Discussion or dialogue – or both?

Somewhat crudely, the differences between dialogue and discussion are as follows:

In the table, it is the negative version of discussion that is compared to dialogue. This
does not imply that discussion is always wrong. It can be entirely appropriate to try
to persuade others of one’s views, to assert one’s opinions or claim one’s rights in
the face of disagreement. There are plenty of day-to-day situations when this is
essential. In a discussion, the emphasis is on convincing and persuading. You argue
in order to win based on the premise that he who has the best arguments wins.
Discussion and argumentation are often employed in negotiations, where the goal is
to devise solutions, arrive at joint decisions or reach agreement in order to move on.
Nevertheless, in a diverse world, where people with different views, values and
interests live side by side, the actual manner in which we assert our standpoints
become crucial to coexistence, as well as to the chances of solving problems and
taking decisions. In other words, there is a vast difference between a destructive and
a constructive type of discussion differences between dialogue and discussion).
Two types of discussion
In a destructive discussion, you do not listen very attentively. You focus on
preparing your next argument and wait mainly to have your say. It does not lead to
very much except deadlocked positions. It does not break any new ground. Disaster
looms even larger when the goal becomes to impose your truth or will by offending,
ridiculing or disparaging. Or by lying, manipulating or abusing power. This type of
discussion is outright damaging and fuels conflict.

In a constructive discussion, dialogical principles of trust, openness, honesty and

equality are upheld. People listen with a frame of mind that is open, inquiring and
patient enough to digest both their own and the other’s arguments. This is stimulating
and exciting. There might be some focus on winning, but also on achieving
understanding and adherence to one’s viewpoints, and on exploring the scope for
agreeing. While a destructive discussion is like fisticuffs in a boxing ring, the
constructive discussion is like a dance, where it is all right to change positions in
response to what arises from the conversation. Objective and sober arguments
prevail. What is said is substantiated, ideally by facts. Respectful negotiations may
lead to a compromise or a win-win solution. As in the dialogue, participants
challenge each other’s truths and discrepancies through conversation, but here the
winner is the one with the best argument.

“He who wants to debate should seek truth in the same spirit as he who searches for a lost item. He
doesn’t care if the item is found by himself or a helper. He considers his conversation partner as a
friend and not a foe.”

In a dialogue, it is not an end in itself to change one’s views or reconsider one’s

values. Nevertheless, this is a distinct possibility, perhaps much more so even than
in the case of a discussion. There is a special, almost magical dynamic in being
listened to and feeling understood. It makes it easier to introduce light and shade into
previously static perceptions. People remove their blinkers to see the world from
entirely new perspectives when they feel recognized. And suddenly those unyielding
positions turn out to be not so fixed after all. At the same time, participants become
clear as to what their own views are and why. This provides them with a better
foundation for spotting what they have in common despite their disagreements, even
for finding some third common ground, which was hidden in the beginning, when
everyone was so preoccupied with asserting their own views.

“There are only two ways of solving a conflict. You can fight it out and let the strongest prevail. Or
you can talk it through and use conversation to arrive at a more balanced and reasonable
understanding of the problem behind the conflict. The latter is democracy.”