A recent news story caught my attention. I heard that a committee in the United States House, the committee on intelligence, is considering building a wall between the staffers of each political party. This seems absurd, yet I heard it stated several times while listening to different news programs. I do not know whether this will actually happen, I certainly hope not. But it is concerning that it is even being considered.
Because of my work as a facilitator, consultant, and coach, I began thinking about how to bridge the differences and difficulties between the two political factions. I start with two definitions, discussion and dialogue. Often these words are used interchangeably, but it is worth understanding their different roots and meanings. The word discussion has evolved from the Latin word discutere meaning “to break up” (American Heritage College). In Middle English the word meant, “struck asunder, shaken, scattered” (American Heritage College). A current definition is “to consider or examine by argument” (Random House). Dialogue is the combination of an originally Greek prefix dia, meaning “passing through” and the Greek logue, a “form used in the names of kinds of discourse.” (Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed., 2001) From this source we arrive at a “conversation or an informal exchange of ideas.” (The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1993) Extrapolating on these definitions, the meaning of discussion is closer to debating to drill down to specific facts or meanings and selecting a course of action or perspective. A dialogue means to explore meanings, brainstorming with others to arrive at new ideas and perspectives.
There is a place for both discussion and dialogue in the work of finding a common path or agreement. Peter M. Senge, in “The Fifth Discipline, rev. ed.” (2006), describes the task of each type of discourse for a learning team. He writes that the purpose of discussion is to analyze and dissect a topic from many points of view (p.223). The purpose of a dialogue, when “individuals suspend their assumptions but communicate them freely”…(then) a “free exploration that brings to the surface the full depth of people’s experience and thought, and yet can move beyond their individual views” (p. 224) can occur. The trick is, according to Senge, that the two types of discourse must be used synergistically. He makes the point that three conditions must be met for this to happen,
- “all participants must “suspend” their assumptions…
- all participants must regard one another as colleagues;
- There must be a “facilitator” who “holds the context” of dialogue.” (p. 226)
All well and good, but how do two groups of people with different beliefs and perspectives arrive at this felicitous point? Actually it’s not mysterious. Human beings are wired to be social. We need each other to flourish, literally to stay alive. Because we are wired to be social, there are some simple, basic steps to take. Spend some structured time together to learn more about each other. For example, participate in sporting events, focused mixers, and social occasions when a facilitator or master of ceremony engages all in exercises to learn more about each other. It’s much harder to dis or attack someone with whom you enjoy similar, basic human experiences and much easier to listen to them.
What if this actually happened, would we have so much gridlock?