By Aswathi Prakash
We’ve been through this already but at the risk of sounding redundant let me tell you that dialogue comes from the Greek dia (through) and logos (words) – suggesting that it is a way of action or achieving something through the medium of words.
By its nature, dialogue is a type of conversation that challenges people to enhance their understanding of themselves and others by sharing and reflecting on deeply held beliefs and values (Kelly, 2013) and is what differentiates it from other forms of communication. Bohm ++ (1991) describes dialogue as “a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behaviour, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realising what is occurring” and “therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise.” Therefore it is no surprise that dialogue has been widely explored across a range of disciplines, ranging from sociology, to management studies, to hermeneutics, nursing, peace studies and psychology, to name a few.
We at Kshetra have seen dialogue empower changemakers to engage with complex problems, manage organisational transitions and change, drive innovation, facilitate individual and collective meaning making, drive public and policy narratives and more. Our recent foray into in-depth research reveals many more examples from around the world, adding to the ever growing list of the uses of dialogue. Here are some of those:
Transform Conflicts and Build Peace
Dialogue is uniquely suited for peacebuilding as it does not have a purpose or agenda beyond inquiring into the movement of thought (Bohm, et al., 1991), and its objective is not ‘analysing things, winning an argument, or exchanging opinions but listening to everybody’s opinions and simply sharing the appreciation of the meanings’ (Bohm, 1996; Mesa-Vélez, 2019). It has been effectively applied in resolving a broad spectrum of conflicts, ranging from peace efforts in Northern Ireland and South Africa to addressing global challenges like climate change and economic crises.
Mesa-Vélez (2019) in her paper shares how living and watching every stage of the peace process that ultimately ended the armed confrontation between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP – the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia – made her consider dialogue as an enriching tool for conflict resolution even in a society that has traditionally been violent. After half a century of war, in December 2016, the two sides signed a Final Agreement to end the ordeal. She recounts how the two parties with highly contrasting worldviews and belief systems sat down to talk and despite great difficulty, reached agreements on fundamental socio-economic, and political matters. She notes how the process enunciated, recognised and attempted to resolve colonial-inherited issues that caused the violent conflict (Mesa-Vélez, 2019), unlike the previous failed peace negotiations, and credits its success to the process that was inherently dialogic.
An example of dialogue being used in conflict transformation and peace efforts can be found in Padraig O’Malley, a seasoned Irish peacemaker’s initiative in response to the high levels of violence in Iraq in 2007 (UNDP, 2009).
Empower individuals/changemakers to engage with complex problems
Dialogue is a powerful tool in the hands of changemakers seeking to drive positive reforms in society, communities or any sphere of influence. It allows them to effectively build consensus, foster collaboration, empower communities and inspire action. In an enriching experience, we worked closely with a changemaker who employed dialogue to negotiate access to training for a differently-abled woman in rural Assam. You can read her experience here.
Wangari Maathai and the Green Belt Movement is another powerful example of how one person’s vision, combined with community engagement and aided by the tool of dialogue can create significant environmental and social change.
Witnessing environmental degradation and its impact on rural women in Kenya, Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement in 1977. Maathai engaged with rural women, understanding their needs and concerns and through dialogue, she built trust, empowered them to become environmental stewards, and mobilised them to plant trees and advocate for change within their communities. She understood the power of dialogue in building consensus, inspiring action, and achieving environmental and social change. As of 2021 the movement had planted 50 million trees across Kenya, significantly improving environmental conditions.
Similarly, changemakers have also used dialogue to initiate community conversations on gender and property towards driving systemic change. You can read Catherine’s story here.
Manage Change and Transition in Organisations and Communities
Bohm ++ (1991) posits that organisations have inherent, predetermined purposes and goals that are often left unquestioned. But they argue that the creative potential of dialogue makes way for a temporary suspension of any of the structures and relationships that go to make up an organisation therefore underlining its potency as a tool to manage change and transition in organisations and communities.
In an example close to home, Kshetra was approached by a not-for-profit organisation to help the mid-level and top leadership to arrive at a collective understanding of the shift in the organisation’s Vision and Mission (V&M). Kshetra’s role was to assist in the design and facilitation of a gathering of the leadership, towards the same. This “designed dialogic space” allowed for the voicing of variegated view-points across multiple leadership levels and harnessed this diversity to forge a way forward, towards bringing the entire cohort to a collective understanding of the meaning, relevance and need of the change in the vision and mission of the organisation. This is one of the many examples that demonstrates the role dialogue can play in seamlessly navigating change and transition in organisations and communities.
Individual and Collective Sense-making and Meaning-making
Dialogue is a powerful means for collaborative meaning making and sense making, and is often recognised as pertinent in educational and organisational contexts, while not being limited to those. Through dialogue, participants can articulate their backgrounds, assumptions and viewpoints, while simultaneously being exposed to alternative meanings and ways of making sense (Bouwen, 1998). Meaning arises through this process of inquiry, integration of diverse views, and co-constructing new understandings (Cunliffe, 2003).
Marshak (2019) in his paper gives a short case example of dialogic meaning-making in action where the leadership of a mid-sized corporation decided that a “complete transformation” of the organisation was needed following a merger and increased global competition. The case demonstrates how the consultant “disrupts” the conversation about fixing what’s broken and invites the task force members to consider a different metaphorical image to guide the engagement. This prompted the task force to reevaluate their initial assumptions and embrace a renewed mindset.
