Write a discussion (th)

Sociological Inquiry

, Vol. 73, No. 2, May 2003, 212–27 ©2003 Alpha Kappa Delta

Intergroup Dialogue for a Just and Diverse Democracy

*

David Schoem,

University of Michigan

If media attention is any indicator of public trends, then the mid- to late 1990s would have been the age of intergroup dialogue in the United States. But as one steps back from all the media attention, it is important to consider more carefully what is meant by the term “intergroup dialogue,” why this work is important for democracy, and in what ways it addresses issues of social justice. Intergroup dialogue is a positive and powerful process in which different groups come together from various walks of life to build a strong democracy. Democracy is a powerful but fragile political arrangement, requiring careful maintenance, regular nurturance, and continuing advancement and improvement in the areas of social justice and equality. This paper presents a framework for thinking conceptually and pragmatically about intergroup dialogue by (1) exploring the place of intergroup dialogue in creating a just and diverse democracy, (2) examining what does and does not constitute intergroup dialogue, and (3) discussing critical issues in approaches to intergroup dialogue.

If media attention is any indicator of public trends, then the mid- to late 1990s would have been the age of intergroup dialogue in the United States. In large measure, this was a function of President Clinton’s (1998) “Initiative on Race.” Town hall meetings featuring the president and Hillary Clinton were nationally televised from large indoor auditoriums and arenas. National teleconferences followed, broadcast as opportunities to discuss difficult topics, with particular focus on race relations. Lectures, debates, conversations, and workshops directed towards schoolchildren, college students, adult voters, community leaders, and corporate managers were all heralded as efforts at intergroup dialogue. But as one steps back from all the media attention, it is important to consider more carefully what is meant by the term “intergroup dialogue,” why this work is important for democracy, and in what ways it addresses issues of social justice.

This paper presents a framework for thinking conceptually and pragmatic- ally about intergroup dialogue by (1) exploring the place of intergroup dialogue in creating a just and diverse democracy, (2) examining what does and does not constitute intergroup dialogue, and (3) discussing critical issues in approaches to intergroup dialogue.

Intergroup Dialogue for a Just and Diverse Democracy

Intergroup dialogue, in all its different forms, is hardly a recent phe- nomenon. Rather, it is one that has a long tradition in American history. In

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 213

some respects, today’s intergroup dialogue is merely a modern version of the nineteenth-century, small-scale, New England town-hall meeting. In that setting, the practice of deliberative democracy was personal and tangible, with the cit- izenry of a community coming together to wrestle with issues small and large. Intergroup dialogue today shares that same sense of hands-on, face-to-face deliberation over difficult issues. What sets apart intergroup dialogue today is that it is based on an assumption of diversity rather than homogeneity, and a belief in justice for all citizens rather than social and economic stratification in society based on one’s social identity group (Schoem et al. 2001).

West (1994) has spoken poignantly of the fragility of democracy. In the case of the United States, he argues, this democracy cannot survive if it does not fully serve and include the diverse populations of the nation. The growing political alienation and widening economic gap go beyond racial conflict and intergroup divisiveness to the very survival of the democracy. America still hesitates to fully acknowledge and address the inherent conflicts that exist with pluralistic communities and a pluralistic society. By not confronting these issues, it leaves the nation’s democracy at risk by not knowing how best to utilize difference and conflict to strengthen and sustain democracy, rather than allowing those factors to weaken democratic anchors and institutions (Schoem 1997).

The steep decline in civic participation, accompanied by growing cynicism toward government and its leadership, has caused deep concern among many like West, who worry about the strength and stability of the democratic union of the United States (Dionne 1998). In coining his “bowling alone” metaphor, Putnam (2000) also points to significant declines in voter turnout, the growing disinterest of young people in current events, and low levels of participation in local public meetings as evidence of the decline of civil society. Even those who interpret the same evidence somewhat differently and more positively still see a withdrawal from traditional communal organizations and a community/ societal infrastructure increasingly based upon “loose connections” (Wuthnow 1998).

Barber’s alternative vision (1998) of a strong democracy requires some- thing different than the growing sense that government involvement is increas- ingly an activity conducted by the privileged class in the absence of ordinary citizens and one that more and more seems to serve that privileged class’ own particular interests (Skocpol and Fiorina 1999). Rosenblum (1998) writes that a strong democracy today requires both that citizens be engaged in civil life and that they act together in a spirit of equality and social justice, speaking out individually and collectively against injustice.

