What Makes

Dialogue Unique?

By:
Daniel Yankelovich

Source:
The Magic of Dialogues
Transforming Conflict into Cooperation
 On public television's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, the last few minutes are often devoted to a
segment the producers describe as "A Dialogue with David Gergen" in which Mr. Gergen interviews
someone currently in the news. What distinguishes this segment from other television interviews is that
Gergen's questions show that he has actually read the book or article the guest has written, thereby
enabling him to make intelligent comments. This is a refreshing change from television as usual, but it is
not "dialogue" in the sense that I and other practitioners use this term.

As I write these words, I have on my desk before me a number of books and articles with the
word "dialogue" in their titles. In most of them the reader would be hard put to distinguish these so-called
dialogues from other forms of conversation. There is nothing that sets them apart. Some feature
intelligent and insightful exchanges of views, but, once again, dialogue is used as a generic term to
describe two people talking with each Other.

If you ask a half-dozen people at random what dialogue is, you will get a half-dozen different
answers. Until recently, even specialists did not distinguish dialogue from plain-vanilla conversation,
discussion, debate, of other forms of talking together. Here and there isolated practitioners such as Martin
Buber and Hannah Arendt saw special qualities in dialogue when done properly, but the concept
remained alien to mainstream American thought until the 1980s, when thinkers from a variety of fields
began to rediscover its distinctive virtues.

Since then the topic of dialogue has gained astonishing momentum. In recent years more than
two hundred independent community initiatives have brought groups normally isolated from one another
together to address issues of concern to the community through dialogue. Organizations such as the
Healthcare Forum have identified dialogue skills as essential to effective community leadership. At MIT,
William N. Isaacs founded the Dialogue Project, dedicated to the practice of dialogue in the business
community. There are dozens of similar projects and centers in the nation. Dialogue now crops up as an
important subject in such diverse fields as leadership, management, philosophy, psychology, science,
and religion.

1 Unscrambling the Four Ds

My guess is that the semantic confusion will not last long. As the idea of dialogue catches on (as
it is now doing), the need to clarify its meaning will grow apparent and its distinctive character will
'become more widely recognized. This has happened with other specialized forms of conversation.
Reflect for a moment on jury deliberations, diplomatic negotiations, psychotherapy, conflict resolution
panels, T-groups, quality circles, organizational teaming, board meetings, workshops, and conferences.
Initially, all of these forms of talk were launched with only a vague idea of the special purposes they could
serve. Yet all have flow been codified and formalized in varying degrees in the interest of capturing their
unique capabilities.

This has not yet happened with dialogue. Most people continue to use the Four Ds—Dialogue,
Debate, Discussion, and Deliberation—interchangeably. This habit of speech makes the skill
requirements of dialogue needlessly complicated. The skills needed for dialogue are not esoteric or
arcane. Indeed, most are obvious, such as learning to listen more attentively. The complication lies in the
confusion that must be cleared away before the skills can be addressed and mastered. It is as if the task
were to erect a tent in a part of a forest covered with underbrush, old roots, and stumps of trees. Putting
up the tent may be less onerous than clearing a space for it.

2
 2 Areas of Convergence
Fortunately, there is a great deal of agreement among practitioners on how to distinguish dialogue from
other forms of conversation. The most revealing distinctions are those that contrast dialogue with debate
and discussion. (Deliberation—the fourth "D"—is a form of thought and reflection that can take place in
any kind of conversation.)

2.1 Debate
All practitioners of (dialogue emphasize 'that debate is the" opposite of dialogue. The purpose of debate is
to win an argument, to vanquish an opponent. Dialogue has very different purposes. It would be
inconceivable to say that someone "won" or "lost" a dialogue. In dialogue, all participants win or lose
together. It defeats the idea of dialogue to conceive of winning or losing. Those who practice dialogue
have come to see that the worst possible way to advance mutual understanding is to win debating points
at the expense of others.

Visualize a small group of neighbors, some of whom are liberal in their politics and others who
are conservative, having a conversation about improving standards for schools. The conversation starts
civilly. All have children in school and know how important education is for the future of their children. As
neighbors they share a number of communal concerns, education being among the most important. They
are searching for answers to difficult and troublesome questions.

Just as they are beginning to develop a common understanding of the obstacles schools face,
one of the liberals in the group attacks the conservatives' endorsement of vouchers for school choice on
the grounds that it undermines the tradition of public education in the United States. One of the
conservatives in the group then responds by attacking a variety of liberal school reforms that, she argues,
have sacrificed quality of performance in search of an unattainable ideal of equality.

A tone of hostility has now crept into the conversation. Those who have been attacked grow
defensive. They marshal their arguments to beat down the opposition. They have stopped listening for
understanding; they are now listening to detect soft spots in the others' positions so that they can
controvert them. It all happens so quickly and automatically that no one notices that there has been a shift
from conversation to debate. One thing is certain: no dialogue can take place.