Mobilise communities and build collective identity
Conti (2021) demonstrates that dialogue is a method to both build and sustain communities, thereby also suggesting that embedding dialogic culture as part of the community’s culture helps community cohesion, and therefore its existence.
In our work, we were able to use dialogue to catalyse a sense of solidarity and collective identity amongst a group of migrant workers. Kamala Bai, was one of the jury members of an event we had collaborated with an organisation on the migrant workers crisis. You can read her story and about our experience here. Kamala Bai’s transformation was but one story amongst many others that dialogue is capable of bringing forth. Through a carefully designed space, we were able to get the migrants on the jury to work together as a cohesive unit instead of being in their individual little silos of problems.
Catalyze Innovation and Co-creation
Drawing particularly from the reflexive element of dialogue discussed earlier, we posit that this reflexiveness is critical to innovation and co-creation. Such co-creation is also important to the forging of relationships through shared understanding, shared discovery and shared solutioning – all the more so in situations where there may be significant differences amongst the parties.
In our work we have seen how dialogue can be utilised to foster cross-sector partnerships by enabling diverse stakeholders to overcome biases and assumptions. For example, as part of a collaborative engagement we brought influential people with widely differing schools of thought onto a common platform to discuss the issue of Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for agricultural produce. Over the course of the engagement we were able to help these individuals, who have been steeped in a particular way of thinking for very long periods of time, step out of the system and have an all round view of the issue at hand and and see the other person as a person and not as the issue that they oppose. This created the room for further dialogue and collaboration.
Drive Public and Policy Narrative Building
A classic example of the power of Dialogue in shaping public opinion and driving public and policy narratives is the Ireland’s Abortion Referendum (2018). Ireland had a long-standing, highly restrictive abortion ban and the public narrative centred on religious beliefs and the rights of the unborn. A series of public forums and citizen assemblies were held where people from all walks of life discussed the abortion issue. Doctors, women’s rights advocates, and religious leaders participated in respectful discussions and this shifted the narrative from a purely religious one to a broader discussion of human rights and social justice. The public narrative shift played a crucial role in the successful referendum vote to repeal the abortion ban.
We supported a civil society organisation (CSO) in the legal field to develop and promote a public narrative that embodied shared collective values and aspirations with regards to overcriminalization in India. With dialogue at the core, the process enabled them to build a collective of organisations in the field, towards driving forward a shared narrative that would, in due course, impact the broader policy narrative as well as a public narrative.
Conclusion
As evidenced by the diverse examples enlisted above, dialogue is an effective and multifaceted tool to drive meaningful change across various domains. Its inherently inclusive and participatory nature allows diverse voices to be heard, acknowledged and addressed, therefore cultivating a sense of shared ownership and collective responsibility leading to sustainable change.
As the world grapples with multifaceted challenges that require innovative and long lasting resolutions, dialogue has now become more important than ever.
References
Antonacopoulou, Elena. (2009). Impact and Scholarship: Unlearning and Practising to Co-Create Actionable Knowledge. Management Learning – MANAGE LEARNING. 40. 421-430. 10.1177/1350507609336708.
Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. Routledge.
Bohm, D., Factor, D. and Garrett, P. (1991). Dialogue – A Proposal.
Bouwen, R. (1998). Relational construction of meaning in emerging organization contexts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 299-319.
Burton, D. (2014). Dialogue and discourse: A sociolinguistic approach to modern drama dialogue and naturally occurring conversation. London: Routledge.
Conti, L. (2021). Caring and Power-Sharing: How Dialogue Influences Community Sustainability. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 9, 34-52.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). Intersubjective Voices: The Role of the “Theorist.” Administrative Theory & Praxis, 25(4), 481–498.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become a creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200
Kelly, U. (2013). Studying Dialogue – Some Reflections. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 1(1), 51-62.
Kogler, H.H. (2014). A Critique of Dialogue in Philosophical Hermeneutics. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 2(1), 47-67.
Kushner, J.L.S. (2009). Righteous Commitment: Renewing, Repairing, and Restoring the World—Wangari Maathai and the Green Belt Movement. Dissertations. 23.
Maoz, I., & Dan Bar-On. (2002). From Working Through the Holocaust to Current Ethnic Conflicts: Evaluating the TRT Group Workshop in Hamburg. Group, 26(1), 29–48.
Marshak, R.J. (2019) ‘Dialogic Meaning-Making in Action’, Organization Development Review, 51(2), pp.26–31.
Mesa-Vélez, L. (2019). ‘Culture of Dialogue’ as a Decolonial Peace-Building Tool: The Case of Colombia’, Journal of Dialogue Studies , 7, pp. 93–113.
Metz, Z. (2007). New Narratives through Dialogue: Two Cases Studies from a practitioner perspective. United Nations.
Monteiro, R.A.A., Toledo, R.F., & Jacobi, P.R. (2021). Dialogue Method: A Proposal to Foster Intra and Inter-community Dialogic Engagement. Journal of Dialogue Studies. 9. 164-188.
Livescault, J. (2022) My Starbucks Idea : An Open Innovation Case-study. Braineet.
Inman, J. & Thompson, T.A. (2013) Using Dialogue then deliberation to transform a warring leadership team. OD Practitioner. 45(1). 34-39.
United Nations Development Program. (2009). Why dialogue matters for conflict prevention and peacebuilding. UNDP Briefing Note: Dialogue for Decision-Makers. Peace Infrastructures.
For a copy of Kshetra’s White Paper: What is Dialogue and What Can it Do, please contact Aswathi Prakash at aswathi@kshetra.space