What is dialogue?
We know that it’s not debate; debate implies argumentative or, before cable news, persuasive action. Dialogue is also not a simple recounting of current events with superficial commentary. Allow me to elucidate how I see the concept of dialogue. State of Formation has a number of actual scholars onboard, so I invite their corrections to the following assertion, but here we go:
The Greek word(s) for dialogue: dialogos, dialegomai, dialegesthai, etc. are built on the union of two important words, one a concept and the other a preposition. The first syllable in the word “dialogue” is not “two”, as might perhaps be expected, since dialogue is often between people. “Di” is “two”. No, we’re dealing here with “dia”, which means “through”. In this case, we’re taking a “logos”, which we could render as an account, a worldview, or simply “reason”, and running it through a conversation. What comes out the other side, we hope, will be a deeper understanding of that worldview. Ahem. So that’s a layperson’s attempt at doing one of those cool scriptural exegeses that proper brains are so good at producing. For the record, I can read Greek out loud, but have absolutely no idea what’s going on (generally).
When we dialogue (as a verb) or join a dialogue (the noun), we’re not simply presenting and discussing a particular thing. Depending on the size of the topic at hand, dialogue forces us to squeeze that topic through our own experience, to annotate it, edit it, and then spit it out the other side. All participants in a dialogue do this simultaneously, thus making the whole enterprise not so much about making the sausage as talking about all the bits and bobs that go into it, as well as our experience with particular kinds of intestine-encased meats (note: I am a vegetarian).
Dialogue is a messy, involved process, and to get the most out of it, we need to really engage with the topic, getting our hands dirty with ideas that might seem foreign to us. In the case of interfaith dialogue (my happy place), we are going up against concepts that, as a general rule, defy easy explanation.
Why is this important?
America, and the wider world, is host to countless dialogue groups, some secular, some religious, some REALLY religious. However, I feel strongly that classifying things in this manner is sloppy, since any given conversation has the capacity to turn into an interreligious exchange. Think about politics – debating the relative merits of this or that party will often turn to a discussion of the role of religion in the political sphere, and vice versa. Thinking back, the interfaith dialogue group that I joined in college didn’t actually engage personal faith until a few discussions in, and only after we’d discussed things like the ultimate purpose of college or the real meaning of wisdom.
I am an ardent advocate of the kind of interfaith dialogue that produces personal change and exploration, so a focus on lived experience has to be somewhere in the mix. And while I’m all for deep explorations of religious history and dogma, if the conversation doesn’t ask at least once, “And how did your religious beliefs inform your actions/feelings?” then I don’t think there’s much of a point.
We need to talk to one another – this is indisputable. Chatting about our ultimate visions and how they inform our lives is a great pathway, not only for personal discovery, but ultimately for creating a more compassionate and interesting society. I often tell people about how deeply interfaith dialogue has affected my faith-life. I’ve learned more about my own philosophical guts and spiritual piping than I would have thought possible. The learning doesn’t stop, and neither should open, honest, and safe dialogue. Those of us here at State of Formation would do well to help as many people as possible take their logos and [CRAZY METAPHOR ALERT] stick it through the taffy-pulling machine of rousing interfaith dialogue.
Thanks for the “cool scriptural exegeses” on dialogue. I, too, am an advocate for the kind of dialogue “that produces personal change and exploration.” I believe that the best kind of dialogue happens when we approach conversations with an openness to be changed. Put differently, we must be open to re-forming our views. I’m hoping to do “cool scriptural exegeses” on the words “form/reform/transform” at some point in the near future. Would be great to put the concepts of “dialogue” and “transformation” in conversation with each other.
Good stuff – thanks again for sharing!
I want to speak up for debate, because I think the debate form is one of the most important forms of dialogue. By presenting clearly differentiated views in a powerful manner, the audience to the debate (for whom the debate is traditionally held) can come to a more nuanced understanding of a particular issue. Frequently, people choose to surround themselves with messages they implicitly support: they listen to radio shows on stations that generally agree with them, read newspapers whose views they appreciate etc. By being exposed to differing views in debate people can see that other positions are viable and capable of being defended. They can weight the quality of the arguments in favour of particular courses of action. I think this is crucially important and should be conceived of as a specialized FORM of dialogue, not as entirely distinct from it.
I think I disagree with James here. I don’t think that debate ever qualifies as a form of dialogue, although it could perhaps serve as a precursor to it. In debate, participants generally do not expose themselves to alternative views as James suggests. They typically armor themselves or entrench themselves deeper in their own position, lest they appear weak before their opponent and their audience. This kind of armoring is contrary to the type of nakedness that is required for dialogue to have its transformative effect.