The accompanying table is adapted from the writings of Mark Gerzon, one of our most gifted
practitioners of dialogue. It contrasts the differences between debate and dialogue and shows how
practitioners distinguish between these two forms of conversation.

DEBATE VERSUS DIALOGUE

Debate Dialogue
Assuming that there is a right Assuming that many people have
answer and you have it pieces of the answer and that
together they can craft a solution

Combative: participants attempt to Collaborative: participants work

About winning About exploring common ground

3
 Defending assumptions as truth Revealing assumptions for
reevaluationn

Critiquing the other side’s position Reexamining all positions

Defending one’s own views against Admitting that others’ thinking can
those of others improve on one’s own

Searching for flaws and Searching for strengths and value

Seeking in conclusion or vote that Discovering new options, not

2.2 Discussion
That debate is the opposite of dialogue is clear. Where discussion fits in is less clear—and more
important. For it is in the distinction between discussion and dialogue that the distinctive quality of
dialogue is best revealed.

It is useful to start with a nondifference: the erroneous assumption that serious conversation
between two people is a dialogue but that if a larger group is involved it is a discussion. This artificial
distinction mirrors a confusion about the literal meaning of the word "dialogue."

I recently came across a book titled Carl Rogers: Dialogues. It presents a series of conversations
the eminent psychologist held with outstanding scholars, including Martin Buber. Since the word
"dialogue" is featured in the book's title and since some of the world's most noted practitioners of dialogue
are involved, one would expect to find genuine dialogues. Clearly, that was the message the editors
conveyed in the title they chose for the book.

I found the conversations between Dr. Rogers and others interesting and provocative but did not
initially see why they were called dialogues. They were largely interviews that Dr. Rogers conducted in
the presence of an audience, with Rogers interpolating his point of view from time to time (like the
interviews David Gergen conducts with his guests on the NewsHour). The clue to why they were called
dialogues came at the end of Dr. Rqgers's interview with Martin Buber. In his concluding remarks, the
moderator, Professor of Philosophy Maurice Friedman, said to the audience, "We are deeply indebted to
Dr. Rogers and Dr. Buber for a unique dialogue. It was unique in my experience ... because you (the
audience) took part in a sort of triologue and adding me, a quadralogue" (emphasis added).

Professor Friedman is making the common but mistaken assumption that dialogue literally means
"two-sided." But dialogue has nothing to do with the number two. The word "dialogue" derives from two
Greek words: dia, meaning "through" (as in the word "diaphanous," meaning "to show through") and
logos, signifying "word" or "meaning." David Bohm, one of dialogue's most original practitioners, interprets
its etymological roots as suggesting words and meanings flowing through from one participant to another.
Emphatically, dialogue is not confined to conversations between two people. In fact, some writers on the
subject believe that dialogue is best carried out in groups ranging from about a dozen to two dozen
people. It is ironic to see the word "dialogue" incorrectly used in describing a conversation between
Rogers and Buber, both eminent theorists of dialogue.

What, then, is the difference between dialogue and discussion? Three distinctive features of
dialogue differentiate it from discussion. When all three are present, conversation is transformed into
dialogue. When any one or more of the three features are absent, it is discussion or some other form of
talk, but it is not dialogue.

4
1. Equality and the absence of coercive influences. Practitioners agree that in dialogue all
participants must be treated as equals. Outside the context of the dialogue, there may be large status
differences. But in the dialogue itself, equality must reign. In genuine dialogue, there is no arm 'twisting,
no pulling of rank, no hint of sanctions for holding politically incorrect attitudes, no coercive influences of
any sort, whether overt or indirect.

Subtle coercive influences are often present in discussion, and when they are they undermine
equality and, hence, dialogue. The Rogers/Buber interview illustrates how nuances of inequality can
creep into conversation. Carl Rogers claimed that he was able to engage his patients in genuine I-Thou
dialogue because he empathized so totally with his patients' thoughts and feelings. But to the surprise of
the audience, Buber rejected Rogers's inference. He pointed out that the relationship between Rogers
and his patients is inherently unequal because patients come to Rogers looking for help but are, for their
part, unable to offer comparable help to him. Under these conditions of inequality, Buber states, it is mis-
leading to think that genuine dialogue can take place. What Buber calls dialogue between I and Thou
cannot occur in the context of an unequal doctor-patient relationship. Therapy may be possible, but
dialogue has nothing to do with therapy.

Mixing people of unequal status and authority does not necessarily preclude dialogue, but it
makes it more difficult to achieve. Dialogue becomes possible only after trust has been built and the
higher-ranking people have, for the occasion, removed their badges of authority and are participating as
true equals. There must be mutual trust before participants of unequal status can open up honestly with
one another. Buber did not maintain that Rogers could not engage in dialogue with people who happened
to be his patients outside the therapeutic relationship (for example, on an issue of concern to the
community); he simply said that dialogue was not possible within the constraints of the formal doctor-
patient relationship.

