Dialogue

A vital aspect of a culture of peace is dialogue, integral to UNESCO’s efforts, the UN’s resolu­tion on culture of peace, and Boulding’s cul­ture-creating activity. The UN resolution calls for efforts “to prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations” (UN, 1997).

(UNESCO, 2011). UNESCO’s (2000) Culture of Peace Project aims at “arming peoples not with guns, but with capacity for dialogue and understanding.” Boulding (2001) believes that dealing creatively with difference and conflict requires establishing a “listening culture,” with “lots of space for problem-solving” (p. 56). She points to several sustained dialogues that brought about positive results, such as those by the Oxford Research Group founded by Scilla Elworthy, which for many years held organized dialogues around key decisions involving both major and minor nuclear powers (Elworthy, 1989); the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was the result of 9 years of inten­sive dialogue by a small group of experts from across the globe (Levering & Levering, 1999); and the Dartmouth Dialogues, an example of second-track diplomacy that continued for 30 years, and which many credit with help­ing to bring about the end of the Cold War (Voorhees, 2002).

Although the term dialogue has widespread usage, and its importance is broadly accepted, there is not always a clear understanding about its meaning.³ The word dialogue is from the ancient Greek word dialogos, composed of the prefix dia (“through” or “across”) and logos (“words” or “reason”).

The modern emphasis on dialogue is often traced to Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher who was also a theologian, playwright, educa­tor, and advocate for peace and cooperation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine (and thus one of the first to bring together dialogue and peacebuilding). His seminal work I and Thou, first published in 1926, led to a shift in our thinking about communication, relationships, and the possibility for genuine human interac­tion (Buber, 1958). In his conceptualization of the “I-It” encounter, people are treated as if they are objects to be manipulated or changed in some way; while in the “I-Thou” relation­ship, people are viewed as having unique histories that shape their beliefs, attitudes, and values. An “I-Thou” encounter is char­acterized by curiosity, discovery, and learning, rather than the persuasion, positioning, and argument that is typical of “I-It” encounters.

In addition to Buber, other influential theorists include Bohm (1996), whose work was applied in the “learning organization” concepts espoused by Senge (1990), Isaacs (1993), and Schein (1993). The concept of dialogue has gained attention in a multiplic­ity of disciplines in recent years, including anthropology, education, psychology and psy­chotherapy, sociology, management, political theory, philosophy, linguistics, and religion (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). In communica­tion, dialogue has been a focus in a number of areas, including the study of rhetoric (Arnett, 1981; Johannesen, 1971; Poulakos, 1974), philosophy and communication (Stewart, 1978), interpersonal communication (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996), performance stud­ies (Conquergood, 1988), organizational communication (Deetz, 1992; Eisenberg & Goodall, 1997), health communication (Geist & Dreyer, 1994), culture and communication (Philipsen, 1992), and conflict communica­tion (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997).

Buber (1958) introduced the concept of the “between” as a metaphor for viewing dialogue as rooted in the space that exists between per­sons in a relationship. This common center of discourse brings people together in conversa­tion, allowing meaning to be co-constituted during dialogue. In this way, dialogue enables collective thinking, collaboration, and what Bohm (1996) calls “collective intelligence” (p. 2), in which people create new understand­ings through their exchange.⁴ Such a focus gives recognition to the interdependence of self and other, the intersubjectivity of mean­ing, and the emergent nature of understand­ings (Stewart, 1978, 1983).

Dialogue, while it has potential for trans­forming human relationships, does not hap­pen easily. To engage in meaningful dialogue, we must be willing to take risks, particularly the possibility that our perspective might be amended or even completely altered. Change is often threatening, especially when we have become comfortable with the current state of affairs, sometimes consisting of a status quo that is dysfunctional. Dialogue can shape us in ways that affect our identity, and there is constant tension between the view of ourselves that we carry into dialogue and the views of self that emerge during the interaction. The possibility for change happens because we are interacting with others whose perspec­tives may be radically different from our own. Although it is natural to resist and even reject such differences, dialogue depends on such risk taking.

Not only is dialogue risky, it is also unpre­dictable. Because it is a nonlinear, emergent process, it remains fluid throughout, always fluctuating, with meanings constantly revised and remade. This creates tension between participants, as ideas, values, and interests bump against each other. Such tension is not only unavoidable but integral to the process of dialogue itself. Because of the tension, and the struggle to cope with it, individuals in dia­logue often develop creative ideas or new ways of approaching problems. The process of deal­ing with tension can push toward a synthesis of positions that serves the needs and interests of participants much better than any of their initial positions were capable of handling.

On a very practical level, transform­ing intractable conflicts necessitates bringing together individuals from opposing sides in a setting where both mutual understanding and joint action can be realized. Several interactive methodologies have been developed for this purpose, with applications in a large number of conflict situations. Dialogue lies at the core of these approaches, serving as the foundation for collaborative problem solving and action. The following section will briefly discuss three broad categories of approaches to intergroup dialogue.