Intergroup dialogue is one effective approach to addressing these concerns for a strong democracy based on diversity and justice (Promising Practices

214 DAVID SCHOEM

1997; Schoem et al. 2001). Certainly, by itself, intergroup dialogue cannot fully address these issues. But it does provide an important and meaningful avenue for democratic practice and change.

Many groups and institutions have embraced intergroup dialogue to con- front both immediate and longstanding intergroup conflicts. Some look upon face-to-face intergroup dialogue as an integral part of the educational process (Schoem 1997). Global corporations (Ellinor and Gerard 1998), for instance, use intergroup dialogue in an educational effort to prepare the corporate work- force for intergroup understanding and cooperation across national boundaries. In K–12 schools and higher education, students participate in dialogues to learn about their own social identities and about the historical and continuing inter- group divisions and conflicts, quite apart from the urgency of any immediate crises. Participants are asked to consider historical practices of injustice and their continued persistence today via institutional structures, social stratification, and social behavior. In response, students are asked to construct a vision and strategic steps for personal and social change to work toward a more just society.

Others use dialogue to confront urgent conflicts and crises. Across the country, K–12 programs help students build bridges across the dramatic demo- graphic diversity of their schoolmates, including the prejudice and hurtful incidents that erupt in the schools (Fernandez 2001; McKenna and Manceau Sauceda 2001; Tiven 2001). In communities and in government, the continuing legacy of racism raises itself to a boiling point in any number of ways, includ- ing exclusion of certain groups from governmental decision-making in an urban environment, police-community tensions over a shooting or charges of selective enforcement, a public figure’s racist comments, or a bombing (Greisdorf 2001; McCoy and McCormick 2001; Winborne and Smith 2001). In the corporate set- ting, urgent requests for intergroup dialogue emerge from discrimination and harassment in the workplace, lawsuits filed on behalf of consumers ill-treated on the basis of their social identity, and levels of tension in corporate offices and on the assembly line between staff of different gender, religion, and sexual orientation, such that productivity and profitability are significantly affected (Groth 2001; Hardiman and Jackson 2001; Ramos and Mitchell 2001).

Importantly, intergroup dialogue addresses issues of justice in its content, structure, and process. The content of dialogue, whether set in the context of longstanding historical issues or in the immediacy of urgent crises, is about issues of justice and injustice that are most often located between social identity groups. Topics may include Black-White relations, job discrimination, violent incidents in schools, hate crimes against gays, inflammatory statements by public figures, police relations with people of color, and so on. Intergroup dia- logues are structured to model a just environment. All participants carry equal status in the dialogue setting, and facilitation is most often done by teams of

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 215

people representing the demographics of the group, such as male-female, gay- straight, or Latino-White. In terms of process, the dialogue takes participants through exercises and discussions in which open discussion and introspection are valued. Ground rules are established that encourage respectful behavior and careful listening to each person. The opportunity for different voices to be heard is carefully balanced, so that no one person gains advantage in air-time or discussion by virtue of the position or authority that they bring with them into the dialogue.

In the United States, there continues to be substantial residential and school segregation by race, class, and religion (Massey and Denton 1993). Chil- dren of all backgrounds, and White children in particular, have little experience in relationships with people from backgrounds that differ from their own. Not surprisingly, the opportunity for intergroup misunderstanding is enormous, therefore, when people do meet in schools, the community, or the workplace, particularly in circumstances of conflict (Gurin 1999).

Furthermore, the next generation of American leadership will come from the ranks of students who continue these patterns of segregation in college through membership in homogeneous social organizations and classrooms. They are ill prepared for the social-justice challenges that await them in their diverse, democratic nation and in the global workplace in the new century (Ellinor and Gerard 1998).

Through intergroup dialogue, however, students, community members, and adults in the workforce learn to confront, on both a personal and theoretical level, the confining and stratified walls of their segregated “comfort zones.” They develop skills for negotiating solutions to contemporary problems, and they begin the important journey of crossing over into a diverse democracy (Reagon Johnson 1992; Zuniga and Nagda 1993, 2001). Early on, Allport’s (1954) work pointed to the need to move beyond mere intergoup contact to particular conditions that are conducive for effectively reducing stereotyping and prejudices, changing attitudes on these issues. Hurtado (2001, p. 25) cites evidence of the value of the carefully structured intergroup dialogue, stating that “[S]everal studies show that student interaction with racially diverse peers is associated with increases in cultural knowledge and understanding, leader- ship abilities, and commitment to promoting racial understanding.”

