 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
You
are here: Dialogue: A Paradigmatic Shift in Communication
by Anne Adams
Can We Talk?
By asking her signature question, "Can we talk?" comedian Joan Rivers invited all of us both explicitly and implicitly to confront the question, "Can you and I talk?" The history of her quip is that when she asked the question, "Can we talk?" she received a huge laugh. She said it was the laughter that prompted her to continue using it in her comic routines. That question has been so popular that the U.S. government has officially registered it as a federal trademark.Why do we laugh at the question, "Can we talk?" I think the laugh is a derivative of the social deceptions, the "vital lies" referred to by Daniel Goleman, in his book, Vital Lies, Simple Truths. Underneath the amusement lingers another reaction . . . something like, "you've got to be kidding!" "Talk? We don't talk, not really!" Living in the world today, we are provided with frequently occurring examples of the validity of the above statement. "We don't talk, not really" For me, the answer to the question, "Can we talk?" is not to laugh, instead it is to feel a deep sorrow or pain associated with how far away from really talking we have come!
A Response: Let's Talk America
There is a dynamic, national movement called, Let's Talk America, that has stepped forward to address the powerful possibilities available when Americans from all points on the political spectrum talk together. Their website states, "We need to talk. We believe the time is ripe for a national dialogue on the state of our democracy." Their dialogue sessions promise an environment of inclusion, respect, non-partisanship and a new quality of thinking together. People listen, speak, ask and learn without being manipulated to agree, change or withhold thoughts or feelings. The format is most often in small groups followed by a collective sharing of insights, topics, feedback and possible action steps.The Let's Talk America's purpose is to bring people together to converse . . . about our country, freedom, unity, equality and our vision for its future. What does by, for and of the people really mean to each of us? Their invitation to all of us is to participate in shifting the practice of conversation in this country from a diatribe, e.g., "a wearing away," "a bitter, abusive criticism or denunciation," to a dialogue, "an open and frank interchange, as in seeking mutual understanding and harmony" (Agnes, 2001 pp. 398-399).
John Dewey, a staunch advocate of education for a democracy said, "Democracy begins in conversation." Great changes begin in conversations. To converse means "to live with, keep company with, literally . . . to dance together. "There are many divergent forces and points of view that appear to be fragmenting Americans today. The Let's Talk America movement is giving us a renewed education in democracy by having us practice together of, by and for the people. "Democracy takes guts. It is a process, not a given. It is a nationwide activity not a spectator sport. It requires keeping an open mind and honest, respectful listening and speaking . . . like working out for healthy bodies, conversation works our 'democracy muscles' . . . " (Let's Talk America).
I have participated in the Let's Talk America sessions and they create an opening for a different kind of future in The United States and the world. It is very difficult to openly listen to and be listened to by another without being influenced by him or her. Let's Talk America creates the opening . . . only you and I have the ability to step in and engage in the question, "Can we talk?" The confrontation we need to be willing to have is with our selves. They ask us a very profound question, "What if what unites us is more than we realize and what divides us is less than we fear?"
The Scientific Paradigm and Communication
Our historical scientific approach as a method of exploration, control and domination of our natural world has greatly influenced our way of communicating with one another. Inside of this lens, scientists have been predominantly interested in what directs an organism's structure and function. The physics used to describe this physical world is Newtonian which gives us a world consisting of parts, (matter) inside of a physical mechanism called our universe. This approach is very powerful and very useful as it gives us the world we live in today with all of its exciting innovations and technological advances. However, it overly accentuates the presence of matter and excludes another dynamic of our world, that is invisible, much more difficult to dominate or control and unfathomably more powerful . . . energy.It is important as we look at our way of talking with one other to refer to the source of our 'learned' accepted way of interacting. Our modern science mission has been about domination and control of the natural world. I contend that our way of talking with one another, politically and otherwise, is rooted in this paradigm. We know about debate and discussion, and we know about either over powering someone in conversation, or the opposite, being quiet and withdrawing our participation . . . because we have not been heard. Our voting records give us ample evidence of this way of relating to the domination/control approach to talking.
