Dialogue: The Language of Community

            DIALOGUE......THE LANGUAGE OF COMMUNITY

                                                                                                            sarita chawla

            We dance around in a ring and suppose,
            But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
                                                                        Robert Frost

            In today's highly fragmented, complex and dynamic world, a deep yearning for community and belonging is emerging. Family structures are eroding and employers no longer offer lifetime employment that provided a sense of community.  Mobility and globalization further strip away geographical structures of community and fewer people even know their neighbors.  In this incoherent world, dialogue offers a promise of community. 

                                                Shared Meaning

Dialogue is a language and way of being that leads to shared meaning, which is at the heart of community. The word dialogue, from the roots dia and logos, means meaning flowing through.   Discussion, on the other hand, from the same root as concussion and percussion, is about hurling ideas at each other.  It is the language of winning and losing.  Although community is not an aim of dialogue, it seems to emerge organically. Dialogue seems to be the natural language of community. It may even be necessary in order to create the kind of shared meaning that sustains community.

Dialogue is a process in which one can experience the connectedness and wholeness that is always present, yet is mostly invisible.  As the ocean conceals the rock, our connectedness is usually concealed from us by our fragmented thoughts.  In dialogue, the bedrock of connectedness is revealed.

"....the process of dialogue [emerged] as a free flow of meaning among all participants.  In the beginning, people were expressing fixed positions, which they were tending to defend, but later it became clear that to maintain that feeling of friendship in the group was much more important than to hold any position.....People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning which is capable of constant development and change."
                                                                        David Bohm, Unfolding Meaning

I have experienced a sense of communion with myself and others in the circle when shared meaning begins to flow through.  A sense of community is essential to me.  Raised in an eastern culture, extended family and friends were constantly and continuously flowing through my life. The contemporary search for community appears to be the reawakening of an ancient yearning.

Community at its essence is an experience of our connectedness or communion.  M. Scott Peck describes community to " require communication-- and not the mere exchange of words.....A genuine community....is a group whose members have made a deep commitment to communicate with each other on an ever more deep and authentic level."   Dialogue requests the same.  Webster defines communion as," an interdependent working together or cooperation;  intimate, sympathetic, reverential or mystic exchange of ideas and feelings,  dealing with matters innermost and spiritual in order to inspire, strengthen or solace often as if between man and nature or the supernatural."   This is not a common inference of community.  My own view is that we are always in community, in communion with each other, although the quality of communion and community may vary.  We are a web of interconnected relationships and can be conscious of that or not.  I'm suggesting that we do. 

                        What enables a dialogue to unfold?

Dialogue is not just talking with one another.  It is a special way of communicating, approximating an art form.  It includes speaking, listening, advocating one's position, inquiry, silence and pauses.  More than speaking, it is a special way of listening to one another - listening without resistance.  It is not just hearing.  To listen means to make an effort to hear something and to pay attention.   More importantly, listening from a stance of being willing to be influenced.  This is subtle.  One is not required to actually change in dialogue; yet the alchemy of the environment changes when one enters with a receptiveness to being influenced.

On the continuum of dialogue, at one end it would be those memorable conversations when we listened deeply and felt deeply listened to.  Further along, dialogue is about the alchemy of shared meaning and the dynamic, iterative dance that unfolds in each individual and the collective. The meaning changes in interaction with the participants and the participants change in interaction with the emergent meaning.  At the other end is the possibility of the exploration and shift of thought and consciousness itself - the unfolding of the implicate order as Bohm proposed.  This continuum is not linear but is more like the neural network of the brain.

In the practice of dialogue, listening means listening to others and to oneself.  It involves a noticing of what one says coupled with a wondering of where that comes from.  It is as though there were an invisible thread sewn to each word spoken that can be traced back to where the beliefs and values originated and are deeply embedded.

