Exploring Transcendent Communication

Much of our work in recent years, then, has involved various experiments in transcendent discourse. In this section, we summarize what we now call the Transcendent Communication Project, discuss dialogue as the essence of transcendence, and lay out guidelines for practitioners.

The Transcendent

Communication Project

From the beginning of the moral conflict project, we imagined better forms of com­munication between parties with significant moral differences, and our work soon began to explore creative methods for managing significant differences. The Transcendent Communication Project is an ongoing explo­ration of methods for helping communities manage potentially complex and difficult conflict situations humanely, effectively, and appropriately (Littlejohn, 2004). We think of transcendence as moving above or beyond typical patterns of communication found in difficult conflict situations.

We have found that transcendent commu­nication tends to embody three characteristics. First, it creates new frames that transcend dif­ferences. Using the metaphor of Wittgenstein (1953), this kind of dialogue establishes a new “grammar” that enables parties to reconcep­tualize their differences and even find common ground. The new categories of conversation constitute a creole of sorts, making it possible for parties to have a coherent dialogue across otherwise incommensurate worldviews (Stout, 1988). In his book The Soul of Politics, Jim Wallis (1994) championed a new set of top­ics that could bridge liberal and conservative ways of thinking. Instead of pitting oppos­ing economic, political, and social categories against one another, Wallis proposed that new conversations address transcendent topics such as compassion, community, reverence, diversity, justice, and courage.

Second, transcendent communication transforms relationships. Abandoning the discourses of confrontation and negotiation that privilege arguments, positions, interests, and solutions, dialogue features personal sto­ries, new contexts of meaning, and rela­tionship building.

Third, transcendent communication cre­ates opportunities to explore the powers and limits of multiple worldviews. In addition to exploring common ground, the discourse of redefinition allows participants to explore differences, but to do so in a way that helps group members learn significant new things, make new distinctions, and realize that every perspective is limited in what it can do. W. B. Pearce and Pearce (2004) write that this quality leads to a realization that one’s own stories are always “partial, local, limited, or bounded” (p. 55), and it promotes the value of “remaining in the tension between standing one’s own ground and being profoundly open to the other” (p. 55). Correspondingly, then, transcendent communication allows partici­pants to explore complexity in ways often not permitted by advocacy and negotiation. In contrast, when we have the opportunity to go beyond simplistic categories and have a more nuanced discussion, we can learn a great deal about ourselves, others, and the issues at hand.

For example, in a fascinating dissertation on the U.S.

We use the term dialogue to capture these transformative aspects of transcendent com­munication. Barge and Andreas (this volume) summarize much of the growing literature on dialogue, especially as it relates to communi­ties (see also Anderson, Baxter, & Cissna, 2004). Here, we merely highlight a few aspects of dialogue that have emerged as important in this work.

Dialogue as Transcendence

For us, the term dialogue usefully des­ignates a certain communication practice, which aims to redefine issues, conflicts, and relationships, thereby enabling participants to transcend hopeless patterns of interac­tion. The terms dialogue, redefinition, and transcendence are not exactly synonyms, but each term captures a particular dimension of the same process. In general, this process has several characteristics:

• It embodies a relationship in which parties treat one another as fully formed, whole, and complex human beings, whose life experi­ences provide a basis for their moral orders, positions on issues, and actions in the world.

• It allows communicators to say what is important to them, be assured that their stories will be heard, and allow others the same privilege.

• It permits participants to move from a place of being stuck to a new territory where join­ing places may be found.

• It is multivoiced and nonpolarized.

• It includes fresh, constructive questions that demand critical, creative thinking.

• It is educative and allows participants to learn important new things, including how to look at the problem in new ways.

• It leads communicators to see the powers and limits of a variety of points of view.

• It builds relationships of respect.

