ogl 551

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL BY DAVID BOHM, DONALD FACTOR, PETER GARRETT

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

1/9

Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. Such fragmentation is destructive and fosters the kind of violence we see all around us. It would seem that in our modern culture people are able to interact with one another in many ways; they can sing, dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariably to lead to dispute and division. In our view this points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought itself.

In Dialogue a group of people can explore the individual and collective presuppositions, ideas, beliefs and feelings that subtly control their interactions. As members of the group take part in this process their successes and failures of communication are displayed. This can reveal the often puzzling patterns of coherence and incoherence that lead people to avoid certain issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing and defending their opinions about those issues. Dialogue is thus a way of observing how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can be seen as an arena in which group learning takes place, and out of which a sense of increased fellowship and participatory creativity can arise.

Our approach to this form of Dialogue arose out of a series of conversations begun in 1983 in which we inquired into David Bohm's suggestion that a pervasive incoherence in the process of human thought is the essential cause of the endless crises affecting mankind. The significance of this idea became evident as we recognized that even a cursory examination is sufficient to show that we live in a world produced almost entirely by human enterprise and thus by human thought. The room in which we sit, the language in which these words are written, our national boundaries and even our systems of value are essentially manifestations of the way we human beings think and have thought.

Such ideas led us, in succeeding years, to initiate a number of larger conversations and seminars held in different countries with various groups of people that in turn began to take the form of Dialogues. As we proceeded, it became clear to us that this process of Dialogue is a powerful means of understanding how thought functions. It also became evident that without a deep insight into this question the real crisis of our time cannot be confronted nor can anything more than temporary solutions to the vast array of human problems ever be found.

Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its territory continues to unfold. Its essence is learning – not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority but as part of an unfolding process of creative participation. Thus no firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue. It is important, however, that its meaning and its relationship to thought in general be understood.

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

2/9

THOUGHT

We are using the word 'thought' to signify not only the products of our conscious intellect but also our feelings, emotions, intentions and desires. It includes such subtle, conditioned products of learning as those that allow us to integrate a succession of separate scenes within a film or translate the symbols on road signs. And it involves those tacit, non-verbal processes used in developing skills such as walking or riding a bicycle. In essence thought is the active response of memory in every phase of life. And in this sense of the word, virtually all of our knowledge is produced, displayed, communicated, transformed and applied in thought.

Even that which is called rational thinking can, with the aid of a little close attention, be seen to consist largely of responses conditioned by previous thought. Such responses are based on the unnoticed assumption that the content of thought gives an accurate picture of the way things are. That is to say, we suppose it to be a direct perception of reality as it actually is rather than as a collection of concepts, memories and reflexes colored by personal needs, fears and desires, all of which are limited and distorted by the boundaries of our language, history and culture. The thought process attempts to justify and defend its own activities through rationalization and in this way it is generally able to conceal these activities from our conscious awareness.

PROPRIOCEPTION

Proprioception is the inherent ability of our physical body to be aware of what it is doing while it is actually doing it. When you raise your arm, you know that you are willing the act, that somebody else is not doing it for you. But thought generally lacks this quality. For example, it is not seen that one's attitude toward another person is profoundly affected by the way one thinks and feels about that person's behavior or about that of others who may share some similar characteristics. Rather one assumes that the attitude to the other person arises directly from the actual behavior of that person. The problem of thought is that the kind of attention required to notice this powerful tendency toward incoherence seems seldom to be available at the time that it is most needed.

WHY DIALOGUE?

Dialogue is concerned with providing a space where such attention can be given. It allows a display of thought and meaning that makes possible a kind of collective proprioception or immediate mirroring back of both the content of thought and the less apparent dynamic structures that govern it. In Dialogue this can be experienced both collectively and individually. Each listener is able to reflect back to each speaker, and to the rest of the group, some of the assumptions and unspoken implications of what is being considered along with what is being avoided. It creates an opportunity for the participants to examine the preconceptions, prejudices and the characteristic patterns that lie behind their thoughts, opinions, beliefs and feelings, along with the roles they tend habitually to play.

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

3/9

The word 'dialogue' derives from two roots: 'dia', which means 'through', and 'logos', which means 'the word' – or more particularly, 'the meaning of the word'. The image it gives is of a river of meaning flowing around and through the participants. Any number of people can engage in Dialogue – one can even have a dialogue with oneself – but the sort of Dialogue that we are suggesting involves a group of between twenty and forty people seated in a circle talking together.