Stephan and Stephan (1996) and Zuniga and colleagues (1998) emphasize the justice component of intergroup dialogue. In requiring participant equality, intergroup dialogue forces each individual to confront the possibility of a relationship based on equality and justice, rather than the existing practice of privilege and power. Vasques Scalera’s research (1999) indicates that one result of this emphasis is that the long-term professional lives of students who have participated in dialogues often include work doing social justice.

216 DAVID SCHOEM

Within the intergroup dialogue, participants confront the core structural issues facing American democracy. They must revisit the social and personal injustices visited upon its citizens from past and present. They must examine how communities of difference will live and work together, and they must identify the places of common heritage and interests. They must determine how all people, across backgrounds, can have equal access to the promises and opportunities of constitutional guarantees and national ideals. They must explore the practicalities of a multicultural society in terms of schooling, work, community, and governance. Finally, they must consider what action steps are required to effect the institutional change necessary to support a just and diverse democracy.

Intergroup Dialogue: What It Is and What It Is Not

As the term “intergroup dialogue” has been taken on by this media- induced public blitz, almost any substantive conversation has become newly defined as a dialogue. Witness the Clintons’ stadium-sized town-hall meetings, national teleconferences, lectures, debates, workshops, panels, and so on on any topic that holds the potential for controversy. As the ideal of dialogue holds the weight of thoughtful consideration of a topic, the public’s desire for more dia- logue is well intentioned and valuable. On the other hand, dialogue is a difficult process, and what takes place in many of these forums more often than dialogue is debate, posturing, and “winning” points at the expense of others. At the same time, many other kinds of discussions, newly framed and labeled as dialogue, are very valuable and, indeed, thoughtful endeavors. That worthwhile value, however, does not necessarily translate into a definition as an intergroup dialogue.

Furthermore—and of particular interest here—intergroup dialogue designed for the purposes of a just and diverse democracy has some defined parameters, structures, and processes. In

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

(Schoem and Hurtado 2001), a group of scholars and practitioners (Schoem et al. 2001) defined the term “intergroup dialogue” and identified ten key elements that comprise it. Intergroup dialogue is a form of democratic practice, engagement, problem-solving, and education involving face-to-face, focused, facilitated, and confidential discussions occurring over time between two or more groups of people defined by their social identities.

1. Dialogue is a process, not an event. 2. Dialogue is about relationship-building and thoughtful engagement

about difficult issues.

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 217

3. Dialogue requires an extended commitment. 4. Dialogue takes place face-to-face. 5. Dialogue takes place in at atmosphere of confidentiality, and issues of

sponsorship and context are important to its success. 6. Dialogues often focus on race, but they also address multiple social

identity issues that extend beyond race. 7. Dialogue focuses on both intergroup conflict and community-building.

It is intense, difficult work, and only occasionally is it a “feel-good” experience.

8. Dialogues are led by skilled facilitators. 9. Dialogue is about inquiry and understanding and the integration of

content and process. 10. Dialogue involves talking, but doing often leads to good talking, and

dialogue often leads to action.

If these ten points appear self-evident at first glance, then an examination of those types of conversations that are not intergroup dialogue but go by that name make the distinctions more salient.

• Dialogue is not the same as a town-hall meeting. A town-hall meeting is a one-time event, without confidentiality, and with far too many particip- ants to allow for relationship-building.

• Dialogue is not the same as a lecture or presentation. Dialogues require active participation, engagement with others, and both talking and listen- ing on the part of all participants.

• An effective dialogue is not facilitated by a person without any skill or experience in this work. Dialogues probe meaningful, contested issues. They can go badly and do harm to participants if they are not carefully facilitated.

• Dialogue is not a therapy group, and should not be construed as such. Participants certainly are encouraged to reflect on their personal atti- tudes, behaviors, and experiences, but never in a therapeutic modality. The line between these two activities is unambiguous and clearly drawn. Dialogue groups require attention to structural conditions of power that lift the discussion beyond the intrapsychic.