W. B. Pearce and Pearce (2004) preferred not to think of dialogue as a “type” of communication but as a “quality of com­munication in which any speech act can be performed” (p. 45), more appropriately desig­nated dialogic communication. Such commu­nication is designed to “keep the conversation going” (Rorty, 1979, p. 378) in ways that open up, rather than close down, possibilities (Arnett & Arneson, 1999). This shift leads to mutual respect, or “a favorable attitude toward, and constructive interaction with, the persons with whom one disagrees” (Gutmann & Thompson, 1996, p. 79). Such change gives us pause to stew a bit about our position and remain open to the powers of other points of view, even when we disagree with them.

Dialogue allows us to go to a new place, to reframe our differences, to find or construct a joining spot (Barge & Little, 2002; Littlejohn, 2004; Littlejohn & Domenici, 2001; W. B. Pearce & Pearce, 1999; Putnam, 2010). If old patterns merely encapsulate old categories, can new patterns be found? If familiar forms of interaction serve to perpetuate, even enflame, a conflict without a positive result, can the participants find a new form of communica­tion that might change their relationship?

Although there are many traditions of dia­logue, we find the work of Martin Buber espe­cially helpful.

Working With Process. The question, How shall we talk? sets a new ground or place where the disputants can come together. An illustrative case occurred in Catron County in rural southwestern New Mexico in the 1990s (Smith, 1998). Located amid beauti­ful national forest land, the community of only 2,500 people found itself in distress. The economy was depressed because of declines in the two major industries—(1) lumber and (2) ranching—caused at least in part by envi­ronmental protection policies. This state of affairs led to a severe conflict among environ­mentalists, ranchers, timber worker, and forest service personnel. The conflict was strident, it was moral, and it seemed intractable. Alarmed by the amount of stress-related illness, the area’s only doctor felt that the community itself was sick and arranged to bring in the New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution (NMCDR) to initiate a community-wide dia­logue process.

The key question for the NMCDR and local participants was how to have a new kind of conversation, one that could take them beyond hateful slogans, threats of vio­lence, flashing guns, and frightening displays. A small group agreed to meet and take up this question. Indeed, much of the initial talk centered on ground rules.

CreatingJoining Places. Process talk addresses the question of how we communicate with one another and is seeking an answer to what can we talk about. Areas where constructive conversation can occur constitute the join­ing place. Nola Heidlebaugh (2001) used the term commonplacing to identify the ground where people engaged in moral conflict can meet. She likens commonplacing to weaving together two pieces of cloth. In moral conflict, the weaves in the separate tapestries are too tight, so we must find a way to loosen them to make a joining place possible. Notice that the metaphor is not “sewing.” Indeed, stitch­ing the pieces together would be like what we see too often in moral conflicts today—some kind of a forced seam that does not work for either piece of fabric. Instead, the metaphor calls for loosening threads and actually weav­ing them together in at some point without threatening the integrity of either tapestry. This is the joining point. In the vein of social construction, the joining point is not “found” but “created.” Where can insights be coordi­nated in some meaningful way? In essence, we are saying, “Let’s be creative and see what we can do.”

Between 1999 and 2003, the provinces of Maluku in Indonesia were involved in a terrible conflict, as Muslims and Christians bombed one another’s homes, mosques, churches, schools, and public buildings, result­ing in some 6,000 deaths and many thousands of displaced persons. As part of a restoration process, the International Catholic Migration Commission put together a dialogue institute for village and religious leaders in Central Maluku in 2004. Tired of war and ready to rebuild their communities, 40 participants came together for 4 days to explore their dif­ferences and find a way to build a foundation for restoration. During the institute, the par­ticipants created a number of joining places. Despite their many differences, they were able to talk very productively about their common culture and shared religious values and to dis­cuss how to use these as resources for restora­tion. They did not spend time on old conflict issues, but instead they built a vision for a unified community in which mental, physical, and economic well-being could be achieved. One place where tapestries could be woven was p ela gandong, a cultural practice akin to blood brotherhood. Recognizing that their ancestors had created a blood bond that made them like family, the dialogue participants found a common place and bond for future work together (Lowry & Littlejohn, 2006).