There are no winners or losers in dialogue (contrary to the debate format, where although victory is subjective the question of who ‘won’ the debate is generally subjected to an audience vote or the opinion of commentators).
Dialogue is also intimate, and I feel it suffers when it occurs in the presence of others who are not participating. Listening itself can be a form of participation, but when the size of the audience exceeds a level that can be conceived of as intimate I think dialogue becomes difficult to achieve. The presence of spectators turns conversation into a spectacle, elevating the defensiveness of the participants and the theatricality of the discussion.
Dialogue is also not structured as a point-counterpoint exchange of clashing views. It requires the ability to move beyond the importance of positions, and enter into a communion in spite of differences. Attempts to persuade interfere with the mutuality required for this communion. In dialogue there is a feeling of working together toward something bigger than any individual, and this togetherness often exceeds debate in power and intensity.
Debate entails what Martin Buber would term an ‘I-It’ relationship, in which the other person is related to as an object rather than a subject. This ‘I-It’ is opposed to the ‘I-Thou’ of dialogue. It lacks the vulnerability and the sacrificial element of dialogue. There is little true exposure that takes place, as the presence of the other’s conflicting view is seen simply as a challenge to be thwarted. Any exposure that occurs is generally accidental and quickly neutralized with face-saving gestures. Perhaps the minds of receptive audience members will be expanded by witnessing this type of spectacle, but the minds of the participants are likely to (temporarily) constrict.
I don’t think the goal of any interaction should ever be to exclude conflict – like I mentioned, conflict or debate can serve as a useful precursor to dialogue, as I have seen these situations cause a type of ‘breaking through’ that leads to the most intense kind of dialogue. In fact, this has often been the case in one of my personal relationships. Hostile energies become discharged, sometimes clearing the ground so that a connection may emerge. But this emergence requires a certain amount of surrender from both sides – a willingness to give or expend oneself. I think to identify an exercise in hostility (goodhearted or playful as it may be) with dialogue is to make a mistake.
I think James makes a good point though in suggesting that debate not be viewed as entirely distinct from dialogue. The line that separates one from the other is blurry indeed, especially given the kind of abrupt breakthroughs (or as I like to call them:’phase transitions’) that can shift conflict rapidly into communion. These transitions are unpredictable and chaotic, but in my experience they do demarcate distinct zones of relationship – the ‘I-It’ and the ‘I-Thou’.
Thanks for writing Tim, and James thank you for your response!
Thanks for your response Ian! You say:
” In debate, participants generally do not expose themselves to alternative views as James suggests. They typically armor themselves or entrench themselves deeper in their own position, lest they appear weak before their opponent and their audience. This kind of armoring is contrary to the type of nakedness that is required for dialogue to have its transformative effect.”
I think you’re missing something crucial here: the debate is not held to benefit the speakers. It is held to benefit the audience. It is the audience, by attending the debate, who opens themselves to opposing views that they might not otherwise hear. While the participants may themselves feel more defensive (although the stylized nature of the traditional debate format tends to work against this, in my view) the audience has no reason to feel so, and can listen reasonably impartially to the arguments given.
This focus on arguments, too, including the element of “winning” or “losing” the argument, is important to my conception of dialogue, because it asserts the necessity of supporting statements with good reasons. Without any check on the quality of arguments presented for and against a certain proposition, there can be no adjudication of value whatsoever. One might reply “The purpose of dialogue is not to further or evaluate propositions”, but I think that would be to avoid the fact that many value statements are made during dialogues of all sorts, and that frequently in an interfaith context these value statements will be contested. Having a system to explore the contest requires a method of evaluation, and the debate form provides this.
I am also skeptical that the debate form entails an “I-It” relationship between the participants of oppossing teams. I think it would be more accurate to say that it entails an I-It relationship between the debating apparatus as a whole (both teams and the chair included) and the idea under discussion. This tends to enable good relationships between participants because they are joint actors in an attempt to work through a complex problem. This is very similar to court cases, which have the same fundamental structure.
So I would suggest that there is more value to the debate form than is being suggested, and that it should be viewed as a structured form of dialogue with certain benefits and drawbacks, and should be used judiciously. I would further suggest that the lack of a true debating culture is extremely detrimental to US politics, which suffers from an extreme dearth of spaces where opposing views can be discussed intelligently in a moderated forum.