• Dialogue requires conflict management, not conflict avoidance. The constructive use of conflict to advance participants’ insights and under- standing is central to the dialogue process. A skilled facilitator will know when and how to allow conflict to be introduced, discussed, and even escalated for productive purposes, and also how to contain conflict when the group is not yet prepared to manage it constructively.

218 DAVID SCHOEM

• Effective dialogue is not limited to content at the avoidance of pro- cess. Providing accurate information to participants is essential, but without good attention to dialogue processes, the sessions lose the dis- tinctive sense of being dialogues and are better described as lectures or presentations.

• Effective dialogue is not limited to process issues at the cost of avoiding content. Without having the opportunity for accurate information to ground dialogue discussions, misinformation and distortions are likely to be presented as truth and then reinforced through continuing discussions.

• The relationship between dialogue and action is complex and often inter- woven. Effective dialogue is not the same as taking action, although action often serves to deepen the participants’ understandings in a dia- logue and dialogue often strengthens the commitment to action through coalitions. Action by itself does not constitute dialogue, and one should not assume that dialogue necessarily precedes action.

• Classes, seminars, conferences, workshops, and meetings that adapt some dialogue exercises and techniques should not be confused with distinct intergroup dialogues. Although the adaptation of dialogue tech- niques to all these settings may be of significant value, they do not nec- essarily represent the ongoing commitment over time to a dialogue process with trust and relationship-building.

• Discussions on the Internet can be beneficial and can even complement intergroup dialogue, but the trust, confidentiality, and commitment central to dialogue are at risk without small group, face-to-face interactions.

The three most comprehensive resource guides identifying intergroup dialogue programs in the United States are those published by the Interracial Democracy Program of the Center for Living Democracy (DuBois and Hutson 1997a, b) and the White House Promising Practices’ Web site (1997), stemming from the President’s Initiative on Race. Schoem and Hurtado (2001) present in- depth case studies of a dozen intergroup dialogue programs. Hundreds of pro- grams, large and small, are identified in these resource guides. For the purposes of establishing the broad parameters of what constitutes intergroup dialogue, I list four below. As indicated earlier, the fact that any program listed in these resource guides might or might not be defined as an intergroup dialogue here in no way reflects on the quality and /or value of the program. Further, it is very possible and useful to adapt intergroup dialogue processes and exercises to nondialogue settings (Schoem and Saunders 2001). However, the purpose here, at a time when the terms “dialogue” and “intergroup dialogues” are used so loosely, is strictly limited to setting some parameters on what constitutes an intergroup dialogue.

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 219

Intergroup Dialogue Programs

Intergroup Relations Center: Voices of Discovery Program, Arizona State University

The goals of the Voices of Discovery program “are 1) to create greater understanding between different groups around issues of diversity; 2) to encourage intergroup interaction via intergroup dialogues; and 3) to proactively work to improve the campus climate for diversity at Arizona State University” (Trevino 2001, p. 91). Dialogues the program offers include: intergroup dia- logues, including African-American / White, Latino/ White, American Indian / White, Asian/White, gay/lesbian/bisexual/heterosexual, Latino/African- American, disabled/able-bodied, Jewish/Christian, male/female, Greek/non-Greek, and women of color/White women; triad dialogues, such as Latino/African- American /White; and African American and White intragroup dialogues.

Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict, and Community, University of Michigan

Michigan’s program offers peer-facilitated intergroup dialogue courses, courses to train facilitators in the processes of intergroup dialogues, first-year seminars focusing on topics such as social identity and social justice, and a social psychology course to prepare resident advisors to work effectively in community settings. The program seeks to provide students with the oppor- tunity to learn “about issues of intergroup relations, explicitly focusing on the relationship between social conflict and social justice” (Thompson, Brett, and Behling 2001, p. 100).

Study Circles Resource Center

The Study Circles Resource Center works with “people and groups that are organizing democratic dialogue and action throughout a geographic community—whether a neighborhood, town, city, county, or state” (McCoy and McCormick 2001, p. 137). The center’s organizing effort often takes months to build a sufficiently broad coalition of as many as hundreds of people in a com- munity, who meet in small dialogue groups with a commitment to addressing race and racism through both dialogue and action. Outcomes have included results such as changes in business hiring policies, rebuilding a burned church, expanding a soup kitchen, strengthening of community policing, and creating a new shopping center in an underserved area of the community.