Changing the Context of the Conversation. A powerful way to create joining places is to shift the context of the conversation. We like to use the metaphor of s coping to capture this idea. The frame limits what you see in a scope, but you can change the frame by “scoping out,” which leads to a broader context, or “scoping in,” which leads to a narrower one (Littlejohn & Domenici, 2001; Putnam, 2010). In many con­flicts, especially moral conflicts, the parties are stuck at one-lens length. Debates on abortion, for example, focus right on the issue of abortion itself; however, the Public Conversations Project (Chasin et al., 1996) has learned that produc­tive dialogue can occur by asking participants to reflect on their life experiences, which is a kind of “scoping in.” In the Catron County conflict described above (Smith, 1998), the dialogue groups found it useful to “scope out” to explore a common vision for the community. We can also change the context by moving the scope around to look at different spots. In good dialogue, then, we may want to continually shift the context by scoping and pointing.

In her case study on the NRC summarized above, Ferdig (2001) reflected on the power of questions in shifting the context of the dis­cussion. She outlined several ways in which questions can focus on different contexts. To focus on contexts of identity, for example, the group may ask, “Who am I?” “What is important to me?” “Who are we together?” “What do we both care about?” To focus on contexts of principle, we might ask, “What do I stand for?” “What do we jointly stand for?” “How do our choices and actions reflect our individual and collective values?” Contexts of intention can be revealed in discussions on questions such as, “Where am I going?” “What do I want to see happen here?” “What are we up to in this conversation?” To focus on contexts of assumption, we ask questions like these: “What aren’t we thinking about here?” “What is our logic for these conclusions?” Finally, a focus on contexts of possibility would require questions such as, “What are the things you value most about yourself and the self-organizing experience of which you are a part?” “What are the core factors that give ‘life’ and ‘energy’ to the self-organizing process of which you are a part?” “What are the pos­sibilities of that which we can create together based on the best of who we are?”

Practical Guidelines

Over the years, we have learned several lessons that have informed our practice (Littlejohn & Domenici, 2001). Since the aforementioned Pornotopia conflict (discussed in the beginning of the chapter) has not yet been interceded and remains unresolved, the following is a synopsis of the practical lessons learned exampled by hypothetical scenarios and possibilities for the Pornotopia case: (a) create the right conditions, (b) manage safety, (c) provide a process that encourages constructive conversation, and (d) maintain ends in view and think about possibilities for outcomes of the conversation.

Create the Right Conditions. Dialogue is rarely possible in the heat of conflict. Timing is a critical factor of success, and opportunities for dialogue must be made, either by interven­tion agents or concerned stakeholders. Several points can be helpful here:

1. Don’t wait until conflict breaks out. Engage stakeholders in conversations early on.

2. If open conflict has already happened, look for the right moment, often when participants are tired of fighting or become desperate for new solutions.

3. Work initially in small, private groups.

4. Be careful about the role of “leaders” and other powerful persons. Allow all of the voices to be heard from the start.

5. Build on prior success. Avoid single-shot inter­ventions, and use a grow-as-it-goes process.

6. Be creative about process. Think about what will work best now under the condi­tions currently experienced.

In the case of Pornotopia, open conflict has already occurred. Therefore, possibilities for transcending the conflict rest on find­ing an appropriate moment and an effective process. One of the challenging conditions of the Pornotopia conflict is the power differ­ential between the local business owners and city officials, which has forced much of the conflict to transpire publicly, through news media and Internet blogs. With the indefinite cancellation of Pornotopia, much of the media coverage of the conflict has stagnated, sug­gesting a possible moment for intervention and opportunity for dialogue. For this par­ticular conflict, it would be especially impor­tant to first facilitate dialogue on the issue in a private, small-group, face-to-face setting that would equally include the voices of all those involved, including small business owners, city officials, and Albuquerque residents.

