Challenges to Dialogue

In the previous sections, the argument was made that dialogue is an important means for promoting a culture of peace, and the con­tributions it can make toward this goal were explicated.

Figure 28.1 Building a Culture of Peace Through Dialogue

First, it is important to keep in mind that, as desirable as it might seem, dialogue may not always be possible. Unequal social, eco­nomic, and symbolic conditions give rise to inequities, and the resulting social asymme­tries alter the dynamics of dialogue. They can prevent people from coming together in the first place, and they can make it very difficult for either side to move past their preconcep­tions and unhealthy communication patterns that resulted from so many years of differ­ences. Those at the top of the power hierarchy may even believe that entering into dialogue with lower status individuals is a threat to their privilege and position. Additionally, we must remember that dialogue depends on reci­procity. Dialogue is a cyclic process, and when one side is still trapped in the vicious cycle of conflict and not ready for meeting the other, dialogue is not possible.

Second, even after bringing participants together in the same physical space, the will­ingness, or even a strong desire, to engage in dialogue is insufficient for it to actually hap­pen.

Third, dialogue groups are susceptible to the changing context of the conflict. While the ultimate aim of dialogue is to change the conflict dynamics, dialogue is certainly not isolated from them. Instead, the dynam­ics of the conflict will act as constraints and impose limitations on what is realistically feasible. Societal, regional, and even interna­tional events can significantly alter the course of dialogue. It is much easier for individuals and groups engaged in dialogue to succumb to the fear, hostility, and hate brought on by renewed violence than it is to safeguard and protect the trust, cooperation, and respect they have developed in the group. Even if they manage to keep their own group intact and on a positive course after new events have raised the level of hostility in the larger society, participants will face increased pressure from neighbors, colleagues, the media, and others who were probably already skeptical or antag­onistic to their involvement in peace efforts. If their dialogue group does not fall apart because of the blow to their perceived legiti­macy, it is certain that their discussions will be much more difficult and may take months to get back on track after traumatic events out­side the group.

Fourth, one of the more difficult, yet highly important, challenges for the overall suc­cess of intergroup dialogue is to expand its positive impact to affect a larger segment of society. Of course, large-scale social change almost always begins with a small minority, but the attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral changes that occur in the dialogue groups do not automatically transfer to those outside the small circle of dialogue groups, and there is no clear path to ensuring that this happens. It is not necessary for everyone in the larger society to participate in a dialogue group, but it is important to recognize that a culture of peace will not be established until there is large-scale support for the goals of dialogue. Crucially, peace-building efforts need support from both top and bottom simultaneously. Within civil society, there is a need to cultivate credibility and minimize negative perceptions against dialogue by the general public, who may be still ingrained in the hostility and hatred that developed during the violent stages of the conflict. At the top level, dialogue groups need connections and even allies with policymak­ers. Unfortunately, officials are not always supportive of dialogue efforts. In fact, unof­ficial intergroup dialogue initiatives often pro­voke opposition from officials who, unwilling to discard the right to control the agenda for managing the conflict, fear that their positions will be undermined by civil society dialogue groups. Additionally, the ability of dialogue groups to sustain their discussions over a long period of time is tied, at least in part, to a sense of progress on the political level. If there are no positive developments to encourage the group, it is easy to become discouraged and lose enthusiasm for the effort.

Fifth, even in cases where dialogue groups have achieved legitimacy in the larger society, or more rarely, when they actually receive sup­port from officials, there are limitations to the impact that dialogue can have in the face of institutionalized inequities and discrimination. Structural inequality may have been one of the drivers of the conflict in the first place, and sometimes the existence of dialogue groups can be used by officials to create a false sense of normalcy, while structural barriers are still in place. In some cases, one of the parties in the conflict may actively discourage participa­tion in dialogue groups precisely because they fear that these groups will be used by the other (more dominant) side to further the status quo and delay the structural changes that are necessary to truly address the underlying reasons for the conflict. Even with the best of intentions, dialogue groups may be unwit­tingly “used” by more powerful interests, and thus may actually work against the aims of reducing prejudice and promoting equal­ity. Hopefully, this is not often the case, but it is a danger that should be given attention by anyone promoting dialogue in the face of intractable conflict.

Sixth, dialogue must confront the question of how cultural differences, widely recog­nized as a significant factor in conflict (see other chapters in this section), can have an impact on interaction and perception during the dialogue process. Historically, there was surprisingly little attention given to ques­tions of culture by those who pioneered the problem-solving approaches to dialogue. Even though culture is dealt with more explicitly by contemporary scholars and practitioners, there is still insufficient in-depth discussion of culture and dialogue.⁷ Cultural assumptions of current practice need to be examined, as does the applicability of the transfer of approaches across different cultural contexts.

1. Dialogue methodologies are generally consensual in their assumptions and pre­scriptions, opening questions about their appropriateness in societies with more authority-based or hierarchical cultural forms of communication.

2. Most approaches to dialogue are based on the Western notion of an “active dialogue” open forum “talk” approach, which may be more appropriate in some cultural set­tings than in others.⁸

3. Dialogue groups facilitated by Western aca­demics usually use English as the language of discussion, posing potential limitations in expression for participants for whom English is a second language, or when an interpreter is employed, translation can lead to misunderstanding (or a false sense that understanding has actually occurred when it has not).

Additionally, there is a need to examine a wider range of cultural approaches to dia­logue. Most societies have developed methods of dialogue that were used traditionally for resolving disputes at the local level, and while changing times and conditions have affected their direct application to contemporary prob­lems, there is much that can be learned from studying traditional techniques for conflict resolution. Even though it may not be appro­priate to simply apply, uncritically, local or traditional dialogue techniques in the context of more complex conflict situations, there is more that can be done to integrate them within contemporary approaches to dialogue.

Seventh, and perhaps the greatest challenge for dialogue initiatives, is the question of how the dialogic process itself, as well the practi­cal measures that may have resulted from the discussions, can be institutionally anchored. Without adequate incorporation of dialogue in everyday practices, there is the very real danger that dialogue groups will remain on the fringe of the playing field, or that they will eventually run out of steam, discontinuing or significantly diminishing efforts to change the culture of conflict.

In summary, it is difficult to control both the possibilities for dialogue to happen and how it will unfold as it takes place. Even when it is possible to bring people together, the group may not be able to get past the initial suspicions or overcome disruptions or events that stop progress. If the dialogue groups themselves are successful, questions arise about how to expand the scope of impact and how to achieve legitimacy in the larger society. Insufficient attention to cultural variables can easily derail dialogue, and it is a constant struggle to find the appropriate bal­ance of local and imported dialogic methods. And until dialogue practices become firmly part of the infrastructure of society, questions will naturally arise about the extent to which dialogue has contributed toward the ultimate goal of building a culture of peace.

For the countless thousands of individu­als who have dedicated their lives and made great personal and professional sacrifices toward promoting dialogue, it is not always necessary to have definitive proof about the impact of dialogue on the larger society. It is the process of working toward that ultimate goal that provides the impetus to continue, sometimes in the face of seemingly impossible odds toward what some would view as unat­tainable ends. Fortunately, in addition to the challenges and the setbacks that are likely to occur along the way, there are usually mean­ingful steps forward as well, and sometimes it is these small indications of progress that keep alive the hope for eventually reaching that seemingly elusive goal of building a culture of peace.