he could debate and discuss, but he could not dialogue with me.”
The dialogue process requires people who agree to the process. That may not be exactly true in your situation, if you’re trying to mend a relationship. But what you might try to get agreement by saying something like:
“This conversation is important to me, and I would like to try something different to make the conversation more productive. Instead of having a discussion where we ping pong back and forth, let’s try to have a “dialogue.” By that I mean, let’s try to listen to the other person, listening for understanding. And let’s make a point of noticing if we each understand each other differently. Are you willing to try? I can listen first.”
And if you want some tips on listening, I’ve written a previous newsletter about that.
If you want to know more, check out Phillip Thomas and Bettye Pruitt’s book for the UN, “Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners.”
If you want more tips on how you can make changes that can lead to better relationships, subscribe!