It is imperative that the issue not be approached in a way that privileges the per­spectives and power of local governmental offi­cials but allows for a space of dialogue equal for all participants. Recently, an Albuquerque city official has proposed that 1 week a year concessions be made regarding zoning restric­tion so that events such as Pornotopia can occur. This proposal suggests a good start­ing point for generating, acknowledging, and addressing the multiple perspectives and ideas available in this case. However, these ideas may never reach fruition unless an equal, open, and safe space is managed.

Manage Safety. Safety is crucial and must be managed well. People will not experiment with new forms of talk when they feel unsafe. Here are a few points for guidance:

1. Think consciously about time and place.

2. Provide appropriate structure.

3. Solicit agreements on process.

4. Promote good facework.

5. Respond to willingness and felt need.

6. Find a shared level of comfort.

7. Leave an out.

8. Use an impartial facilitator.

Again, because of the power differential involved in the Pornotopia case, coming to an agreement about the equality of participation in dialogue is important to the process. Ideally, participation by members of the Albuquerque community would be a priority, assuming that as potential spectators and neighborhood citizens they have a stake in whether or not the event occurs. Additionally, using a community­based setting for dialogue has the potential to mitigate unequal power distributions by creat­ing a space for equally valued participation, such as the type of communication that might occur in a public deliberation setting. Utilizing a facilitator who has no personal investment in the conflict, such as someone who does not reside in Albuquerque; who is not a small busi­ness owner; and who does not have ties to local government is important for providing a com­fortable and judgment-free zone. Additionally, keeping communication open to more than just discussions of law and politics could help save face and also encourage more constructive rather than digressive conversation.

Provide a Process That Encourages Constructive Conversation. Encourage par­ticipants to treat people as people, not as representatives of positions. Several principles can help constructive conversation:

1. Take sufficient time to explore.

2. Encourage listening, and build listening into the process.

3. Help participants to listen beyond mere con­tent. Listen deeply to lived experience, stories told, values, shared concerns, and differences.

4. Ask good questions designed to open the conversation not close it down.

5. Frame issues carefully to capture a context that will create a joining place.

6. Be appreciative. Look for positive resources, and look for the vision behind negative comments.

7. When speaking, aim to be understood rather than to prevail in a contest.

8. Base positions in personal experience, and help others understand your life’s experiences.

9. Maintain a multivalued, rather than bipo­lar, purview. Listen for all the voices.

A key factor listed here for the Pornotopia case is a focus on lived and personal experi­ence. As the conflict stands now, legal issues of zoning and political issues of free speech are stifling the complexity of the topic and constructing individuals as representatives of these two limited perspectives rather than persons being affected by them. Creating a joining point rests on a community-based dia­logue process that is concerned with the lives being affected by Pornotopia. In doing so, questions can begin to be asked that construct a context for creating a joining point, such as what is the function of Pornotopia in the com­munity? From here, conversations can allow individuals to reflect on why Pornotopia is eliciting so much controversy and in what ways personal lives and interests are central to understanding and transcending the con­flict. Using lived experiences as a starting spot can potentially create points of relation rather than resistance and help envision collabora­tion as a desirable end.

Maintain Ends in View and Think About Possibilities for Outcomes of the Conversation. Several ends are possible:

1. Discovering the heart of the matter or learning what is most important to all par­ticipants

2. Building respect by looking for the ways in which others are experienced, complex, concerned, intelligent, healthy, and rational

3. Learning about complexity and developing a healthy suspicion of a two-valued framing of any issue

4. Building a context for collaboration

In terms of possible ends for Pornotopia, many issues surround all sides of the conflict that have not yet been considered. By creat­ing the right conditions, managing safety, and encouraging constructive conversations, all parties involved might be able to see the issue on a broader scale that encompasses more than just a possible resolution of either enforced zoning or an enactment of first- amendment rights. Building respect for one another begins by focusing on the lived reali­ties of those invested in the conflict. In doing so, goals that both sides seem to be commit­ted to, such as focusing on fulfilling the needs of all members of the Albuquerque commu­nity rather than on reasons for Pornotopia’s demise, might begin to build a context for collaboration and perhaps yield a space for transcendence.