As this little plant opens up, it collects the morning dew.
Opening……I was recently reading an interview with Richard Sennett where he was talking about co-operation, and one of the things he was discussing was the difference between “dialogue” and “dialectics”.
Although that latter word might seem strange to you, it’s what we do a lot. As we converse with one another we each set out our views or beliefs and the idea of a dialectic discussion is to try to find “the truth”, or to achieve a shared view. (It’s not exactly that, but that’s probably close enough for this post!)
He proposed what we need to do if we want to live together, is dialogue.
In dialectic conversations, opposing positions (thesis and antithesis) confront one another with the goal of resolving conflicts (as a synthesis). “In dialectic[s]…the verbal play of opposites should gradually build up a synthesis…the aim is to come eventually to a common understanding. Skill in practicing dialectic[s] lies in detecting what might establish that common ground.” Dialogical conversation, on the other hand, is much more open ended, not necessarily seeking the goal of resolution. “Though no shared agreements may be reached, through the process of exchange people may become more aware of their own views and expand their understanding of one another.” There is an openness of exchange in dialogics that is captured by idioms like ‘bouncing ideas off each other,’ ‘thinking out loud,’ or ‘brainstorming.’ Because the exchange is not structured as assertion, defend, assertion, etc. one has the space to be inventive, creative, and wrong. The value of dialogical conversation then is not the resolution of conflicts, but is to create a greater understanding, empathy, and sociability between parties; in other words, the goal is exposure
So, in dialogue, he says, we seek to understand the other. We don’t refute or challenge what they say in order to deny it, or modify it to suit our own views or purposes, but instead we ask more about why the person thinks that, or says that, and in so doing we might not achieve a “consensus” but we do achieve an understanding. Build that in with tolerance and you have a way of living with difference. (Dialectics, he says, seeks elimination of difference)
I found that in consultations with patients it was important to understand not just what they were experiencing but what sense they were making of that experience. And that sense might have a religious or a political/social basis which I personally didn’t share, but if I was to do my job well, I didn’t need to replace the sense they were making of things with my own personal beliefs and values. Rather I needed to understand, as best I could, what was different about this person – what beliefs and values were important to them in helping them to make sense of their experience.
That process is a process of opening up. It involves asking open questions, not ones where I have an answer or two up my sleeve, and I’m just waiting to produce the “right” one.
So, here’s what I’m thinking……when we talk to someone else, how do we open up the conversation, rather than close it down?
How can we be open to difference, instead of trying to eliminate it?
Heroes Not Zombies 
I think most of the time, when we talk to one another, we use dialogue not dialectics. Dialectics makes me think of being an undergrad Philosophy student.
Even so, people aren’t often very open ended and most people’s discourse – or indeed, idea of listening – consists of waiting for their turn to speak.
Well if most of the time we dialogue then according to Richard Sennett we’re on the road to understanding each other. And that’s a good thing!
What I’m wary of are those who want to make me think they’re right and I’m wrong…I think that’s what he’s getting at (in his own way with his professorial language!)
Interesting, I have no problem with being told I am wrong as I love a challenge and having my view point questioned or changed. I’m seeking to learn, so I don’t espouse my own view point all that often in everyday conversations.
Although…. I don’t have that many people to talk to at the moment as I am in a period of transition, so to be honest any kind of dialogue/ dialectics would be welcomed as a path to understanding. 🙂
I don’t think that many people “out there” are bothered about Truth which is what dialectics points towards. It’s all about opinion and me, me, me, not truly listening to others.
I am listening, bobleckridge!
Dialogue for me all the way. My professional life was spent listening, understanding, empathising. It’s dialogue for me every time.
I’m listening too, and discovering, and learning, and exploring……more than anything, I’m becoming, not being! 🙂
Great, Bob! thank you for this post
[…] Richard Sennett, who talks about the idea of “open cities”, argues that “integration” is about trying to make everyone the same. In that sense, integration promotes homogeneity, and so reduces us all. He suggests it’s better to learn how to live well together respecting our differences. Living together then becomes a matter of choosing how to relate, how to interact when we meet in our shared spaces, whilst respecting the uniqueness, the values and the choices, which privacy protects in our own homes. […]