Peer Day(#6): Participatory Dialogue
Location: Seattle, Washington
Date: Saturday, August 5, 1995
Self Evaluation
© 1998 John E. Perkins, III
5201 22nd Ave. NE Ste. 201
Seattle WA 98105
206 524.4496
Send email to the address on our home page:
http://www.drizzle.com/~newroots
Learner Nick Consoletti convened this peer day, attended by myself, Pat
Knox, Hirsh Diamond, and Mary Benda. This happened to be the first peer
day that Nick has convened, and he did his best to provide us with lots
of material about Dialogue, including his personal background and experience
with it, and the history of the concept as developed by David Bohm. To help
us with our self-evaluations, Nick provided copies of articles and newsletters.
I longed for an experience of Dialogue. Halfway through the day I realized
that Nick and I had miscommunicated. Early in the day I had said something
like "I am not as much interested in Dialogue as I am in the chance
to experience it." Nick seems to have heard the first half of this
sentence, but not the second. He seemed confused why I was at the peer day
if I wasn't "interested." I couldn't seem to get him to understand
my real interest. I meant that experiencing Dialogue, as close as we could
under the limitations of a peer day, meant more to me than learning the
full history of the concept. It is the difference between learning about
a bicycle, the history of the manufacturer, how the gears work, where the
rubber for the tires came from, etc. vs. getting on the thing and trying
to ride it.
We met a coffee shop for Nick's history and overview. We then went to the
Theosophical Library in Capital Hill and watched Bohm talk about Dialogue.
I liked the video, though I think it might have benefited from editing.
Alternatively, an actual taping of a Dialogue group in action with Bohm
providing a voice-over might have proved really enlightening.
Dialogue brings attention to the assumptions behind our speech; it draws
our attention to the substance of thinking. Bohm speaks of thought operating
but then hiding, so that we get the impression that nothing precedes or
grounds what we think. Bohm uses the term 'thought' to include any product
of the mind, including emotions. Other people and groups play a special
role in this process.
Clearly, since we live in a world surrounded by the benefits of thinking,
what has prevented us from developing something like Dialogue before? I
will try to answer this in my own way, though we did not address this topic
directly during the day.
My habitual ways of thinking emerges from the ground of my existence and
experiences. My thoughts feel right and natural and therefore become invisible
to my self for further examination. When I try, I may end up convincing
myself all over again how right I am.
Another person has a different history, experiences and thoughts. We may
disagree, or agree, for slightly or significantly different reasons. When
we allow ourselves to question each other about the basis of our thinking
assumptions and presuppositions can be exposed to more thinking and reflection.
We might still hold our thoughts, but not as naively as before.
Bohm feels a big group, 20 minimum, is too large for rigid group think to
take hold for very long, if they accept the Discipline of Dialogue. He sees
no facilitator and no starting 'topic' and no 'work the group has to do.
We start, and we talk and think about what we say and think. Then we go
home and come back next week.
As Nick admits from his experience of promoting and running such a group
for eighteen months in Eugene, Oregon, people who self-select to joining
a Dialogue group share an attitude about the value of examining consciousness.
Bohm feels the Discipline of Dialogue stands on its own merits. He seems
unaware or indifferent to the long-standing transfer of learning challenge.
Educators and trainers constantly puzzle over how to help people transfer
skills and knowledge gained in one context, usually classroom, training
or retreat settings, to other contexts, such as the workplace or boardroom.
We can benefit from supporting a cultural and group norm that examination
of assumptions be allowed within a group, at any time, particularly during
times of group stress and high-risk decision making. Irving L. Janis wrote
the classic text in this area, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study
of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes in 1972. But the lessons can be
applied to any group making important decisions.
Three members of the Pacific Northwest Organization Development Network
answered my wish to experience Dialogue in action on August 17th when they
led the Spirituality in the Workplace workshop for chapter members. The
facilitators had us draw how 'spirit' has affected the way we work. I drew
a large tombstone with "Baby Doe, 8-10-95 to 8-17-95" to symbolize
my belief that the spirit of these babies dying so young guide my work in
preventing infant mortality. We shared our drawings with another person,
then with a small group of four before the whole group met to touch on highlights.
