Chapter Eleven

Dialogue and Institution

Marcella Sires

The Art of Dialogue is a difficult one for many people to master. Dialogue
does not only imply two people talking
with each other, but more pointedly,
it describes the process of two different voices being expressed and being
heard clearly. Paying attention to clear self-expression and taking the
responsibility for and ownership of
one's thoughts, feelings and beliefs is
but one movement within the entire process of dialoguing. Another of
these
moments, beautiful in its simplicity and equally as difficult to accomplish,
is the Art of Listening.
Active listening is listening with an open mind and
an open heart and with the great hope of actually trying to
come to an
adequate understanding of the point of view of the other. Dialogue involves
an openness to change.

The Art of Listening

The Art of Dialogue is not the same thing as the Art of Persuasion, although
very often the latter is
misrepresented as dialogue. True dialogue is not an
attempt to convince the "opponent" to abandon the
error of their beliefs and
then to insert the truth of one's own conviction in its place. Points are not
scored or tallied, it is not a winner-take-all scenario. Dialogue is not a
debate nor a verbal competition. In
true dialogue there are no losers, as both
sides win. When describing dialogue as an openness to change, one is
not
alluding to an attempt to change the other party but rather to an openness to
allow change to happen within
oneself. Dialogue entails the possibility of
coming to a new understanding, gaining a new perspective. It is the
possibility that an idea or insight that was not previously there may come
into being precisely through direct
interaction with the other. Dialogue has
the potential to move participants beyond their initial starting points.
It is, in
a sense, a mutual journey of discovery and creation and as such, in addition
to the fatigue of hard
work and focused attention, can be accompanied by a
sense of satisfaction, joy and wonderment. Understanding and
change does
not necessarily lead to agreement but it is the process of developing the
necessary foundational steps for any type of possible agreement to be built
upon.
It will come as no surprise that at the very essence of this process of
dialoguing is the exercise of focused,
active listening. Often through
inattentiveness and the inability to stay focused in the immediacy of the
moment,
active listening degenerates to passive listening and finally a
simple monitoring of words and sentences. To
maintain active listening one
must pay close attention to the words and ideas of the other in a very
mindful and
focused fashion, periodically checking to see if the message
heard was indeed the message sent, if the idea
interpreted was indeed the
idea intended. Unfortunately, many people are sloppy listeners. Having
heard a bit of
the message they often jump to the assumption that they know
exactly what the other means and where the other is
leading them in their
conclusions. This can lead to confusion in so far as the listener is often busy
formulating
their responses to the assumed stance of the other while
simultaneously monitoring the words of the other,
thereby splitting their
attention to the moment ever farther. Rather than listening in a focused
fashion they
actively fill in the rest of the message themselves thereby
taking on the roles of both sides of the dialogue and
negating the need for
the presence of the other altogether.
Active listening entails the listener taking responsibility for checking and
clarifying those ideas and messages
that are unclear. There is a genuine
interest in this asking for clarification of details. It is an honest
attempt for
the listener to try to stay with the thoughts of the other in order to facilitate
understanding. This
genuineness is a very different attitude from one of
constant interruption. It is not the use of questioning to
try to trip up the
other or to outwit them or even to insert editorial comments of one's own. It
is an
attempt to clarify discrepancies that may be causing real confusion or
misunderstandings rather than simply the
pointing out of inconsistencies to
the other in an attempt to discredit the message or even dismiss the
messenger.
Trust and Respect
One of the obvious obstacles to active listening and openness is a lack of
trust in the other. How well do I know
this person? How safe is it to speak
from the heart and leave myself vulnerable? Will my own words be used as
a
weapon against me? Is the other truly open to dialogue? If I listen to them
with an openness to change, can I
reasonably expect that there will be a
mutual openness on their part to the hearing of my message as well? Will I
really get a chance to express myself at all? Does the other realise that
change does not mean assimilation into
the belief system of the other? Will
they play by the rules?
Respect for the other, precisely as other than self, is a crucial attitude
throughout the
entire dialogue process. Oftentimes an interpretation of the
history of the relationship between the dialoguing
parties will inhibit the
attitudes of openness, trust and respect necessary for change to take place.
Monologues
are engaged in utilising such tools as holding fast to pre-
suppositions, second-guessing the strategy of the
other, or even attempts at
"mind reading". The other begins to take on stereotypical status,
encouraging the development of relational myths replacing the here and
now reality. Listening becomes distorted
and only that which validates the
caricature of the other that is being built in the listener's mind will
register
or be heard. That which does not fit the image will be conveniently ignored.
The "otherness"
of the other becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and a
limiting, impoverishing definition of who they are and what
they believe.
The other is labelled as hostile and/or dangerous. The conservative, the
liberal, the
authoritarian, the rebel, the gay, the straight, the youth of today,
the righteous, all are born in this
movement. The richness of a real person is
lost and replaced by the poverty of a stereotype. All information and
behaviour will be suspect and interpreted within the frame of reference that
we ourselves have built up as a
projection of our own deepest fears and
anxieties. Defensive and preemptive tactics are employed to ensure our
safety and survival. Fear has become an obstacle to openness to change.
There is no trust and little or no
respect for the other as other. Fear is now
an obstacle to dialogue.
Trust is not naïveté. Trust as it is used here is not only seen as a thing in
itself, as a foundation of the
dialogue, it is also the description of a
relational attitude. It is part of an ongoing process and as such it is
being
checked and tested continuously. A certain amount of caution is realistically
called for when proceeding in
a dialogue. Trust builds upon itself in
progressively increasing layers of intimacy, verifying, testing,
proceeding
and sometimes retracing itself. Trust is both a condition for and a
consequence of good dialogue.
While already noting that fear can be a
paralysing obstacle to dialogue, a certain amount of healthy respect and
awareness of the other as other can be a highly motivating factor. It urges us
cautiously on to engage in the
mutual exploration of thoughts, feelings,
ideas and beliefs through dialogue. This moves us beyond the realm of
simple conversation into the realm of dialogue.