Some notion of the significance of such a Dialogue can be found in reports of hunter- gatherer bands of about this size who when they met to talk together had no apparent agenda, nor any predetermined purpose. Nevertheless, such gatherings seemed to provide and reinforce a kind of cohesive bond or fellowship that allowed its various participants to know what was required of them without the need for instruction or much further verbal interchange. In other words, what might be called a coherent culture of shared meaning emerged within the group.

Pioneering work along similar lines, under modern conditions, has been conducted by Dr. Patrick de Maré, a psychiatrist working in London. He set up groups of about the same size, the value of which he described in terms of sociotherapy. His view is that the primary cause of the deep and pervasive sickness in our society can be found at the socio- cultural level and that such groups can serve as micro-cultures from which the source of the infirmity of our larger civilization can be exposed. Our experience has led us to extend this notion of Dialogue by emphasizing and giving special attention to the fundamental role of the activity of thought in the origination and maintenance of this condition of society.

As a microcosm of the larger culture, Dialogue allows a wide spectrum of possible relationships to be revealed. It can disclose the impact of society on the individual and the individual's impact on society. It can display how power is assumed or given away and how pervasive are the generally unnoticed rules of the system that constitutes our culture. But it is most deeply concerned with understanding the dynamics of how thought conceives such connections.

Crucially, though, it is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behavior, nor to get the participants to move toward any predetermined goal. For any such attempt would only distort and obscure the very processes that the Dialogue is exploring. Nevertheless, changes do occur because observed thought tends to behave differently from unobserved thought. Dialogue can thus become an opportunity for thought and feeling to play freely in a continuously engaging movement. Topics of a specific or personal nature will become entwined with areas of deeper or more general meaning. Any subject can be included and no content is excluded. Such an activity is very rare in our culture.

PURPOSE AND MEANING

Usually people gather together either to accomplish a task or to be entertained, both of which can be described as predetermined purposes. But by its very nature Dialogue is not consistent with any such purposes beyond the deep interest of its participants in the unfoldment and revelation of their collective meanings. These may often prove

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

4/9

entertaining or enlightening, and will on occasion lead to new insights or address existing problems. But surprisingly, in its early stages, the Dialogue will often lead to the experience of frustration.

A group of people invited to give their time and serious attention to a task that has no apparent goal and is not being led in any detectable direction may quickly find itself experiencing a large amount of anxiety or annoyance. This can lead to the desire on the part of some either to break up the group or to attempt to take control and give it a direction. Previously unacknowledged purposes will reveal themselves. Strong feelings will be exposed, along with the thoughts that underlie them. Fixed positions may be taken and polarization will result. This is all part of the process. It is what sustains the Dialogue and keeps it constantly extending creatively into new domains.

In a group of between twenty and forty people extremes of conflict, frustration, anger or other difficulties can be contained. This then becomes the central focus of the exploration in what might become a kind of 'meta-dialogue' aimed at clarifying the process of Dialogue itself. As sensitivity and experience increase, a perception of shared meaning emerges in which people find that they are neither opposing each other, nor are they interacting. Increasing trust between the members of the group and in the process itself leads to the expression of the sorts of thoughts and feelings that are usually left unspoken. There is no imposed consensus, nor is there any attempt to avoid conflict. No single individual or sub-group is able to achieve dominance because every subject, including domination and submission, is always available to be considered.

In the process individuals find that they are participating in an ever changing and developing pool of common meaning. A shared content of consciousness emerges which allows a level of creativity and insight that is not generally available to individuals or to groups that interact in more familiar ways. This reveals an aspect of Dialogue that Patrick de Maré has called 'koinonia', a word meaning 'impersonal fellowship', which was originally used to describe the early form of Athenian democracy in which all the free men of the city gathered to govern themselves. The same word was later used in The Acts of the Apostles to describe the fellowship between members of the early Christian communities.

As this fellowship is experienced it begins to take precedence over the more overt content of the conversation. It is an important stage in the Dialogue, a moment of increased coherence, where the group is able to move beyond its perceived blocks or limitations and on into new territory. But it is also a point at which the group tends to relax and bask in the 'high' that accompanies the experience. Some participants will want to hold the group together in order to preserve the pleasurable feeling of security and belonging that accompanies the state. This is similar to that sense of community often reached in therapy groups or in team building workshops where it is taken to be the evidence of the success of the method used. Beyond such a point, however, lie even more significant and subtle realms of creativity, harmony and intelligence that can be approached only by persisting in the process of inquiry and risking reentry into areas of potentially chaotic or frustrating uncertainty.