Willingness to be influenced requires another skill: the skill of suspension.  Suspension is the ability to temporarily suspend ones feelings, reactions, judgments, opinions, impulses and assumptions.  Not eliminating them.  Not even suppressing them.  It means literally suspending in front of and temporarily letting go of attachment to them.  This skill involves not only one's own thoughts, beliefs and feelings, but also those of others that are speaking.  By temporarily letting go of attachments for or against a particular point of view, one is in communion with others.  In this creative space, new insight often emerges.  Paradoxically, letting go of attachment (which is to de- attach) brings you more into communion.

The art of inquiry also helps: a gentle, non-manipulative inquiry into the assumptions of others and indeed of oneself.  This involves a reflective inquiry intended to "peel off" layers of shrouded assumptions.  Some are unveiled as embedded in deep cultural norms that have not been questioned for generations.  Others appear tangled in memories that have long since lost their power and value.  Still others, born of both cultural norms and memories seared in through personal experience, feel strong and alive, deeply rooted in the body as evidenced by an emotional charge of attachment.  Without inquiry into one's own or other's thinking, there is no way to make old assumptions visible.  Unless visible, there can be no conscious choice of keeping or discarding those that no longer work. 

By engaging in these practices, a deeper meaning is shared, amplifying respect and thereby a sense of community.  Although one is not working directly on respect, respect happens.   By going beyond the familiar habit of only advocating one's own feelings and opinions and engaging in the beauty of this art form, relationships are revealed.  People are seen and heard in a way that they can be known by themselves and others.  This is a palpable quality that can be tangibly felt.

This is not easy!   Sometimes when I am in a dialogue circle, I catch myself inferring meaning to words just by virtue of whose voice I'm hearing. For example, I found that with some people, I just could not suspend!  I needed a bridge to enter that practice field. I often close my eyes and practice listening to the words as though they are coming from someone I consider wise.  This practice helps to develop muscle for receptive listening.  If I listen with a willingness to be influenced, my internal landscape is malleable enough to be sculpted.  The sculptor is the dialogue community of which I am a part.  

                                    Creating a safe environment

 Communicating at a deep and authentic level also requires a sense of safety.   Our normal ways of communicating with each other can more accurately be called discussion.  It implies hurling thoughts at each other, with a minimal use of suspension, listening and inquiry.  Discussion is a defense against the kind of intimacy that community requires. Defensive communication runs contrary to a safe environment which supports engagement at deeper and more authentic levels of expression.

What then, is the relationship of safety, intimacy and fear?  In most dialogue groups, the issue of safety seems to show up.  There is a collective assumption that the environment is unsafe unless proven otherwise.  We have forgotten how to discern between psychological danger and real danger.  There is an assumption that someone might use information that we disclose to harm us.  Although there is the possibility of real danger that someone might indeed get angry with us and use force or threat to damage us, more often the reality is that we build up a psychological fear through our own thought processes and infer that the environment is unsafe.  We then project our fears onto the group and blame them for our own projections of unsafeness. Most psychological fears are unlikely to happen.  Ironically, we show up wanting community while unable or unwilling to offer ourselves in community. 

How is safety created?  One can either search for safety externally or change one's own assumption to feel safe.  When practicing listening and suspension, one does not have to rely on anyone else for safety, because one only need give oneself permission.   In addition to reexamining one's own assumptions, disclosure can also help.  By allowing oneself to be vulnerable, one is able to articulate what is happening both in the moment as well as what memories and judgments come up, without censure.  Disclosure contributes to intimacy which in turn contributes to a sense of safety.  (Intimacy.....In to me see.)  A safe environment then gives permission to be intimate, thus creating a self-reinforcing loop. 

A safe environment is also one where there is space (time) to speak, where one does not feel negatively judged, and where even highly charged issues can be put before the group.  A willingness to be influenced gives others a reason to be intimate and feel safe.  In this way, suspension provides a means to diminish psychological fear and dialogue provides a space to do so.

                        Dialogue as a Clearing for Community

 Twentieth century philosopher, Martin Heidegger's notion of a "clearing"   is closer to my experience of the "space" needed for dialogue than the 'container' metaphor that is often used by theorists and practitioners.  Heidegger uses the wordlichtung, which means a clearing in a forest.  This suggests an open space in which one can encounter things.  Licht also means light.  Heideggar suggests, "Things show up in the light of our understanding of being."  A clearing seems more generative and unbounded than a container.  It connotes a space that people can choose to walk in to. Such a space may be conducive to community in that it invites participation without requiring it. 