Hope in the Cities

The home base for Hope in the Cities—and a key focal point of its work— is Richmond, Virginia, a city with a legacy of slavery and racial division. Hope

220 DAVID SCHOEM

in the Cities gained national attention through its 1993 conference, with over one thousand participants focusing on “underlying racial issues that impact housing, education, police and community relations, and public policy as it relates to families” (Greisdorf 2001, p. 154). The primary work of Hope in the Cities is to build interracial, multifaith coalitions of individuals in government, business, education, media, religious, and community organizations for inter- group dialogues at the neighborhood, city, regional, and national levels (Hope in the Cities 2000).

All of these programs, in their intergroup dialogue components, capture the key elements of dialogue as enumerated above. They take place over time, face to face, with confidentiality, address multiple social identity issues, utilize skilled facilitators, balance content and process, and address issues of talk and action. At the same time, these programs vary in their settings (classroom, community, government), in the length of time they meet (five sessions, three months to a year, a college semester) and in the breadth of issues they address (race relations, gay-straight issues, gender in the workplace). Facilitator training may be more or less intense in different programs, and some programs may use individual facilitators, while others insist upon a system of cofacilitation.

Critical Issues in Intergroup Dialogue

A number of recurring critical issues challenge the successful practice of intergroup dialogue. These issues transcend the specificity of dialogue topics and go to some of the core challenges and complexities of this work. Finding the balance between competing impulses, rather than making false dichotomies and choices, frequently determines the success of an intergroup dialogue in terms of substantive discussion, participant understanding, and individual and group growth and change. The following sections provide an overview of these critical issues.

The Balance of Process and Content

An effective dialogue gives equal concern to both process and content. Yet, given the time constraints and dynamic atmosphere of a dialogue, most dialogue leaders find it quite challenging to maintain the appropriate balance (Beale and Schoem 2001).

What sets a dialogue apart from a lecture or presentation is the opportun- ity for serious engagement with people from various social identity groups. Because this opportunity is both so compelling and also so unusual for most people, compared to lectures and presentations, participants are often most eager for the process component of dialogue. Furthermore, the dialogue process brings immediate reality to the theory and content of readings and presentations. It captures the emotional and real “lived” experience that is offered in texts.

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 221

It allows participants to reach more deeply into the theory and information— in a sense, bringing a kind of qualitative or anthropological insight into quantitative data and abstract intellectual insights. When process becomes the first or only approach to dialogue, however, the content of the dialogue can quickly devolve into a personality-driven discussion. For some participants, it becomes a means of personal catharsis and encourages a lack of analysis and critical thinking. The presence of social groups can become unimportant in comparison to the needs and idiosyncrasies of individual personalities.

Content provides the breadth of information that goes beyond what any individual participant has experienced or knows personally. It contextualizes participants’ experiences and, in a certain sense, legitimizes the experience of individuals. Content, information, and theory are essential for grounding a serious and in-depth dialogue, particularly one that engages participants in discussion of difficult issues and ones of longstanding conflict between social groups.

Further, in the absence of baseline information in a dialogue, there is a significant chance that misinformation will be presented as truth, reified as truth, and carried beyond the dialogue as truth. Unfortunately, misinformation regarding issues of social groups that stems from lack of education, stereotyp- ing, or even malicious intent is rampant in society. For a dialogue group to focus its energy around issues that are miscast or beset with inaccurate informa- tion is not only wasteful but also potentially harmful. However, to emphasize content at the exclusion of process is to objectify the written page as the only truth and to dismiss participants’ personal experience. It also provides an easy excuse to avoid addressing the complexity of issues and to allow participants to retreat from conflict.

The Balance of the Individual and the Group

Intergroup dialogues bring together groups of people based on their social identities. In this organization of the dialogue, the individuality of participants is necessarily placed in the context of their various social groups. It is done so for the very purpose of examining the relations between and among different groups that the individuals in the room represent. However, it is obviously indi- viduals who comprise groups, and each individual is a unique member of their various social identity groups. To give less than full recognition to either the individual or the group is to undermine the dynamic relationship that exists for all individuals and groups (Kardia and Sevig 2001).

