Description Dialogue, a term that comes from "dia" or "through" and "logos" or "the word," refers to a way of speaking and listening in which meaning flows through participants. David Bohm, the late quantum physicist usually credited with bringing dialogue into common usage, was a proponent of a form of open dialogue that lacked structure, agenda or expected outcomes. Today’s practitioners, however, use dialogue to refer to a number of forms of purposeful conversation.
Most forms share at least some of the following guidelines offered by Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Institute:
We talk about what's really important to us.
We really listen to each other. We see how thoroughly we can understand each other's views and experience.
We say what's true for us without making each other wrong.
We see what we can learn together by exploring things together.
We avoid monopolizing the conversation. We make sure everyone has a chance to speak.
Atlee’s Co-Intelligence Institute website () also offers an extraordinarily useful comparison of dialogue and debate that was adapted by the Study Circle Resource Center from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which in turn was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility. Paying attention to this list, and adopting some of its wisdom in a reflective community’s Agreements and Commitments will go a long way toward ensuring the success of the community’s work.
Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.
In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal.
In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.
Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view. Debate affirms a participant's own point of view.
Dialogue reveals assumptions for reevaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth.
Dialogue causes introspection on one's own position. Debate causes critique of the other position.
Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.
Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right.
In dialogue, one submits one's best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.
Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.
In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring differences.
In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate, one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other positions.
Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.
Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it.
Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion.
Be sure to explore Tom Atlee’s Co-Intelligence Institute website () for a wealth of other information related to group process and change.
