Focusing on dialogue’s role in conflict resolution, I begin with three propositions as elaborated on in the following text.

First, dialogue is a distinctive way of communicating that is the essence of rela­tionship. It is a broadly applicable, probing way of talking - and listening - different in its emphasis from negotiation, mediation, debate, legal argument, diplomatic exchange, declaiming, or normal conversation.

Second, when sustained, practiced as a rigorous, carefully designed process, and placed in the context of deep-rooted conflict, dialogue can become a systematic instrument for transforming conflictual, dysfunctional, or destructive relationships. It enables par­ticipants to surface causes of problems, issues, and suppressed or violent conflict so they can be dealt with collaboratively. Sometimes citizens will generate their own dialogue to address conflict themselves; in other situations, such dialogue may pave the way for instruments such as mediation or negotiation. We have called dialogue as a process “sustained dialogue” to distinguish it as a process for conflict resolution from the basic way of communicating, which it incorporates. Its defining characteristic is not just that it is sustained over time but that it primarily and systematically focuses on the relationships that cause particular problems and conflicts.

There is no clear line between dialogue as communication and dialogue as process. The first is essential to the second, but the second has characteristics of its own. If there is any way of distinguishing between them, it probably lies in the nature and depth of the conflict being addressed and in the appropriateness of the instrument for dealing with it. Some groups, even when holding sharply different views, are able to talk or negotiate with each other - or they can be helped to communicate more productively. In deep-rooted conflict, historic grievances, anger, and bitterness can be so deep that parties often cannot talk civilly or constructively with their adversary - much less listen seriously to others' different views of the conflict. There is initially no capacity for empathy. As a South African said, “Until people discharge their anger, they can't think straight.” In such deep-rooted conflict, a process of dialogue can play a critical role in breaking stalemates and moving conflict toward resolution.

Third, using dialogue fully as a process for transforming relationship and legitimizing it as an instrument for conflict resolution requires a shift in the paradigm for the study and practice of politics. That is a shift from primary focus on states, governments, and political institutions and on power as coercion and control to focus, in addition, on citizens outside government as political actors and on power as the capacity to influence - not control - the course of events. It is a shift from what has been called the “realist paradigm” or “politics is about power” to what is being called the “relational paradigm.”

It is essential to note at this early point that cultures around the world have their own rich traditions and practices of dialogue. Perhaps we in the West are more in need of help in recovering our traditions of dialogue than those in Africa, in the East, or in our own indigenous cultures. A prominent US scholar has describedAmerican culture as “the argument culture” much in need of dialogue as the antidote (Tannen, 1998).

Two points, then, are inherent in the concept of dialogue as an instrument in conflict resolution: (1) Dialogue most obvi­ously differs as a way of talking and listening from negotiation, mediation, debate, legal argument, and everyday conversation. Dialogue as a way of communicating - a way of relating - is a skill and an art worthy of analysis and teaching in its own right; (2) Less obviously, dialogue sustained over time and rigorously practiced as a process offers a deepening spiral of opportunities to probe, analyze, and even transform relationships in fundamental ways. When sustained, it can be conceptualized and taught as a carefully defined process for transforming conflictual relationships. The first point is broadly accepted and taught. The second is more slowly but steadily gaining recognition.