Dialogue is a word that has been rendered almost meaningless by having so many meanings to so many people. Politicians have appropriated the word and nearly destroyed its usefulness. But there is a deeper meaning to dialogue — a shared exploration of meaning through questioning together.
Why is creating space for mutual inquiry essential? Because the idea that people of conscience can end racism by enacting laws against racism is futile and foolish. Because people cannot build the infrastructure to stop global warming and mass extinction without tackling the greed and self-centered activity that underlies and feeds the voracious system of planetary extraction.
And because to ‘scientifically’ talk about the human mind as if it’s separate from one’s own mind, and assume people are incorrigibly motivated to defend beliefs and identity, is false, hypocritical and cynical.
There is no choice now except to begin within ourselves. The imperative in a dead culture with a defunct democracy is to create spaces where inquiry and insight flourish, both for our renewal as beleaguered humans and our emergence as new human beings.
As I propose it, dialogue is the social equivalent of solitary meditation. Awakening a meditative state is an almost inexpressible solitary art, which involves undirected attention to the movement of thought and emotion that yields a quantum leap in awareness. The social counterpart, which is almost as difficult to convey, is the art of questioning together and igniting mutual insight.
A prime proponent of such meaningful dialogue was David Bohm, a physicist who Einstein called his “spiritual son.” Later in his life, after his contributions to quantum physics, Bohm became passionate about the transformation of human consciousness.
He anticipated an approach to dialogue that entails holding beliefs and opinions in abeyance, while maintaining a shared space for exploring meanings and encouraging shared insights beyond personal perspectives and habituated words.
Bohm felt that radical change in human consciousness begins by examining and going beyond the narrow spectrum of reactions based on assumptions and unexamined worldviews, which so often passes for communication.
True dialogue begins with humility, which flows from a foundation of “I don’t know.” As Socrates said, the difference between him and other philosophers of his time was that “I know that I don’t know.”
I had the privilege of meeting and participating in a series of dialogues with David Bohm. Each gathering was an intense exchange, both because of Bohm’s prodigious intellect, and because of his passionate concern for the human prospect. Bohm is the only famous person I’m aware of whose private demeanor matched his public persona. Indeed, I’m not sure he had a public persona at all.
“Dialogue as we are choosing to use the word,” Bohm said, “is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization.”
The main elements of exploratory dialogue are that participants be self-aware, and that they develop an ear for the right question for a given group at a given time.
Self-awareness is first, because it alleviates the tendency to automatically speak from assumptions. Participants in meaningful dialogue feel secure enough to examine their presumptions when they arise, which eliminates the need to defend prior positions.
And because an atmosphere of respect and affection ensues, people don’t resist when someone points out an unseen assumption. And assumptions, by their very nature, are unseen.
Furthermore, assumptions about others, arising from categorization and comparison, easily calcify into racist stereotypes.
In short, participants are attuned to the fact that we all have unexamined assumptions, and examine them, rather than react from a need to defend the self with its tribalistic identifications based on beliefs and opinions.
One of the best examples of a widespread assumption is that everything is a matter of opinion. In this common worldview, there are no facts, just ‘perspectives;’ there is no such thing as what is, just subjectivism; and there is no truth, just personal and cultural relativism. Obviously, such a worldview precludes questioning and shared insight.
As with any true proposition, Bohm’s approach to dialogue can be abused. I’ve attended organized dialogues with master manipulators who promote themselves as authorities on dialogue, while pretending to be facilitators. Indeed, a veritable industry emerged after Bohm’s death that caters to “corporate dialogue,” intended to “enhance communication in corporate cultures.” The stated or unstated goal is to enhance profits of course.
On the other hand, I’ve also been part of groups where questioning together has produced a period of profound thinking together, generating shared insight. The result isn’t a group mind, since each person retains his or her own perspective and individuality.
Rather, there’s a quality of communion that is very beneficial to everyone in the group. So can authentic dialogues penetrate to the heart of human consciousness and ignite insight?
I feel so, but it can only be discovered through experimentation. The space for listening, and the listening that produces space, allows communication beyond the verbal level for its own sake. And it’s fun.
Most communication is verbal, conceptual and reactive. You say something, and I instantly translate it into what I think you mean, and then reply to that. So a good way to slow down reaction, especially with difficult subjects, is to check what a person says against what you think they mean before responding.
The process of examining assumptions and listening for meaning entails following the thread of a shared question. It requires a certain discipline and courage to withhold our opinions and beliefs, and bring them forth and honestly examine them with others.
Evocatively, a quote ascribed to Jesus (though not found in the Bible) goes: “Bring forth what is within you, and what you bring forth will save you. Do not bring forth what is within you, and what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”
In a group of self-aware people, the right question is like the starting notes in a musical composition. Listening and questioning together forms a thread of mutual exploration that simultaneously composes and plays the music of meaning and insight.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