In groups of eight we used these four Dialogue Principles to continue our
dialogue:
I liked the Dialogue portion of this presentation. The pace does leave lots
of time for thinking and reflecting. It feels in many ways like a Quaker
meeting for worship, but we address one another rather than the Spirit as
the Quakers might. I can see possibilities in all meetings, of all sizes
for using something like Dialogue to begin and cap a group discussion on
an important decision.
Implicitly, Dialogue presupposes a group has agreed to use it as group process.
Outside of a workshop setting reaching that agreement in offices, committees,
board rooms and bed rooms might prove very elusive.
In my Anticipated Learning section of my request for this peer day I raised
some questions I would like to revisit. First does Dialogue 'grind down'
the energy for interaction. In other words, do people become so self-aware
that they are participating is a Dialogue that they little energy or attention
left to engage their fellow Dialoguers. In the little practice I had with
Dialogue, the energy level felt fine. No one insisted on the rules. Sometimes
not much 'happens' and I might like to see a study of what people are thinking
while they sit silently waiting for the next person to feel moved to speak.
Are there similarities between Dialogue and Action Science? Yes, a great
deal. Many proponents of Dialogue have taken a strong stand against letting
any one person 'facilitate' a Dialogue meeting, arguing that everything
must be open to question, including the facilitator and facilitation. This
debate appears to me to be similar to the one in physics about whether light
is a wave or particle. I think I can comfortably live in a world in which
both possibilities exists.
Can learning to sense how I think contribute to changing what I think? I
believe not. Bohm is proposing through Dialogue to separate thinking from
the actions of a group of people the same way Descartes proposed separating
thinking from the body of an individual. Curiously, the fault lies in thinking
we might make a separation where none exists in nature. You and I will learn
each other's thinking only when we speak to what we believe and witness
how we each live them out in practice. I learned of this while living in
New York with roommates who clearly agreed with the philosophy and value
of recycling but who somehow could not make the necessary changes in their
habits to put recyclable material in the recycling bins. With Dialogue we
might have traveled further and further back into the recesses of old forgotten
choices which bracketed our behaviors. An old choice or accepted influence
might prove inconsistent with current behavior. That is as far as Dialogue
can take us. At this point the person must make a fresh choice to resolve
their cognitive dissonance. No one can predict which way that choice will
fall. Thus, after all of that, we may have no net change.
References
Bohm, David, Factor, Don, and Garret, Peter. (1991). Dialogue: A Proposal.
Mimeograph. 6 pp.
Bohm, David. (1993). Science, Spirituality, and the Present World Crisis.
Revision: 15(4):147-152.
Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Group Think. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
------------- From my Request for Approval -------------------
Rationale: (excerpted from Mr. Consoletti's proposal)
"As a consequence of a spontaneous dialogue between 45 people at a
conference in the English countryside in 1985 that David Bohm attended...[he]
was inspired to pursue the experience of dialogue in a group. An account
of this experience [Donald Factor edited into the book Unfolding Meaning]."
Nick will talk about his reflections on leading a dialogue group for 15
months in Eugene, OR. We will watch a video taped interview of Dr. David
Bohm by Peter Garret, called Dialogue Considerations. In it, Dr. Bohm talks
about what he means by thought, and how by definition thought is a program
which conceals itself. In dialogue, we begin to get a proprioception of
thought, like we have a proprioception of the body.
AGENDA: 10 AM - 6 PM
Introduction of Participants
Presentation of Video Dialogue Consideration and Discussion
Lunch/Discussion
Nick's reflections on his experience in Eugene
Discussion and Summation
Anticipated Learning Outcomes: I have some interesting questions about Bohm's
Dialogue. To me, overemphasis on the rules grind down the energy for interaction.
So, far, from what I have learned, the insistence on the rules often stifles
significant conversation.
But, as someone trained in NLP, I learned to probe for assumption and presuppositions
behind people's statements. So I know it's worthwhile. I also see similarities
between Dialogue and Argyris and Schon's Action Science model.
Clearly, it's our thinking which has brought us to the brink of ecological,
social and political catastrophe. But will learning to sense how I think
contribute to changing what I think, unless I want that change? Watch for
my self-evaluation as I grapple with these concerns.