‘Suppose we were able to share meanings freely without a compulsive urge to impose our view or conform to those of others and without distortion and self-deception. Would this not constitute a real revolution in culture. – David Bohm [‘On Dialogue’]
Words, words, words and more words. We throw words at one another until one party is defeated – we call this debate. We hurl words at one another until the center falls apart – we call this discussion (from the Latin ‘dis’ which means ‘apart’ and ‘quatere,’ which means ‘to shake’); discussion, Bohm reminds us, has the same root as ‘percussion’ and ‘concussion.’ We search together through the use of words – we call this dialogue (from the Greek ‘dia’ which means ‘through’ and ‘logos’ which means ‘word’ or in Bohm’s case: ‘the meaning of the word’).
The physicist David Bohm changed the conversation when he and others gathered together with the purpose of searching for a new way to use words; the process that emerged was named ‘dialogue’ [see Bohm’s book On Dialogue].
One of the key elements of Bohm’s concept of dialogue is that all participants actively seek to uncover and challenge their deep, or basic, assumptions (anyone who has attempted to engage in this process knows how challenging it is for us to engage in this process; our reaction when one of our deep assumptions is challenged is that we become defensive if not aggressive).
Dialogue is also rooted in a spirit of inquiry rather than advocacy. Inquiry means that I ask questions and search with you from places of ‘not knowing’ with a goal of understanding and learning together. Dialogue in this sense is also rooted in an assumption that the group is wiser than the wisest person in the group and that this wisdom can be discerned and engaged via the dialogue process.
Today, people banter the word ‘dialogue’ about so that its deeper meaning and challenge seems to have been lost. Personally, I speak of inviting people into ‘searching conversations’ rather than use the word ‘dialogue.’ In ‘searching conversations, we search together using words.
In Bohm’s concept of Dialogue, there is no agenda and the process is time intensive (days not hours). It is time intensive because each person has to have the time to emerge and explore his or her deep assumptions. There is no goal or outcome other than engaging in the process. The process is what is important. In a dialogue there are no non-discussables. In fact, there is a commitment among the participants that non-discussables are surfaced, are named and are engaged.
Judgments, stereotypes, prejudices and beliefs are suspended during a dialogue (another powerful challenge as anyone who has attempted to do just one of these knows all to well). The dialogue provides the participants a safe place where they can search together; thus certain agreements must be in place (my experience is that each group ‘knows’ what these agreements need to be and they will offer them up to the group – some will be offered up quickly and others will only be offered up over time so one agreement is that ‘we can always add to the list of agreements’).
Dialogue is a powerful, if not daunting, process and experience and does not occur very often. It is much easier to debate and discuss than to search together; it is much easier to advocate than to inquire. It is much easier to cling to our surety than to be skeptics of our deepest assumptions. Dialogue threatens us in many ways and so we need to be open to the possibility that we will be influenced by the search. My experience of people – myself included – is that people who are ‘sure’ are not interested in (i.e. open to) ‘searching’ for there is nothing to search for. ‘Surety’ is a dialogue killer.
If you, gentle reader, have not spent time with David Bohm’s book On Dialogue I invite you to do so and perhaps you will then choose to experience dialogue as he describes it. Then again, you might not choose to do so. As always, you have choice.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. –David Bohm