Our long lineage of debate, 'to fight,' 'contend,' (Agnes, 2001, p. 372) or discussion, 'to scatter,' 'strike asunder,' 'to shake apart,' (Agnes 2001, p. 411) has guided our way of speaking and listening to one another. In debate or discussion, there is a winner; the one that is most convincing, the dominator, and there is a loser; the one who failed to convince, the dominated. Other examples can be seen in our television interview programs in which speakers are not listened to in many ways; they are interrupted, ignored, out-shouted, or demeaned. Speakers often seem to press their own 'on' button, in an effort to dominate and avoid being controlled by others as they relate mechanically to the topic. In any case, there is no communication occurring. Many of our media messages are delivered through this quality of filter. Our educational approaches continue to accentuate an 'either/or', winner/loser reality, as in 'one point of view', or 'one right answer', or 'the way' to accomplish something.
The Physics of Communication
What is being asked of us today is something very different . . . Our either/or world is giving way to a both/and possibility, and with that paradigmatic shift comes a transformation in our way of communicating. The art of conversation through dialogue allows people to learn what it means to create together. David Bohm contributed powerfully to the dialogic exchange. As a physicist, he had a particular definition of dialogue: "Through the meaning of the word, a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us." (Bohm, 1996, p.6) He related to dialogue as a "multi faceted process which explores an unusually wide range of human experiences: our closely-held values; the nature and intensity of emotions; the patterns of our thought processes; the function of memory; the import of inherited cultural myths; and the manner in which our neurophysiology structures moment -to-moment experience" (Bohm, 1996, p.vii).Bohm presents unique distinctions in the area of thought, which as a physicist, he viewed as a more fluid medium than the accepted "objective representation of reality" which so many people hold as truth. Engaging in dialogue meant for Bohm observing how "thought is generated and sustained at the collective level." This kind of inquiry "calls into question deeply-held assumptions regarding the culture, meaning and identity. Dialogue is an invitation to test the viability of traditional definitions of what it means to be human and collectively to explore the prospect of an enhanced humanity." (Bohm, 1996, pp. vii-viii)
From this premise, it becomes clear how participating in The Let's Talk America dialogues, with a multi cultural and diverse group, can foster understanding and provide an essential platform for the co creation of a different future.
The Biology of Communication
Bruce Lipton, a cellular biologist, points to something significant in his research in cell physiology that has further implications for our inquiry into communication, i.e., talking together. His findings acknowledge that virtually every one of our cellular functions is impacted by electromagnetic fields, i.e., invisible energy forces, which include thought. Thoughts, attitudes and beliefs create conditions in our body - our perceptions of our environment, (external universe and internal physiology) directly influence the activity of our genes. There are either 'growth' or 'threatening' (protection) stimuli to which cells move toward (growth) or away from (threatening).These insights give exciting meaning to the manner in which we communication with one another. In the debate/discussion example, where the intent is competitive and confrontational, the physiology of the participants will act in kind. The perspective identities (belief systems) as they are being threatened will have a parallel physiological response - their body's tissue and organ's cellular functioning will be in a protective mode. If there is no perceived threat, no need to protect oneself or one's identity, as in dialogue, where the intent is listening deeply, respecting, being fully heard and understood, the participant's physiology, i.e., the body's tissue and organs' cellular functioning are open, growth producing and life enhancing.
What the new thinking and research in physics and biology has contributed to communication is the emphasis on 'energy' rather than the emphasis on 'matter'. When people talk there is an energetic flow between them. They are not just two identities, two 'bags of skin' vying for dominance. Being listened to and being fully self expressed not only opens up the energy field of the individual, it opens up the energy field of the partner in conversation. In addition, engaging in dialogue opens people up to the possibility of a sense of self that is fully expressed and recognized for that expression and for individuals and groups to have deeper appreciations for and relationships with each other.
Humberto Maturana, a Chilean scientist and philosopher, adds another perspective from his research in biology. He explains our evolutionary history as biologically loving beings because we have conserved the emotion love for millions of years. Love has "been the fundamental emotion in our relational existence with others and ourselves. As such the biology of love is central to the conservation of our human existence and human identity" (Maturana, p.1). Maturana states that our human existence and identity occur in language. As such, dialogue provides an environment in which people are included, respected, listened to and invited to create something new together . . . in effect 'loved.' For Maturana, love "lets the other be" (Maturana, p.1). Like Lipton, Maturana sees that biologically, 'intelligent living' is expanded in the energy field of love and restricted and diminished in an energy field of fear, ambition and competitiveness.