In the intergroup dialogue, it is important that participants confront social issues on both a personal and a social level. They must begin to identify social structures and theories of social causation that are central to a fuller under- standing of social inequalities in terms of race, gender, and other groups (Gurin

222 DAVID SCHOEM

et al. 1993). Participants learn to appreciate their membership and social standing as members of groups within the dialogue process. In doing so, they often gain a much deeper awareness and insight into the complexities and differences within groups. They see that their identity and social status as group members are both self-directed and imposed by perceptions and actions of other social groups.

Participants also reflect upon their own history of individual behavior and attitudes about social groups: what words each participant has spoken or not spoken, what actions each person has taken or not taken, what thoughts each person has held firmly or what issues has each one not considered at all. Through the dialogue experience, participants have an opportunity to recall their own upbringing and socialization—at home, in school, in peer groups, in the workplace. They can begin the process of reflection about themselves and consider in what ways they might wish to make changes.

However, it is not unusual, in dialogues that overemphasize a focus on social identity groups, for some participants to become concerned that their individuality is being overlooked. They may feel that the underlying message of the dialogue is that their individuality is neither unique nor of much import- ance. As a result, participants may feel resistant to or disempowered in these dialogues. Giving voice to the unique qualities of each individual as well as to the membership in social identity groups frees participants to examine the substantive topical issues of the intergroup dialogue in all its complexity.

Conversely, in dialogues that emphasize individual identities above social identities, some participants may misinterpret the purpose of the dialogue and use it as a forum for group therapy. In addition, in the absence of a balancing framework of social analysis, other participants may feel free to present and defend idiosyncratic experiences and anecdotes as the basis of social under- standings and truths. There are difficult and delicate lines to be drawn between the desire to have participants introduce personal experience into dialogue and the indulgence of intrapsychic understandings as the grounding of understand- ings for social structural analysis.

The Balance of Celebration and Power

The tradition of breaking bread together has long held both real and sym- bolic meaning in terms of building relations between individuals and groups. The notion of peoples coming together to share their cultures and their lives continues to be of great importance. Out of these sentiments have come a flurry of celebratory events to bring groups together, such as international days, diver- sity days, multicultural food festivals, and parties with music representing the rhythms, histories, and tastes of different traditions. As people celebrate in one another’s rich cultures, there are innumerable opportunities to see the common

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 223

traditions across groups, the distinctiveness of each group, and the warmth and community bonding of different groups, and to learn and become better informed about social groups and histories.

Dialogues that limit their activities only to celebration, however, allow par- ticipants to ignore issues of power and structural divisions in society that create and sustain inequalities, dominance, and oppression. People can walk away from a dialogue with little more than a tourist’s superficial and paternalistic appreciation of the “native” culture, without giving attention to the histories of disparate social conditions based on inequitable power arrangements among different groups (Sumida and Gurin 2001).

The discussion of power forces dialogue participants to grapple with group histories, existing social structures of society, and the damaging consequences of inequality, racism, and other forms of social oppression. These social condi- tions are frequently the very basis upon which the dialogue has been formed, yet they are the most difficult issues to confront. They represent the real conflicts that stand between groups, but they are issues that are rarely openly breached between groups. The opportunity to have a safe, structured, and open dialogue about these long-standing issues of conflict between groups is cer- tainly one of the great promises of the dialogue experience.

But it is the balance of celebration with discussion of power that allows participants to build bonds of trust in order to do the hard work of confronting systemic structures of oppression and talking through histories of conflict and domination /oppression. Without celebration, participants may lose sight of the commonalties across groups, fail to see the humanity of individuals within dif- ferent groups, or not recognize the intersection of power and daily culture.

The Balance of Talk and Action

Dialogue, at its core, is all about communication, and in intergroup dia- logues, talking and listening are the primary forms of communication. This being the case, it is surprising to some that there should be any concern for bal- ancing talk with action. Chesler (2001), however, makes the point that in most dialogues there is a limit to the depth of understanding because of the reluc- tance to move beyond talk to action. First impressions would suggest that one of the few limitations of dialogue groups is that they can never get past intellec- tual discourse and abstract thinking. Even those dialogues that address affective concerns and encourage expression of feelings and emotion, it would seem, do not cross the line from speech to doing. By having a practical, “hands-on” experience with other members of a dialogue group, participants are better able to have frank discourse and therefore enrich the dialogue.