                                    "Structure"......loose/tight?

There is a dilemma of "structure" in dialogue.  On the one hand Bohm proposes no agenda. Seemingly open in design, this format can turn away those who cannot stand the initial discomfort of "what are we doing here anyway?" or those who are uncomfortable with the silence or pauses required to listen both to another and oneself.  There is a tendency to fill these silences by moving to familiar patterns of debate and discussion or vying for air time.  Those trained in the western academic tradition are well equipped to compete for talking space.  However, some of us raised in different traditions may tend to remain quiet or leave in frustration.  On the other hand, designing-in structures that lead to rigid rules and techniques can take away from the creativity and spontaneity.  Finding a balance of creative structure without rigid rituals is an art. 

In order to explore multi-cultural dialogue possibilities, MetaLens hosts ongoing dialogue communities that are intended to represent the diversity that is California.  However, to date, experience indicates that some participants from different cultures find this unstructured format difficult.

At times, ways of opening other channels or familiar ruts heightens creative insight.  An example is the introduction of poetry.  Since poetry is less limiting than structured statements, meaning seems to flow through more generatively.  In addition, a well timed or placed question and story, like poetry, can loosen up space and open up more channels in people. Stories and poetry seem to "clear" rather than "contain."

How might a dialogue be structured to have poetry, analytic thinking, emotion, and movement so that it can draw in others without becoming something other than dialogue? How can this be done in a way that is not manipulative (i.e. not pushingpeople towards it), but that creates multiple clearings for people to walk in to?  Although the poetic path might get some people to the same place as the intellectual path, a willingness to enter might be different.  However, changing from a comfortable path that has become automatic might cause someone to see through a new lens and thereby notice something that one's prior training and lens made invisible to them.  For instance, someone who is used to approaching questions analytically may derive completely different insights by shifting to a poetic lens.

There can be a tendency, especially with experienced Organizational Development practitioners, to design into dialogue other forms of group processes as well as to facilitate in more traditional ways. Those ways are often subtly manipulative.  On the other hand, those who advocate strongly a structureless form often resist even personal introductions of the participants.  My own experience has led me thus far to value the consciousness that arises by connecting at different levels, as well as the need to separate other processes.

As an example, one of the ongoing dialogue communities that MetaLens hosts, was preceded first by a four-hour concepts session, then initiated by an evening of "breaking bread."  Subsequently, the community began to meet for a full day once a month.  In each of these monthly sessions, before entering into and after ending the formal dialogue time, each person is given the opportunity to "check-in" and "check-out" if they choose to.  Feedback from most participants suggests that the environment thus created enhances a sense of psychological safety and shared meaning and enables inquiry. It further guarantees some space where those from less assertive cultures have an opportunity to speak.

Individual and collective insights in a community of dialogue

Sustaining a dialogue community and withstanding the frustration that inevitably arises is daunting.  The challenge reflects the current fragmentation in the world.   Some of the individual and collective insights held about commitment are being revealed.  My experiences have been that when I have the ability to stick with the frustration and sustain my own commitment, the very nature of commitment has changed.  

            One committed ongoing community, fondly named "the Maypole" group, seems to have taken on a communal life of its own.  This is a group of serious practitioners of dialogue, including some senior OD names as well as their partners/spouses, who have met monthly since early 1994.  By serious practitioners I also mean that they are actually engaging in the sustained practice, not just training, facilitating and "doing it" to others.  Sometimes we gather and are in a silky, lush silence for ten minutes or more.  Everyone's attention seems present and ready at hand.  The sense of time changes.  This is not programmed silence, but one that emerges of it's own accord.

                        Silence
Between the tones in music
Intervenes
As breath in song

                        Brings clarity to interplay
inside the streams of sound.

                                                                                                -Louise Nelson

There have also been extremely frustrating moments where differences of opinion on even dialogue itself have surfaced, but so far, both individually and collectively, the Maypole group seems to sustain itself. 

