Talking Across Differences On Dialogue…and Conflict Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D.

The Agenda Introduction: What’s dialogue? The goal of dialogue (w/ demo.) The necessary conditions When dialogue turns into conflict Demonstration analysis/critique

What’s dialogue? An exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement. ~ dictionary.com Speech between two (or more) people ~ urbandictionary.com People truly listening to people truly speaking ~ Harrison Owen Since storytelling is a dialogue, shared stories create more understanding; bring people closer together as a community; and serve as a string that binds one heart to another (I believe that the universe is made up of string). ~ Peninnah Schram An enemy is one whose story we have not heard ~ Gene Hoffman It's hard to hate anyone whose story you know ~ Roslyn Bresnick-Perry

Demonstration The facilitator: A personal story The group: pair and share Question: What is your favorite memory of being a college student?

Why dialogue? To build knowledge and promote knowledge retention To present (and promote consideration of) alternative perspectives To reduce prejudice by examining similarities of experience and, in so doing, breaking through the surface tension created by difference engaging in meaningful inquiry into relations between self and others, especially in context of issues of potential conflict (e.g., interracial/interfaith relationships, affirmative action)

The Three Goals (by David Budbill) The first goal is to see the thing itself in and for itself, to see it simply and clearly for what it is. No symbolism, please. The second goal is to see each individual thing as unified, as one, with all the other ten thousand things. In this regard, a little wine helps a lot. The third goal is to grasp the first and the second goals, to see the universal and the particular, simultaneously. Regarding this one, call me when you get it.

Purple and Black by Patricia Williams One summer when I was about six, my family drove to Maine. The highway was very straight and hot and shimmered darkly in the sun. My sister and I sat in the back seat of the Studebaker and argued about what color the road was. I said black. My sister said purple. After I had harangued her into admitting that it was indeed black, my father gently pointed out that my sister still saw it as purple. I was unimpressed with the relevance of that at the time; but with the passage of years, and much more observation, I have come to see endless highways as slightly more purple than black. My sister and I will probably argue about the hue of life's roads forever. But the lesson I learned from listening to her wild perceptions is that it really is possible to see things--even the most concrete things--simultaneously yet differently; and that seeing simultaneously yet differently is more easily done by two people than one, but that one person can get the hang of it with lots of time and effort. Alternative Perspectives

Dialogue vs. Debate Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal. In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participants point of view. Debate affirms a participant's own point of view. Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth. Dialogue causes introspection on ones own position. Debate causes critique of the other position. Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Adapted from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR).

Dialogue vs. Debate (cont.) Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right. In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs. In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring differences. In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion.

Group Development Development occurs in an orderly fashion through sequential stages. Knowledge of developmental stages allows one to predict behavior. Development can be facilitated.

Stage One (Forming): Goal: Create an open, inclusive, and safe environment Activities in dialogue: Build relationships Develop group norms Discuss hopes and fears about talking across differences Process for participants Students may be guarded, defensive, unsure (until trust is built) Facilitator role: Validate student concerns Affirm hopes and interests Model and promote genuine self-disclosure Emphasize collaborative process in which facilitators are also learners

Stage Two (Commonalities and Differences) Goals: Create in-depth and engaged dialogue Begin to explore social identity and its impact on self Locate individual, interpersonal, and intergroup experiences in the contexts of systems of oppression Activities in dialogue: Share early socialization memories of race and other identities Explore advantages and disadvantages of group membership Process for participants Practice supportive and active listening May feel guilt, shame, or anger while grappling with new consciousness Facilitator role: Clarify communication among students Validate feelings Model appropriate risk-taking (via self-disclosure), if necessary

A Dialogue Circle (Stage 2) Option 2: When was the first time you became aware of being a person of your particular race? Option 1: What does it mean to you to be a member of your racial group?

Stage 3: Controversial Issues and Conflict Goals: Address specific issues of intergroup difference and conflict Promote perspective taking Activities in dialogue: Personal sharing and experiential exercises to facilitate perspective taking and self-reflection Process for participants Learn new information Understand new perspectives Re-evaluate thinking about controversial issues Facilitator role: Encourage student inquiry, growth, and development  Probing  Supporting  Confronting  Modeling

Stage 3: A controversial issue Does our society privilege whiteness? Class Exercise: The Privilege Walk

Stage 4: Taking Action Goal: Identify individual and collective action to promote social justice Activities in dialogue: Discuss next steps for continued learning Develop vision for creating change Link dialogue to action Process for participants Reflect on personal responsibility in addressing injustice Build a sense of personal and collective empowerment Facilitator role: Affirm student engagement and commitment Identify ways to continue learning and engaging in social justice work

When Dialogue Turns into Conflict The Basics conflict vs painful conflict move towards conflict listen for (and reflect) the underlying needs

When Dialogue Turns into Conflict An expansion of the basics: conventional and restorative approaches to conflict types of restorative practices the restorative circle a dialogue and conflict system

Final Dialogue (Stage 4) Write “one true sentence” about what happened during this workshop Write “one true sentence” about what you can use in your own teaching

Contact Information Mikhail Lyubansky Department of Psychology (this powerpoint is available at site above)