A CONCEPT OF RELATIONSHIP
If one claims that dialogue as a process to change relationships fundamentally is distinguished from other instruments of conflict resolution by its focus on relationship rather than focusing primarily on problemsolving, one needs to be precise in defining relationship.
For working purposes, a concept of relationship was conceptualized from experience in a sustained dialogue in the 1980s (Voorhees, 2002). This concept holds that one can understand relationship as comprising five components:1. identity - both the familiar physical characteristics and the life experience that has brought a person to the current moment.
2. interests - both the tangible interests that a person may pursue and the less tangible concerns that capture what a person really cares about.
3. power - defined not only in the traditional way as coercion and control but more broadly as the shared capacity to influence the course of events.
4. perceptions and misperceptions—stereotypes.
5. patterns of interaction that characterize how parties habitually deal with each other.
The mix of these elements is continuously changing within each individual or group and between individuals and groups (Saunders, 1999: 33-44; 2005: 60-81).
This concept can be both an analytical and an operational tool. One can observe two or more parties interacting - either in a life situation or in dialogue - and develop a picture of the dynamics of their relationships by sorting and analyzing observations under these headings. Beyond that, it is also an operational tool. It is possible to get inside each of the components of relationship through dialogue and change it. For instance, one's core identity is not likely to change, but our identities grow every day through experience, and seeing ourselves through others' eyes can cause our identities to develop. Antagonists can find common interests. Individuals can find that they need each other in order to achieve their interests - a recognition of the limits of their own power. Stereotypes can change through unfolding contacts. Patterns of interaction can change through interaction itself.
I would posit that it is working with such a concept of relationship that (1) gives rigor and substance to dialogue as a defined conflict resolution process for dealing with deeply hostile and dysfunctional interactions and (2) distinguishes dialogue as a change process over time from the valuable uses of dialogue in more malleable situations.