Dialogue to Heal an Adversarial Worldview by Jo Nelson, CTF, IAF-CPF Emeritus
From <The Power of Dialogue- Conversations with Masters> series
Dialogue to Heal an Adversarial Worldview by Jo Nelson, CTF, IAF-CPF Emeritus From <The Power of Dialogue- Conversations with Masters> series |
Written by Kimberly Bain, IAF- CPF/M
This session was part of the CP Yen Foundation Workshop series on the Power of Dialogue and featured Jo Nelson, CPF Emeritus on the topic of the use of dialogue to heal an adversarial worldview. “Once a society loses this capacity [for dialogue] all that is left is a cacophony of voices battling it out to see who wins and who loses. There is no capacity to go deeper, to find a deeper meaning that transcends individual views and self-interest.” Peter Senge On March 19th, 2024, 43 people joined together to consider how dialogue can be used to help heal an adversarial worldview. Jorie Wu, from CP Yen Foundation started the session with this quote by Peter Senge and encouraged everyone to be fully present, engage in and enjoy the mutual learning and be prepared to be surprised. She then introduced Jo Nelson as “an iconic figure in the profession of facilitation”. With over 50 years facilitating, teaching, mentoring and writing about facilitation, Jo has been inducted into the International Facilitators’ Hall of Fame and is currently working on the 2nd edition of Focused Conversations, scheduled for publication release in the fourth quarter of 2024. Jo started the session with her belief that everyone on this planet wants to have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives, and that everyone has wisdom that can affect those decisions in a very positive way when asked and listened to. Her concern is that there is an underlying image that reality only has two sides and that this worldview that is intensifying in the 21st century. This two-sided worldview – right/wrong, for/against, us/them, left/right, good/bad, friend/enemy – does not allow for or acknowledge a middle ground and prevents the development of thoughtful shared solutions to problems. Jo explained that a two-sided worldview is not all bad, after all the computer was developed from Is and 0s and turns off and on, but this view is currently blocking us from entering into authentic dialogues to find solutions to create a better future. When the underlying assumption is that reality only has two sides, it leads us to see alternative views as either with us or against us and stops us from considering a third way. Rumi is quoted as saying, “between right and wrong there is a field and I will meet you there.” Jo referred to this as the ethical space between different views. She talked about two people sitting on opposite ends of a park bench and viewing the scene in front of them in very different ways. Both people are seeing the same thing but viewing it very differently. The ethical space is the space on the bench between them. Like Rumi’s field, the ethical space is the open space between the different views, it is the space where we can explore options, opportunities, commonalities and differences, the space where we can find solutions. Jo reminded us that it is important to create a comfortable space (that mythical field or park bench) to hold the dialogue and that to address the adversarial mindset we should work from a place of curiosity. We need to ask questions like, ‘what if’, ‘I’d like to better understand your ideas’, ‘what information or thinking brought you to that idea’, ‘tell me more about your experiences’, ‘what do we have in common’, ‘where do we differ, ‘what might be a perspective on this that is different from either of ours’, ‘what can we learn from each other’, ‘what are we going to think about further after this conversation, given what we have said’. Holding authentic dialogues to explore the differences between views allows for a deepening of understanding and opens the way for exploration of a middle ground. Jo provided the image of a diamond, the more facets a diamond has the more valuable it is. Authentic dialogues are like a multi faceted diamond. The more facets or perspectives that are brought into the conversation the richer the dialogue and the better the results. After this thought-provoking introduction and imagery, participants went into small groups to discuss examples of where they have experienced an adversarial worldview. The groups were asked to discuss some things that in their experience sustain an adversarial worldview and block authentic dialogue and things we can do to address these blocks and increase our ability to have healing dialogues. The groups then shared their insights and thoughts and engaged in a reflective exercise to explore our collective learning. Some of the blocks identified by the groups were culture, core values, power and politics. It was suggested that these blockages are often deeply rooted, are often hard to remove and continue to sprout new growth, keeping the argumentative two-sided worldview alive. It was suggested that language often frames the conflict and establishes the patterns, assumptions and emotions around a conflict. One participant said, “naming something gives it power”. To address and remove the blockages we need to set a clear intention of curiosity. We need to be kind to ourselves and others. We need to share stories, not opinions. We need to carefully consider the language we are using. And most importantly we need to BREATHE – ask then breathe, listen then breathe, consider then breathe, respond then breathe. Sometimes all it takes is a calming breath before responding and continuously repeating the mantra I am curious to move an argument into a dialogue. The session concluded with participants sharing their insights and take-aways. We discussed the importance of remembering that we are all human and we need to continuously learn what it means to be a human being. We need to remember that dialogue is always available. As human beings we have more in common than we do differences, and we need to dare to speak and welcome those differences. Humanizing our dialogues, rather than demonizing each other is key. It is important to separate arrival from the conversation, we often enter a dialogue thinking we need to arrive at a decision, rather than deepening understanding. If we focus on expanding understanding rather than making a decision we can engage in a more authentic dialogue and move away from the adversarial worldview. |