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

5/9

WHAT DIALOGUE IS NOT

Dialogue is not discussion – a word that shares its root meaning with 'percussion' and 'concussion' which both involve breaking things up – nor is it debate. These forms of conversation contain an implicit tendency to point toward a goal, such as hammering out an agreement, attempting to solve a problem or having one's opinion prevail. Although the word 'dialogue' has often been used in similar ways, its deeper, root meaning implies that it is not basically interested in any of this.

Dialogue is not a new name for T groups or sensitivity training, although it might well have consequences that are psychotherapeutic. It does not attempt to focus on removing the emotional blocks of any one participant nor to teach, train or analyze, although it is an arena in which learning and the dissolution of blocks can and often do take place. Nor is it a technique for problem solving or conflict resolution. Problems may nevertheless be resolved during the course of Dialogue or, perhaps later, as a result of the increased understanding and fellowship that occurs among the participants. Dialogue may resemble other forms of group activity and may at times include aspects of them but it is actually something new to our culture that we suggest is vital to its future health.

HOW TO START A DIALOGUE

SUSPENSION

Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc., is one of the most important new aspects of Dialogue that lies at its very heart. It is not easily grasped because the activity is both unfamiliar and subtle. Such suspension involves attention, listening and looking and is essential to exploration. Speaking is necessary, of course, for without it there would be little in the Dialogue to explore. But the actual process of exploration occurs during listening – not only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves displaying your impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also be reflected back by others in the group. It does not mean repressing or suppressing or, even, postponing them. It means, simply, giving them your serious attention so that their structures can be noticed while they are actually taking place.

If an individual is able to give attention, say, to the strong feelings that might accompany the expression of a particular thought – by himself or by another – and to sustain that attention, the activity of the thought process will slow down. This may permit that individual to begin to see the deeper meaning underlying the thought process and to sense the often incoherent structure of any action that might otherwise be carried out automatically. Similarly, if a group is able to suspend such feelings and give its attention to them, then the overall process that flows from thought to feeling to acting- out within the group can also slow down and reveal its deeper, more subtle meanings along with any of its implicit distortions, thus leading to what might be described as an awakened intelligence.

To suspend thought, impulse, judgment, etc., requires serious attention to the overall process we have been considering – both on one's own and within a group. This involves

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

6/9

what may at first appear to be an arduous kind of work. But if this work is sustained, one's ability to give such attention constantly develops so that less and less effort is required.

NUMBERS

A Dialogue works best with between twenty and forty people seated facing one another in a single circle. A group of this size allows for the emergence of different subgroups or subcultures that can be observed and can reveal some of the ways in which thought operates collectively. This is important because the differences between such subcultures are often an unrecognized cause of failed communication and conflict. Smaller groups, on the other hand, lack the requisite diversity needed to reveal these tendencies and will generally emphasize more familiar personal and family roles and relationships.

With a few groups we have had as many as sixty participants, but with that large a number the process becomes unwieldy. Two concentric circles are required to seat everybody so that they can see and hear one another. This places those in the back row at a disadvantage, and fewer participants have an opportunity to speak.

We might mention here that some participants tend to talk a great deal while others find difficulty in speaking up in groups. It is worth remembering, though, that the word 'participation' has two meanings: 'to partake of'’, and 'to take part in'. Listening is at least as important as speaking. And often, the quieter participants will begin to speak up more as they become familiar with the Dialogue experience just as the more dominant individuals will find themselves tending to speak less and listen more.

DURATION

A Dialogue needs some time to get going. It is an unusual way of participating with others and some sort of introduction is required in which the meaning of the whole activity can be communicated. But even with a clear introduction, when the group begins to talk together it will often experience confusion, frustration and a self-conscious concern as to whether or not it is actually engaging in Dialogue. It would be very optimistic to assume that a Dialogue would begin to flow or move toward any great depth during its first meeting.