People in positions of authority easily deceive themselves into thinking they are treating others as
equals when they .are not doing so. In the film First Knight, King Arthur is presented as a person of truly
noble character. He proudly displays his Round Table, designed so that it lacks any special place of
privilege at the head of the table for himself. He presents himself as just another knight among knights.
Yet each time a decision is made at the Round Table, it is in fact Arthur who makes it or influences it
unduly. There is no ambiguity about who the boss is. The Round Table may symbolize equality of
standing, but the reality is otherwise.

A round table is an apt symbol for dialogue because it implies that dialogue cannot take place at
the table except among equals. But as the film (inadvertently) makes clear, it takes more than a piece of
furniture to create the kind of equality needed for dialogue to flourish.

2. Listening with empathy. Practitioners also agree that a second essential feature of dialogue is the
ability of participants to respond with unreserved empathy to the views of others. In the example of
neighbors discussing school standards, if both the liberals and the conservatives in the group were Jess
eager to fight for their convictions and more eager to grasp the other's Viewpoints, they might have been
able to understand where their neighbors were coming from and why they felt the way they did.

The gift of empathy—the ability to think someone else's thoughts and feel someone else's
feelings — is indispensable to dialogue. There can be discussion without participants responding
empathically to one another, but then it is discussion, not dialogue. This is why discussion is more
common than dialogue: people find it easy to express their opinions and to bat ideas back and forth with
others, but most of the time they don't have either the motivation or the patience to respond empathically
to opinions with which they may disagree or that they find uncongenial.

3. Bringing assumptions into the open. Theorists of dialogue also concur that, unlike discussion,
dialogue must be concerned with bringing forth people's most deep-rooted assumptions. In dialogue,
participants are encouraged to examine their own assumptions and those of other participants. Arid once

5
these assumptions are in the open, they are not to be dismissed out of hand but considered with respect
even when participants disagree with them.

For example, among African-American and white participants in discussions on subjects such as
welfare, white participants sometimes make remarks that some of the African Americans regard as racist.
Most of the time, the African-American participants remain silent and do not respond, assuming that it
would be futile to do so. Sometimes, however, one says something like "That sounds like a racist
comment to me." The white person who made the comment will either bridle silently and resentfully or
heatedly deny any racist intent. Either way, an unresolved tension has entered the discussion.

A genuine dialogue on this same issue would unfold in a different manner. Someone might ask
the African-American participants if they thought particular comments had racist overtones and why.
Participants could then ponder the answers without defensiveness. Or, once the accusation of racism had
been made, judgment would be suspended and the group would focus on what assumptions people were
bringing to the dialogue and how they judged whether or not a comment was racist. Once such
.assumptions are made explicit, disagreement may still exist, but the level of tension will be reduced and
there will be better mutual understanding.
David Bohm emphasizes that our most ingrained thought patterns, operating at the tacit level, create
many of the obstacles that isolate us from one another. Bohm stresses the link between people's
assumptions and their sense of self. He is, in effect, saying, "When your deepest-rooted assumptions
about who you are and what you deem most important in life are attacked, you react as if you are being
attacked personally."

Arguably, the most striking difference between discussion and dialogue is this process of bringing
assumptions into the open while simultaneously suspending judgment. In discussion, participants usually
stay away from people's innermost assumptions because to poke at them violates an unwritten rule of
civility. If someone does raise them, they must expect to kick up a fuss or to tempt other participants to
take offense or to close down and withdraw.

When in ordinary discussion sensitive assumptions are brought into the open, the atmosphere is
likely to grow heated and uncomfortable. The discussion may or may not break down. It may later be
recalled as a good or bad discussion, but — and this is the key point — it is not dialogue. The unique
nature of dialogue requires that participants be uninhibited in bringing their own and other participants'
assumptions into the open, where, within the safe confines of the dialogue, others can respond to them
without challenging them or reacting to them judgmentally.

It takes practice and discipline to learn how to respond when touchy assumptions are brought into
the open without feeling the need to rush to their defense and either swallow or ventilate the anger and
anxiety we feel when others challenge our most cherished beliefs.

Think of assumptions as being "layered" (that is, assumptions exist behind assumptions behind
assumptions). The more widely shared they are, the less subject they are to self-examination or to
critique by others, Unexamined assumptions are a classic route to misunderstandings and errors of
judgment. Dialogue is one of the very few methods of communication that permit people to bring them
into the open and confront them in an effective manner.

3 Strategies for Dialogue

6
 STRATEGY

Check for the presence of all three core requirements of dialogue—equality, empathic
listening, and surfacing assumptions nonjudgmentally—and learn how to introduce the
missing ones.

In the chapters that follow, I will review a wide variety of successful dialogues. I will look at each
from the point of view of what lessons they teach us about meeting these three core conditions and what
added strategies they suggest. From this inventory of examples—some spontaneous, others carefully
planned—I will abstract fourteen additional strategies for successful dialogue.