Of 'dialogue'...

I'm not one for celebrity. Genuflection, worship, idolizing. Never have been able to get my head around the notion of putting people up on pedestals. Their accomplishments? Sure. But somehow elevating them merely for being them...and in the process not only reducing the observer's status (if you place someone 'above' you, then you're effectively 'lowering' yourself, yes?) but also in the process distancing themselves from their own value...has always seemed a bizarre notion to me.

Which is why you'll seldom see me referencing someone's writing on this site. (Never mind the fact that there's always the risk of getting the "expert's" message wrong. I can't help but be reminded of the Marshall McLuhan scene in 'Annie Hall'.) While I'm not professing to be a standalone thinker, I'm also really not interested in having the regurgitation of other people's concepts and theories as my default. After all, I'm still finding my way on this 'civic activism' journey.

But this week I happened across a writer who's got some things to say that very much align with what I tend to be yammering on about these days.

Almost twenty years ago, Scott London wrote the essay 'Electronic Town Halls Can't Beat the Real Thing', which I happened upon when doing research for the recent series of posts about what Councillors can do to contribute to civic engagement. Though the concept of an electronic town hall as discussed by Mr. London is entirely different from what I was focusing on (his had to do with a television broadcast of a bricks-and-mortar event, followed up by a Gallup poll), it's an interesting snapshot/time capsule. As well, it contains this gem:

"However noble his intentions, Gallup's mechanism has been a democratic disaster. After a half century it's beginning to dawn on us that there is no such thing as public opinion. Since people don't normally have fixed opinions or well-established viewpoints on issues, their answers depend on the questions. Since reason — and, by extension, democratic politics — cannot be measured, polls are at bottom useless. They furnish us with statistics and give an air of scientific credibility to the fundamentally unscientific business of politics, but they tell us nothing about the quality of the public's views."

But it was another essay on Mr. London's site that really caught my eye. Entitled 'The Power of Dialogue', it has some brilliant things to say about communication.

"Much of the time, we're not even listening to each other at all. The dialogue is a monologue. We fire salvos of information across the Internet, or shoot each other text messages, or blog or Twitter about ourselves. But is anyone paying attention? And if they are, do they catch our drift?"

Mr. London notes there's a difference between dialogue and other forms of discourse: debate, negotiating, consensus-building, discussion and deliberation.


"And unlike discussion, (dialogue) can only emerge when participants trust and respect each other, suspend their judgments, and listen deeply to all points of view."


Naturally, you can read the entire essay at his site, but I'm going to include a particular chunk in this post. If nothing else, the suggestions he makes are invaluable references for conduct in our daily life, for our Councillors in local governance...and for those of us who frequent message boards or the Comments sections of sites such as Raise the Hammer and The Hamiltonian.

Effective dialogue typically follows some basic ground rules:

• The focus is on common interests, not divisive ones
• The dialogue and decision-making processes are separated
• Assumptions that can lead to distortions of certain points of view are clarified and brought into the open
• People are encouraged to reveal their own insights and assumptions before speculating on those of others
• Concrete examples are used to raise general issues
• The process focuses on conflicts between value systems, not people
• When appropriate, participants are encouraged to express emotions accompanying strongly held values
• Participants err on the side of including people who disagree
• They encourage relationships in order to humanize transactions
• They minimize the level of mistrust before pursuing practical objectives.