            I've noticed that the pattern of fragmentation that exists in society in general also shows up within dialogue communities.  Sometimes this fragmentation even centers around which model of dialogue is best!  This experience, even with people committed to dialogue, highlights the insidiousness and incoherence of thought.  It is critical to notice how important it is to work through this.  From my perspective, this is the real experiment and the real work.  We can all talk with those that are like-minded.  It is where differences occur that we must find breakthroughs.

Not everyone is comfortable with the frustration that occurs as a result of incoherence, or hopeful that one can reach the other side.  As an example, a Native American's input: "Truth to tell, everything I've experienced in any Dialogue structure so far is so profoundly western that it is a severe sporadic pain for me, as I feel pressured over and over again to behave in the "approved" way, which is evolving, yes, but none the less seems to be thought of as The Answer......So far Dialogue seems to be functioning as an antidote to some aspects of Western cultural indoctrination......."

There seems to be great value in creating dialogue practice fields with diversity of all kinds. The dilemma appears to be that it is really difficult for those not raised in the Western tradition to stick with a process that they find to be "Western." 

An African American withdrew from a group after a couple of sessions, sending a note that included: "I would also find it hard to 'dialogue' and not feel free to work through our various assumptions around privilege, race, class etc. I don't feel that could be done effectively."

From my perspective, the assumption about dialogue being a "Western" process needs some exploration.  Interestingly, names associated with dialogue such as Bohm, Krishnamurti, De Mare, Buber, Senge and Isaacs are predominantly white, western males.  (Although Krishnamurti was an Indian by birth, he was well trained in the western tradition and indeed spent many years there.)  With regards to the space for diversity in dialogue, I am concerned that people drop out without a willingness to hang in and influence a change in the process.  It is of particular concern to me that people of color drop out without speaking.  The dilemma, as mentioned, is that speaking might be difficult for them. 

   
I have been able to notice specific cultural assumptions with particular clarity in these dialogue communities that contain diverse cultures, lifestyles, professions, nationality, gender and age.  I am from India and, as an example, my valuing of service and duty as appropriate ways of being became more visible to me as I noticed different values showing up for others.  Being of service and caretaking is espoused highly by my family and culture.  Someone else evidenced a high value for "doing" and "working."  Inquiry revealed a Depression upbringing with a natural appreciation for work. 

A noticing of the particular differences has led to insights of the general patterns of collective cultural assumptions.  This noticing brings a larger sense of the whole and compassion for differences.  Although I personally find the direct line of inquiry into the nature of self difficult, I have none the less experienced some of the programming errors of thought in general through some of these particular insights that only seem to be unveiled in a communal setting of dialogue. Dialogue brings our attention to patterns in ourselves and the world around us --patterns of language, interaction and thought.  The systems diagram of which we are a part becomes more visible.   

What do I have to do to dismantle my own incoherence of thought?  It seems to me that I have to create a clearing for myself.  When I am able to shed light on the cobwebs of programming of my thought and that of the collective, the cobwebs dis-solve.  I have to see the programs to change them, and I usually cannot see them alone.  In dialogue, the collective sheds light on the rigidities of the grooves carved since I was born.  I can see enough to choose to rake over the grooves and make my mind fallow again:  Clearing, weeding, sculpting, fertilizing and planting again.  Changing from a formal, crowded garden to a delicate Japanese garden with a lot more space. All this while simultaneously noticing that the gardens of my mind are connected with yours.  In a community of dialogue, I might be able to explore the grooves and furrows of my mind if I feel safe, enabling both myself and others to directly experience the falseness or maybe capriciousness of my/our/the collective thought process. 

I am convinced that dialogue is critical in today's fragmented world.  I've experienced both its power and frustration.  In a world that seems manipulative, incoherent, controlling and righteous, dialogue offers a possibility of a very different way of being. 

I offer dialogue as a language of community

© 1995 sarita chawla

Sarita Chawla is a partner of MetaLens, where she focuses on her passions about learning, dialogue, and diversity.  Reprinted with permission.