In setting up Dialogues it is useful at the start to agree the length of the session and for someone to take responsibility for calling time at the end. We have found that about two hours is optimum. Longer sessions risk a fatigue factor that tends to diminish the quality of participation. The more regularly the group can meet, the deeper and more meaningful will be the territory explored. Weekends have often been used to allow a sequence of sessions, but if the Dialogue is to continue for an extended period we suggest that there be at least a one week interval between each succeeding session to allow time for individual reflection and further thinking. There is no limit to how long a dialogue group may continue its exploration. But it would be contrary to the spirit of Dialogue for it to become institutionalized.

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

7/9

LEADERSHIP

A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals. Any controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will tend to hinder and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared. Dialogue is vulnerable to being manipulated, but its spirit is not consistent with this. Nor does hierarchy have a place in Dialogue.

Nevertheless, in the early stages some guidance is required to help the participants realize the subtle differences between Dialogue and other forms of group process. At least one or, preferably two, experienced facilitators are essential. Their role should not be obtrusive but rather they should 'lead from behind' with the intention of making their activity become unnecessary as quickly as possible.

This proposal is not intended to be a substitute for such facilitation. But we do suggest that its contents be reviewed with the group during its initial meeting.

SUBJECT MATTER

As we have stated, no content should be excluded. The Dialogue can begin with any topic of interest. If exchanges occur or subjects are raised that are felt by members of the group not to be fitting, it is important that they express these thoughts within the Dialogue. Often participants will gossip or complain afterwards about their frustration or displeasure but it is exactly this sort of material that offers the most fertile ground for moving the Dialogue into the more subtle realms of meaning and coherence beyond the superficiality of good manners, 'groupthink', or supper-table small-talk.

DIALOGUE IN EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS

So far we have been primarily discussing Dialogues that bring together individuals from a variety of backgrounds rather than from existing organizations. But its value may also be perceived by members of an organization as a way of increasing and enriching their own corporate creativity.

In this case the process of Dialogue will change considerably. Members of an existing organization will have already developed a number of different sorts of relationships between one another and with their organization as a whole. There may be a preexisting hierarchy or a felt need to protect one's team or department. There may be a fear of expressing thoughts that might be seen as critical of those who are higher in the organization or of norms within the organizational culture. Careers or the social acceptance of individual members might seem threatened by participation in a process that emphasizes transparency, openness, honesty, spontaneity and the sort of deep interest in others that can draw out areas of vulnerability which may have long been kept hidden.

Also most organizations have inherent, predetermined purposes and goals that are seldom questioned. At first this might seem to raise inconsistencies relative to the free and open play of thought that is so intrinsic to the Dialogue process. However, this can be overcome if the participants are helped from the very beginning to realize that

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

8/9

considerations of such subjects are as essential to the well-being of the organization as are more personal issues. The creative potential of Dialogue is important enough that a temporary suspension and exploration of all of the structures and relationships that make up an organization may be fruitfully included.

The Dialogue will very probably have to begin with an exploration of all the doubts and fears that participation will certainly raise. Members of an existing organization will have to begin with a fairly specific agenda from which they eventually can be encouraged to diverge. This differs from the approach taken with one-time or self-selected groupings in which participants are free to begin with any subject matter. But as we have mentioned no content should be excluded because the impulse to exclude a subject is itself rich material for the inquiry. For example, in a period of changing circumstances, Dialogue might demonstrate that the ability to tolerate error or to recognize that a deviant view is a potential source of creativity can turn out to be of great value in discovering how an organization may become more flexible and better able to adapt to its particular environment. Or a consideration of the organization's basic goals may lead to insights regarding existing activities and possible new directions or purposes.

Finally, we would like to point out that we are not proposing Dialogue as a panacea nor as a method or technique designed to succeed all other forms of social interaction. Not everyone will find it useful nor, certainly, will it be useful in all contexts. There are many tasks that require firm leadership and a well-formed organizational structure, just as there are others that require only consensus and fellowship.

Many of the ideas proposed in this booklet are still the subject of our own continuing exploration. We do not suggest that they be taken as fixed but rather that they be inquired into as part of your own Dialogue. The spirit of Dialogue is one of free play, a sort of collective dance of the mind that, nevertheless, has immense power. Once started it becomes a continuing adventure that can open the way to significant and creative change.

THE END

© 1991 David Bohm, Donald Factor, Peter Garrett. The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to distribute it to others for non-commercial purposes including discussion, inquiry, criticism

and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups. All other rights are reserved.

DIALOGUE: A PROPOSAL

9/9