Dialogue with(in) Institutions

Dialoguing with another individual can be a difficult art to master.
Dialoguing with an institution is actually
impossible. One can only dialogue
with people, with the other. One cannot dialogue with "the Church" as
such.
There can be ongoing dialogue within the Church, among its members, but
the parts cannot dialogue with the whole of which the parts are a
constitutive member. How, then, does one dialogue
within an institution?
If one can only dialogue with individuals, then identifying the parties or
the partners within the institutions
with whom to dialogue becomes the
issue. Within the institution there may be individuals who are recognised as
official representatives of the ideas, beliefs and values held and affirmed by
the members of the institution and
as such may be granted the authority to
speak on behalf of the other members. There may be people who through
their insight, wisdom, or specific expertise are recognised as authorities in
their field and have become
recognised spokesperson for other members.
There may even be those speaking to remind us that there are many who,
for what ever reason, remain or are forced to remain silent and should not
be simply overlooked or discarded.
Hopefully the partner who will give a face to the other will be someone
who has the ability to listen, show
respect, and enter into true dialogue with
others with a willingness to change. Too often those who are most
enthusiastic and emotionally committed to one extreme belief or are
dedicated and committed to defending one
specific position put themselves
forth in the role of spokesperson. While recognising the sincerity of their
belief and their loyalty to their positions, it is not always evident that the
people who are the most visible,
vocal or committed to a particular cause
are the ones most skilled at handling the situation. How well can they
listen? How trusting are they of the sincerity of the other? How respectful
of the other partner are they when
faced with a different voice? How open
are they to change?
One must also be cautious that the person who functions as spokesperson
in a dialogue is not put into a position
where there may be a conflict of
roles, creating a conflict of interest. Ideally someone who simultaneously
functions to judge, sanction, censure or grant or withdraw rights and
privileges should not be caught up in this
situation. Threats of sanctions and
censure and the fear that they instil have no place in dialogue. That is
coercion.

Stasis and Homeostasis

Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that the participants in a dialogue
forget about listening to the perspective
of the other and become
preoccupied with the outcome of the entire process instead. In such a case,
patience,
trust, and respect for the other as other are put aside and the
dialogue takes on the proportions of an argument.
The content of the
argument and the end conclusion become the motivating factors for
interpersonal engagement. A
power struggle, often based on the claim of
the exclusive ownership of objective truth or the correct insight
into reality
ensues. These attitudes, especially when dealing with individuals claiming
to represent an
institution, are usually in function of maintaining
homeostasis and the identity of the
institution, as they envision it. Change is
perceived as a threat to the continuity of the institution itself and
perhaps to
the position of the individual within the institution. The argument from this
position can be seen as
an attempt to protect both themselves and the
institution from attack. The argument is motivated by a sense of
self-
defence in function of survival. The other is viewed as a danger and
becomes the identified enemy. Again
dialogue is not possible if there is no
trust in the partner and the very process of dialogue itself.
On the other hand, other members of the same institution may be
attempting to incorporate new ideas and
experiences and initiate movement
and growth to guarantee the survival of the same institution precisely
through
change. Those cautioning conservation or even a return to older
ways are seen as a hindrance to progress and
renewal. Those maintaining
the status quo are viewed with suspicion for having lost touch with the real
world and
the real problems confronting many of the institution's members.
The fear of stasis leading to obsolescence
and extinction is as real and
important to them as the need for homeostasis is for the other.
Both arguments are motivated by the desire to maintain the survival of
the institution of which both are members.
Both parties in their own way
are very loyal, even loving members of the same institution. Finding or
creating a
balance that allows enough change for growth and enough
conservation for continuity is a very difficult task. A
distrust in the ability
of the other to listen and understand and even a very deep-seated distrust of
the
motivation and behaviour of the other create an atmosphere non-
conducive to dialogue and openness.
Getting the balance between stasis and homeostasis, conservation and
renewal should be an ongoing process whose
positive tension should help to
ensure the continuation of the institution as well as dialogue among its
individual members. A recognition of the mutual dependency of the
institution and the members who constitute it
should motivate if not
mandate continuous dialogue among those loyal and loving members who
may have very
different, individual life experiences. It is only when there is
a recognition of this loyalty to the institution
that trust can begin to be
established. Recognition and respect for the other as other, as a unique
individual,
and simultaneously as same, as a loving, loyal and concerned
member of the same institution as myself, is an
essential element in
fostering that trust. Together we need to identify the purpose and good of
our institution
and decide together what behaviours, changes and constants
will best promote those ends.
If the individual members walk away from each other in frustration and
disillusionment the institution will
eventually disappear. If the institution
cannot grow in a changing world it will become dysfunctional and
obsolete
and will not be able to meet the needs of its members. If members refuse or
cannot maintain a certain level of coherency and belief in the essential
tenets necessary for the recognition of
the identity of the institution and
their own membership in it, they threaten the very existence of the
institution. If certain members of the institution fail to recognise the
membership of other members of the
institution or claim to be able to
unilaterally judge what tenets are essential for membership in the institution
they doom the institution to become a relic of itself.
Dialoguing is an act of trust. Dialoguing within the institution is an act of
generosity. Dialoguing among the
members of the institution is an act of
sharing based on Faith. Dialoguing within the Church is a sign of Hope
and
an act of Love.