Toward a vocabulary of transformative dialogue
Download
Author
Gergen, Kenneth J.
McNamee, Sheila
Barrett, Frank
Date
2001Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Most of us feel more comfortable in certain groups than others, and indeed find
certain people just plain wrong headed or evil - perhaps neo-Nazis, the KKK, the
Mafia, terrorist groups. This sense of alterity - distance or separation from particular
others - is virtually an inevitable outcome of social life. As we come to generate
realities and moralities within specific groups - families, friendships, the workplace,
the religious setting - so do our interlocutors become invaluable resources. With their
support - either explicit or implicit - we gain the sense of who we are, what is real,
and what is right. At the same time, all world constructions and their associated
forms of relational life create a devalued exterior - a realm that is not us, not what we
believe, not true, not good. In important degree this devaluation derives from the
structure of language out of which we construct our realities. Language is essentially
a differentiating medium, with every word separating that which is named or
indicated from that which is not (absent, contrary). Thus, whenever we declare what
is the case or what is good, we use words that privilege certain existents while
thrusting the absent and the contrary to the margins. An emphasis on the material
basis of reality suppresses or devalues the spiritual; an emphasis on the world as
observed subtlety undermines beliefs in the unseen and intuitive, and so on. In effect,
for every reality there is alterity. These proposals are all congenial to a view of reality
as socially constructed (see Gergen, 1994). The problem of difference is intensified by several ancillary tendencies. First, there is
a tendency to avoid those who are different, and particularly when they seem
antagonistic to one's way of life. We avoid meetings, conversations, and social
gatherings. With less opportunity for interchange, there is secondly a tendency for
accounts of the other to become simplified. There are few challenges to one's
descriptions and explanations; fewer exceptions are made. Third, with the continuing
tendency to explain others' actions in a negative way, there is a movement toward
extremity. As we continue to locate "the evil" in the other's actions, there is an
accumulation; slowly the other takes on the shape of the inferior, the stupid or the
villainous. Social psychologists often speak in this context of "negative stereotyping," that is, rigid and simplified conceptions of the other. All such tendencies lead to
social atomization, with the same processes that separate cliques and gangs in
adolescence reflected organizationally as tensions between management and workers
or line and staff; and at the societal level as conflicts between the political left and
right, fundamentalists vs. liberals, gay rights and anti-gays, and pro-choice vs. prolife.
And more globally we find similar tendencies separating Jews and Palestinians,
Irish Catholics vs. Protestants, Muslims vs. Christians, and so on.
On this account tendencies toward division and conflict are normal outgrowths of
social interchange. Prejudice is not, then, a manifestation of flawed character - inner
rigidities, decomposed cognition, emotional biases, and the like. Rather, so long as
we continue the normal process of creating consensus around what is real and good,
classes of the undesirable are under production. Wherever there are tendencies
toward unity, cohesion, brotherhood, commitment, solidarity, or community, so are
the seeds of alterity and conflict sewn. In the present condition, virtually none of us
escape from being undesirable to at least one (and probably many) other groups. The
major challenge that confronts us, then, is not that of generating warm and cozy
communities, conflict-free societies, or a harmonious world order. Rather, given the
endemic character of conflict, how do we proceed in such a way that ever emerging
antagonism does not yield aggression, oppression, or genocide - in effect, the end of
meaning altogether. This challenge is all the more daunting in a world where
communication technology allows increasing numbers of groups to organize, mold
common identities, set agendas and take action (1). Perhaps the major challenge for
the 21st century is how we shall manage to live together on the globe.
What resources are available to us in confronting this challenge? At least one
important possibility is suggested by the social constructionist posture that frames the
above account: if it is through dialogue that the grounds for conflict emerge, then
dialogue may be our best option for treating contentious realities. Yet, in spite of the broad significance attached to the term, "dialogue," little is gained by invoking its
power. More formally, dialogue is simply "a conversation between two or more
persons." And indeed, it is ultimately impossible to distinguish between dialogue and
its other, namely monologue. For even monologue is addressed to someone - either
present or implied. And even should the recipient remain silent, responses do occur -
privately to one's interlocutor or more publicly to concerned others. Thus, to make
headway here it is essential to distinguish among specific forms of dialogue. Not all
dialogic processes may be useful in reducing the potential for hostility, conflict, and
aggression. Indeed conversations dominated by critical exchanges, saber rattling, and
contentious demands may only exacerbate the conflict. It is in this context that I wish
to put forth the concept and practice of transformative dialogue. Transformative
dialogue may be viewed as any form of interchange that succeeds in transforming a
relationship between those committed to otherwise separate and antagonistic realities
(and their related practices) to one in which common and solidifying realities are
under construction.
Rights
This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Homeland Security Affairs Journal, Volume VII - 2011, 10 Years After: The 9/11 Essays
Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) (Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate SchoolCenter for Homeland Defense and Security, 2011);10 Years After: the 9/11 Essays. Homeland Security Affairs (HSA) is pleased to present this special collection of essays in remembrance of the ten-year anniversary of September 11, 2001. We chose to honor those who lost ... -
Homeland Security Affairs Journal, Volume II - 2006: Issue 2, July
Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) (Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate SchoolCenter for Homeland Defense and Security, 2006-07);July 2006. The July 2006 issue of Homeland Security Affairs offers articles about risk perception, domestic right wing extremist groups, social network analysis, and the impact of foreign policy on homeland security. It ... -
Turkey and the Kurds: a game theoretic approach to strategy and policy
Jawed, Muhammad Ahsan; Akin, Enes (Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School, 2015-06);This thesis analyzes the conditions under which the Turkish-Kurdish ethnic conflict can be resolved. The Turkish government’s determination to solve the Turkish-Kurdish problem through negotiations, while avoiding violence ...