Certainly ample evidence exists that participants can undergo transform- ative experiences through intergroup dialogue. But there are many reports,

224 DAVID SCHOEM

particularly from people of color, of dissatisfaction with the lack of concrete societal change that results from dialogue (Greisdorf 2001). In most cases, no immediate change in social conditions results from even the most engaged intergroup dialogues. Not surprisingly, people of color and other oppressed groups are frequently more impatient with the time it takes to effect social change, while Whites and other groups in dominant positions have the privilege of taking time for reflection and contemplation while social conditions that maintain their dominance remain in place.

Some groups enter into a dialogue to improve their working relations out- side the dialogue, while others decide during the dialogue to continue their dia- logue through some collaborative action project. When action follows dialogue, the foundation of the dialogue group discussions often informs and sustains the collaboration of the subsequent action project. Examples of action projects include community-service projects, social-change projects, and coalition- based actions. Dialogue participants who do move to action projects should be aware that there are potential individual and collective risks in their school, work, or community, depending upon the type of action taken, that would not be present in dialogues that are not linked to action.

Summary

Intergroup dialogue has an important place in efforts to strengthen and sustain democracy and address social-justice concerns. In the United States, it is rooted in the tradition of deliberation and discourse among the citizenry, which historically took place almost exclusively in homogeneous groups. Today, intergroup dialogue is intentionally framed in its content, structure, and process to reflect the diverse groups that constitute the United States and the belief that all citizens must have equal voice and opportunity to reap the rewards and share the responsibilities of a diverse democracy.

As interest in the use of intergroup dialogues has grown in recent years, many varied forums for debate, presentation, and discussion have come under an umbrella heading of intergroup dialogue. Many of these forums provide rich opportunities for presenting information and learning about issues important to the nation’s future. However, there are unique, valuable features of the inter- group dialogue that are important to identify and distinguish from those of other forms of discourse.

Finally, the art of effectively and successfully managing intergroup dia- logues is not easy, for the very reasons that make such dialogues so powerful and important for democratic deliberation. The dialogue group practitioner needs to be aware of the critical issues facing this process and to consider how best to balance competing impulses to emphasize one aspect of dialogues over any other.

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 225

ENDNOTE

*Direct correspondence to: University of Michigan, Sociology Department, 3519 LSA Build- ing, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2015, e-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCES

Allport, Gordon. 1954.

The Nature of Prejudice

. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barber, Benjamin. 1998.

A Passion for Democracy

. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Beale, Ruby, and David Schoem. 2001

.

“The Content/Process Balance in Intergroup Dialogue.” Pp. 266–79 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Chesler, Mark. 2001. “Extending Intergroup Dialogue: From Talk to Action.” Pp. 294 –305 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Clinton, W. 1998.

One America in the 21

st

Century: The President’s Initiative on Race—One America Dialogue Guide

. Washington, DC: The White House. Dionne, E. J., Jr. 1998.

Community Works: The Revival of Civil Society in America

. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Dubois, Paul Martin, and Jonathan Hutson. 1997a.

Bridging the Racial Divide

. Brattleboro, VT: Center for Living Democracy.

———. 1997b.

Interracial Dialogue Groups across America: A Directory.

Brattleboro, VT: Center for Living Democracy.

Ellinor, Linda, and Glenna Gerard. 1998

. Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conver- sation

. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fernandez, Tina. 2001. “Building ‘Bridges’ of Understanding through Dialogue.” Pp. 45–58 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Groth, Gretchen. 2001. “Dialogues in Corporations.” Pp. 194–209 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberat- ive Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Greisdorf, Karen Elliott. 2001. “An Honest Conversation on Race, Reconciliation, and Responsibil- ity: Hope in the Cities.” Pp. 151–5 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gurin, Patricia. 1999. “Expert Report of Patricia Gurin.” http://www.umich.edu /~urel /admissions/ legal /expert /gurintoc.html (last accessed 17 January 2003).

Gurin, Patricia, Biren Nagda, Gretchen Lopez, and Luis Sfeir-Younis. 1993. “Diversity and Multi- cultural Curriculum: Understanding Social Causation.”

Michigan Journal of Political Science

16:1–22. Hardiman, Rita, and Bailey W. Jackson. 2001. “Cultural Study Groups: Creating Dialogue in a

Corporate Setting.” Pp. 181–93 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hope in the Cities. 2000.

