|
As a response to the control-paradigm world around us, dialogue sends a liberating message. Dialogue is the real source of order in human societies. It communicates openness, trust, mutual respect, adventure and shared exploration. It is a response that invites paradigm shift in precisely the direction we want to make it, namely, toward soul-honoring interaction.
Discussion vs. Dialogue
David Bohm, the physicist, whose ideas on dialogue follow the Socratic tradition, believed that dialogue is an art that's distinct from ordinary discussion. Discussion works like ping-pong - opinions are tossed back and forth to set whose views will win out. It's a competitive game of scoring points: one-up, one-down, argument and rebuttal. But, discussion has its limits. In discussion, our options are restricted to the starting point positions of each side. Discussion is not designed to increase options, only to narrow options. Discussion operates on a win-lose model.
Dialogue, in contrast, has a different dynamic. It's purpose is not to establish a "victor" or to prove a question, but to "love the truth" and pursue it. We let truth be what it is, whether it happens to fit our paradigm agendas or not. We let out pursuit of the truth spill over our current thought boundaries, drawing us into areas we have not considered before. How does a dialogue response do this?
David Bohm mapped out three criteria - three rules of dialogue. These rules cannot be imposed from without or faked. If inwardly we're stuck in a one-up/one-down mode (a control paradigm response), we can try and create a dialogue but it won't happen. The exercise lapses into ping-pong. Real dialogue grows with soul connectedness. In paradigm terms, a dialogue response grows from soul connectedness assumptions and strategies. We simply love the truth and want to explore it in the same spirit with others. Bohm said, "the purpose of dialogue is to go beyond any one individual's understanding. We are not trying to
win in a dialogue. We all wind if we are doing it right." Bohm's three criteria, listed below, will facilitate a dialogue response:
-
Suspending Our Paradigms - First, since truth is greater than our concepts about it, loving the truth means loving truth more than any one perspective. Even the best paradigm falls short of reality, which is infinite and surpasses our most advanced ideas. Both parties cannot respond in dialogue and be dogmatic about their respective paradigms. In dialogue, we stay open to exploring our ideas and perceptions from the ground up. Because reality is infinite, there is always room for evolution. The first criterion for dialogue, then, is that participants must "suspend their assumptions". This takes work,
because most paradigm assumptions lie in the shadows where we don't notice them. Dialogue begins as we put our models on the table for consideration. A dialogue response doesn't trash what we've assumed so far. It simply keeps our options open, so we can discover the reality lying beyond them. Huxley once said, "Sit down before fact like a child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
-
Honoring Each Other As Equals - Whereas the first criteria opens the window, the second lets the breeze blow through. The second of Bohm's criteria tackles the control paradigm's response directly, since the most common (and most internalized) barrier to true dialogue is the one-up/one-down model of interaction. We can't have an open dialogue with people who have power over us or whom we perceive as superiors. Bohm observed that "Hierarchy is antithetical to dialogue". Those in dialogue must treat each other as equal partners in the pursuit of truth, working as a team. Responding as colleagues, we support each
other and create a space that's safe for exploring the truth - where loving the truth is allowed. During the Challenger disasters in 1986, it was discovered that one of the factors involved was the unwillingness of upper management to listen to the concerns of the engineers who felt that the program was being rushed and insufficient testing time was allowed. Those in charge didn't want to listen to feedback that didn't fit their agenda and used their superior status to block it. Naturally, the process of evolving awareness raises differences. Responding to each other as equal partners does not mean we all must think alike. Differences enrich the process. Instead of
using differences to divide us, dialogue uses them to expand the possibilities we're able to consider. According to Bohm, "In dialogue, a group accesses a larger pool of common meaning which cannot be accessed individually. Individuals gain insights that could not be achieved individually. Defending one paradigm or another isn't the focus in dialogue. Broadening our awareness is the focus. The jockeying that goes on in hierarchies through win-lose discussion becomes irrelevant.
-
A Genuine Spirit of Inquiry - Freeing ourselves from internalized ranking is easier said than done. That is why dialogue needs a third criterion. We need to protect the dialogue atmosphere from our own histories of being shamed. One way to do this is through a facilitator who "holds the context" of dialogue and keeps the space safe for exploration and risk taking. Because dialogue requires that we reveal our deepest and most "unofficial" thoughts, it makes us vulnerable. Facilitators keep the factors of shaming, one-upsmanship and official-think at bay. They support the shift from
discussion to dialogue by affirming differences and not letting participants become polarized in win-lose contests. With a genuine spirit of inquiry, we don't care who said what or which direction the dialogue takes. We are all on the same side in dialogue, pursuing a common quest for understanding.
One way of responding that supports a dialogue atmosphere balances advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy presents a position, while inquiry explores it. The more we each do both, the more our responses stay fluid, true to a dialogue context. When we advocate a paradigm perspective, for instance, we also open our thought processes to inquiry. We explain how we arrived at an assumption, strategy, response or goal, and why. We also keep the door open to rethinking our positions from the ground up. We reflect on our own paradigm and invite others to do the same. That way, we don't get stuck "defending one position". When
others present a paradigm perspective, we not only inquire into their thought processes but also state our assumptions about what they are saying and acknowledge them as assumptions on our part. "What I'm hearing you say is..." Our assumptions may be preventing us from grasping what others truly mean. The real message often lies behind the words and can by the opposite of what's spoken.
Why Dialogue is Considered "Subversive" from a Control System Perspective
|
