Posted by Diana on May 21, 19101 at 04:53:47:
The recent exchanges here at shalomplace have
prompted some thoughts about dialogue for me.
I'd like to share these thoughts for the purpose of extending the definition of dialogue and also for sharing various references that have been helpful to me as I, too, learn more about this process.
In the book, "Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit," author Thomas Keating uses the example of the "martyrdom of the seven Trapppist monks of the monastery of Our Lady of Atlas in Tibhirine, Algeria, in 1996" to illustrate
what he calls "dialogue unto death." (p. 50, 54) He also speaks of the "profoundly dialogical character of the Gospels" (p. 54) and the "dialogue of presence." (p. 54.)
Keating maintains, "They (Algerian Trappists) are exemplars of a new vision of missionary endeavor that involves not so much converting people to Christianity as fostering communion among the people with whom we live, and manifesting respect, understanding, and appreciation of their religion....." (p. 52)
So, in this sense, dialogue can be seen as, not as a device to change the other, but a skill to learn as we engage in learning to love the other, as is, without alteration.
In "The Dialogue Decalogue," author Leonard Swidler defines dialogue as a "conversation on a common subject between two or more persons with differering views, the primary purpose of which is for each participant to learn from the other so that s/he can change and grow......" (http://astro.temple.edu/`dialogue/Antho/decalog.htm)
So, once again, we see the concept of dialogue presented, not as a means to change the other, but, as a means to open ourselves to change.
Author Ken Wilber, in his book "Integral Psychology,"
contends "The typical conservative approach is to take its particular values and try to foist them on everybody else." (p. 42.) This seems to be dialogue, conservative style.
Finally, the "American Heritage College Dictionary" (p. 383) defines dialogue as "a conversation between two people.....to engage in an informal exchange of views...." (There are many other definitions listed on this page but these two seem to fit this informal essay best.)
The word "dialogue" seems to evoke a
number of definitions and responses. So, in order to have meaningful dialogue with another, the informal or formal establishment of a common definition is a necessary prerequisite. Otherwise, we have the term "dialogue" used as a confusing catch-all
term which can ultimately lead to greater misunderstanding, rather than understanding, by participants. Thus, the very nature of the process then becomes convoluted and self-defeating as illustrated in some of the exchanges here.
Diana