Call to Community

. Richmond, VA: Hope in the Cities. Brochure.

226 DAVID SCHOEM

Hurtado, Sylvia. 2001. “Intergroup Dialogue: Research and Evaluation.” Pp. 22–36 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kardia, Diana, and Todd Sevig. 2001. “Embracing the Paradox: Dialogue That Incorporates Both Individual and Group Identities.” Pp. 247–65 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Massey, Douglas, and Nancy Denton. 1993.

American Apartheid

. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McCoy, Martha, and Michael McCormick. 2001. “Engaging the Whole Community in Dialogue and Action: Study Circles Resource Center.” Pp. 137–50 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

McKenna, Joseph, and James Manseau Sauceda. 2001. “Students Talk about Race.” Pp. 74 – 84 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Promising Practices—The President’s Initiative on Race

. 1997. http://www.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/ OneAmerica /One America_Links.html.

Putnam, Robert. 2000

. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community

. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ramos, Maria, and Cassandra Mitchell. 2001. “Dialogue throughout an Organization.” Pp. 210 –21 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Work- place

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Reagon Johnson, Bernice. 1992. “Coalition Politics.” Pp. 503–9 in

Race, Class, and Gender

,

edited by Margaret Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Rosenblum, Nancy. 1998.

Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America

. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schoem, David. 1997. “Intergroup Relations, Conflict and Community.” Pp. 137–58 in

Democractic Education in an Age of Difference: Redefining Citizenship in Higher Education

, edited by Richard Guarasci and Grant Cornwell. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schoem, David, and Sylvia Hurtado, eds. 2001.

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community and Workplace

. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Schoem, David, and Shari Saunders. 2001. “Adapting Intergroup Dialogue Processes for Use in

Non-Dialogue Settings.” Pp. 328 – 44 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Schoem, David, Sylvia Hurtado, Todd Sevig, Mark Chesler, and Stephan H. Sumida. 2001. “Intergroup Dialogue: Democracy at Work in Theory and Practice.” Pp. 1–21 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Skocpol, Theda, and Morris fiorina. 1999. “Making Sense of the Civic Engagement Debate.” Pp. 1– 24 in

Civic Engagement and American Democracy

, edited by Theda Skocpol and Morris fiorina. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Stephan, Walter, and Cookie Stephan. 1996.

Intergroup Relations

. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sumida, Stephen, and Patricia Gurin. 2001. “A Celebration of Power.” Pp. 280 –93 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Thompson, Monita, Teresa Graham Brett, and Charles Behling. 2001. “Educating for Social Justice: The Program on Intergroup Relations, Conflict, and Community at the University of Michigan.”

INTERGROUP DIALOGUE FOR A JUST AND DIVERSE DEMOCRACY 227

Pp. 99–114 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Tiven, Lorraine. 2001. “Student Voices: The ADL’s A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE Institute Peer Training Program.” Pp. 59–73 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Trevino, Jesus. 2001. “Voices of Discovery: Intergroup Dialogues at Arizona State University.” Pp. 87–98 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Vasques Scalera, Carolyn. 1999. “Democracy, Diversity, and Dialogue: Education for Critical Multicultural Citizenship.” Ph.D diss., Department of Sociology, University of Michigan.

West, Cornell. 1994. “Race and Social Justice in America.”

Liberal Education

80(3): 32–9. Winborne, Wayne, and Allison Smith. 2001. “Not Just Dialogue for Dialogue’s Sake: The National

Conference for Community and Justice.” Pp. 166 –77 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1998.

Loose Connections

. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zúñiga, Ximena, Carolyn Vasques Scalera, Biren A. Nagda, and Todd Sevig. 1998. “Exploring

and Bridging Race/Ethnic Differences: Developing Intergroup Dialogue Competencies in a Co-Learning Environment.” Unpublished monograph.

Zúñiga, Ximena, and B. A. Nagda. 1993. “Dialogue Groups: An Innovative Approach to Multi- cultural Learning.” Pp. 233 – 48 in

Multicultural Teaching in the University

, edited by David Schoem, Linda Frankel, Ximena Zúñiga, and Edith Lewis. New York: Praeger.

———. 2001. “Design Considerations in Intergroup Dialogue.” Pp. 306 –27 in

Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace

, edited by David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.