Inventing a New Paradigm of Communication
Peter Reason & Hilary Bradbury are acknowledged contributors to participative inquiry and practice. They point to a new paradigm for communication. As we talk, the meaning we give to our experiences in consensual reality defines that reality for us. Our reality gets molded by the interactions we have with other people. The more multicultural/dimensional conversations we have, the greater the possibility of a wider shared construction of reality for all of us.Educating people during their childhood in the art of the dialogue is essential for a transformation in our ability to talk with one another. Dialogue provides an opportunity to share with others the discovery of the source of our beliefs, assumptions and reactive tendencies as they rise in conversation. Martin Heidegger named these presumptions, 'anticipating forestructures,' saying, "These mental predicates guide what we notice, how we translate meaning, and how we construct our experiences (as quoted in Barrett, 1999 p. 134)." Dialogue supports the learning of how different points of views and values, with all their accompanying 'friction,' can bring us face to face with our own mental models and fixed ideas. With practice, dialoguing can dismantle our crystallized beliefs and give room to 'a non-judgmental curiosity…to see things as freshly and clearly as possible' (Bohm, 1996, p.ix).
Life is a dynamic phenomenon. It is the ultimate open system in that it requires for its very vitality, energy flowing continually in and around it. Dialogue offers that continual emergent inventive quality. Also, as people really talk with one another, "authentic trust, openness and shared meaning can emerge in a group context, without extensive shared personal history" (Bohm, 1996, p.x). Bohm emphasized one of the most powerful benefits of participating in the dialogue - "facing the inconvenient messiness of daily, corporeal experience . . . (Bohm, 1996, p.xi). "
Yet, perhaps not so transparent to us, dialogue, i.e. Let's Talk America, can also be one of the most powerful possibilities that human beings have to learn about themselves and others. How and why we think the way we do, from where our beliefs and interpretations come and their impact on us and the quality of our lives and the lives of others, how and why people from different ethnic, cultural, economic, political, educational, or religious backgrounds think and act the way they do, are all areas of inquiry about which dialogue can bring clarity and insight.
Can We Talk?
If you mix psychology, physics, biology, education, participatory inquiry and dialogue in a solution of humor and love, we can definitely talk!
ReferencesAgnes, M. (Ed.). (2001). Webster's new world college dictionary (4th ed.). Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide.
Barrett, F.J. (1999). In Montuori, A., & Purser, R E. Social creativity. (pp.133-151) New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge
Dewey, J. (1968). Democracy in education. New York: Macmillan.
Goleman, D. (1985). Vital lies, simple truths. New York: Touchstone Books.
Let's Talk America. (2004). http://www.letstalkamerica.org
Lipton, B, (2001). The biology of belief. http://www.brucelipton.com/
Maturana, Humberto. & de Rezepka, S.N. (1997) Human awareness: Understanding the biological basis of knowledge and love in education. University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jcull/articles/bol.htm
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research. London: Sage.
Rivers, J. (2004). Can we talk? http://www.bookingentertainment.com/Joan_Rivers.htm
About the author
Anne Adams has designed and led seminars, workshops and educational programs for professional groups, individuals, corporations and educational institutions for more than 28 years.
She has been a teacher, school director, university instructor, manager in an international educational corporation, and business consultant to both large and small corporations. She received her Bachelor's and Master's Degrees from the University of Michigan in Clinical and Educational Psychology. Currently she is completing a PhD program in Transformative Learning and Change, the focus of which is the development and integration of the mental, physical, emotional and spiritual aspects of human beings.
Her company, ACS, has provided consulting to Fortune 50 companies, nationally and internationally in organizational transformation and Integral Leadership. It has engaged in successful large-scale cultural transformation and change initiatives which include - communication skills, team collaboration, integral leadership development, coaching and individually designed programs.
Contact info:
ANNE ADAMS
479 WINGED FOOT ROAD
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
aadams1@ix.netcom.com
©June 2004 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
info@newhorizons.orgFor permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information
