DISTINCTIONS: SUSTAINED DIALOGUE'S NICHE

Distinctions among approaches within the larger field of conflict resolution and espe­cially within this subfield of interactive conflict resolution are difficult to draw sharply because each approach includes elements of others in almost infinite variations and emphases.

We have said that dialogue as a sustained process for transforming conflictual rela­tionships occupies a niche distinguished by

(1) its primary focus on relationships that cause conflict rather than mainly on issues that can be negotiated or talked through;

(2) its working within a carefully defined concept of relationship; and (3) an unfolding process that creates space for participants to spend time probing, then gradually developing their relationships, and perhaps even moving together toward reinforcing actions.

A more subtle distinction needs to be mentioned for further thought. How a third party in dialogue plays its role should reflect the spirit of dialogue. Again, the lines between approaches cannot be sharply defined, but some distinctions can be suggested.

Idealistically, one might argue that there should be no third party since dialogue is an intensely interpersonal experience. In fact, in the Dartmouth Conference and the Kettering Foundation’s USA-ChinaDialogue, there has been no third party. The comoderators - one from each side - choose the participants, agree on the approach, derive the agenda from experience in the dialogue, and chair the meetings. Evgeny Primakov, Soviet co­chair of the Dartmouth Conference Regional Conflicts Task Force stated the principle of a cumulative agenda when he said, “We will start the next meeting where this one ended.” Questions left unanswered at the end of one meeting could be pondered between meetings and form the agenda for the next.

Realistically, we recognize that a third party is more often than not needed in hot conflicts to create the space for dialogue and to provide a substantive and procedural framework within which the dialogue takes place. Exactly how the third party plays that role, however, opens the door to nuances of difference. It is worth considering this additional question: Where in the dialogue process is the dynamic of interaction centered?

At one end of a spectrum are groups - such as many problem-solving workshops - in which the agenda grows out of the facilitating team’s experience, and the facilitation pursues that agenda pretty much along lines it determines, obviously adapting in response to developments in the meetings.

At the other end of the spectrum are dialogues - such as the sustained dialogues - in which moderating teams attempt to create a space where participants from conflicting parties are treated in a way designed to encourage generation of the agenda for their dialogue out of their own interactions. The second stage of the sustained dialogue process is explicitly designed to get out into the open the deeper dynamics of relationships between participants before the parties even address practical issues systematically. This interaction explicitly allows for the discharge of anger and grievance: (1) to clear minds for more analytical talk and (2) to surface the underlying elements of relationships.

The philosophy behind this second approach was reflected in the statement of purpose from within the Dartmouth Conference Regional Conflicts Task Force as it began the Inter-Tajik Dialogue. In essence, we said: We will not attempt to mediate an agreement among the multiple parties in the civil war. Our purpose is to create a space in which to see whether a group can form within the dynamics of the civil war that can learn to design a peace process for their own country.

This distinction between dialogue directed by facilitators and dialogue generated primarily by participants in a space created either by themselves or by a third party is an important one.

Finally, because in the United States, “dialogue and deliberation” are increasingly linked, a word needs to be said about the distinctions and similarities between them. Dialogue, as we have said, is a way of communicating, listening, and relating that can be the essence of constructive relation­ship. Although deliberation may well build on dialogic communication, it is particularly a way of deciding. Those deliberating will define a problem, frame their choices for dealing with the problem, and then weigh the potential positive and negative conse­quences of each approach on the path toward setting a direction for dealing with the problem.

Whereas sustained dialogue is appropriate in situations where conflictual or dysfunc­tional relationships prevent collaboration, deliberation is for situations in which involved people from most backgrounds and view­points are able to talk productively. In a sustained dialogue, participants will be talking more deliberatively when they settle down to more analytical talk in the third stage of dialogue, but their focus will still differ in that their interest will fall on changing the relationships that cause the problems rather than primarily on technical solutions.