PCP Dialogue Tool Box
Fundamentals
- Premises, Practices, and the Spirit behind Them
- Distinguishing Debate from Dialogue: A Table
Questions to Ask Before the Dialogue
- Questions to Ask of Those Who Seek to Convene a Dialogue
- Talking with Potential Participants About the Conflict
and their Hopes for Dialogue
Designing, Facilitating, and Following-Up Dialogues
-
A Model for An Introductory Dialogue on Abortion
Common Phases in an Opening Meeting
Beginning a Dialogue Session: Go-Rounds & Questions
Sample Ground Rules (Agreements) for Dialogue
Self-Help Tools for Participators
Guidelines for Facilitators
A Sample Protocol for a Follow-up Interview
Other Exercises and Questions for Mulling
- The Exercise on Stereotyping
- Moving beyond Polarization over Abortion:
Steps You Can Take on Your Own
- Thinking about Strains Related to Class Differences
- The Uncertain Path to Dialogue: A Meditation
Public Conversations Project • email: [email protected]
46 Kondazian Street • Watertown, MA 02472-2832 • www.publicconversations.org
Premises, Practices, and the Spirit behind Them
PREMISES
Assumptions & Principles
SPIRIT
Attitude & Stance
People are more invested in a
dialogue when they have been
consulted in its design.
Collaborative
We rely on participants’ knowledge
and include them in planning
throughout the dialogue process.
People are more likely to have a
constructive conversation when
they do not attack, are not defensive, and generally abstain from
polarizing ways of speaking.
Preventive
Participants agree in advance
to set aside accusation and
argument and avoid the communication patterns that impaired their
previous conversations.
Equal respect for everyone
enhances trust and collaboration.
Fair
In an affirming, exploratory,
future-oriented atmosphere,
people are more open to new
ways of communicating.
When people share personal
stories, their uniqueness and their
complexity emerge. Personal
exchanges diminish stereotyping
and promote caring.
Hopeful
Rehumanizing
PRACTICE
Methods & Technique
We encourage equal air time
and openmindedness.
We elicit participants’ dreams and
wishes for the future and highlight
the appearance of promising, new
interactions among them.
We discourage depersonalized
debate. We invite participants to
share life experiences that they
somehow associate with their
current viewpoints.
When people are straightforward
with one another, they more
easily develop relationships
of trust, respect, collaboration,
and mutual empowerment.
Candid
Participants are encouraged to talk
openly about themselves. We
explain why we do what we do, if
asked. We express no opinion on
the divisive issues at hand.
People learn more and relate
better when they listen carefully
to each other.
Receptive
We listen attentively. We design
meetings that promote respectful
listening among participants.
Inquiring
We encourage participants to ask
instead of assuming or advocating. We invite participants to be
open-minded with themselves
as well as others.
When people have an inquiring
attitude about themselves and
others, they interact more
constructively than when they
speak from certainty.
When each person in a conversation considers varied perspectives,
new ideas emerge and build on
one another, dispelling simplistic
polarizations.
Expansive
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
Our questions and tasks are
designed to stimulate reflections
and conversations that generate
diverse ideas and clarifying
distinctions.
1
Distinguishing Debate from Dialogue: A Table
DEBATE
DIALOGUE
Pre-meeting communication between sponsors and participants is minimal and largely
irrelevant to what follows.
Pre-meeting contacts and preparation of
participants are essential elements of the
full process.
Participants tend to be leaders known for
propounding a carefully crafted position.
The personas displayed in the debate are
usually already familiar to the public.
The behavior of the participants tends
to conform to stereotypes.
Those chosen to participate are not necessarily
outspoken “leaders.” Whoever they are, they
speak as individuals whose own unique experiences differ in some respect from others on
their “side.” Their behavior is likely to vary in
some degree and along some dimensions from
stereotypic images others may hold of them.
The atmosphere is threatening; attacks and
interruptions are expected by participants
and are usually permitted by moderators.
The atmosphere is one of safety; facilitators
propose, get agreement on, and enforce clear
ground rules to enhance safety and promote
respectful exchange.
Participants speak as representatives of
groups.
Participants speak as individuals, from their
own unique experience.
Participants speak to their own constituents
and, perhaps, to the undecided middle.
Participants speak to each other.
Differences within “sides” are denied or
minimized.
Differences among participants on the same
“side” are revealed, as individual and personal
foundations of beliefs and values are explored.
Participants express unswerving commitment
to a point of view, approach, or idea.
Participants express uncertainties as well as
deeply held beliefs.
Participants listen in order to refute the other
side’s data and to expose faulty logic in
their arguments. Questions are asked from
a position of certainty. These questions are
often rhetorical challenges or disguised
statements.
Participants listen to understand and gain
insight into the beliefs and concerns of the
others. Questions are asked from a position
of curiosity.
Statements are predictable and offer little
new information.
New information surfaces.
Success requires simple impassioned
statements.
Success requires exploration of the
complexities of the issue being discussed.
Debates operate within the constraints of the
dominant public discourse. (The discourse
defines the problem and the options for
resolution. It assumes that fundamental needs
and values are already clearly understood.)
Participants are encouraged to question the
dominant public discourse, that is, to express fundamental needs that may or may not be reflected
in the discourse and to explore various options
for problem definition and resolution. Participants
may discover inadequacies in the usual language
and concepts used in the public debate.
*This table contrasts debate as commonly seen on television with the kind of dialogue the
Public Conversations Project seeks to promote.
Copyright © 1992 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
2
Questions to Ask of Those Who Seek to Convene a Dialogue
Are the goals of the envisioned dialogue 1) to move beyond stereotypes and polarization
and 2) to develop more constructive ways of communicating and relating? If the goals
are different, would mediation or negotiation be more appropriate?
How widespread is the wish, dream, vision, or hope to overcome the divide? Do the
initiators imagine that potential participants will be willing to temporarily suspend a focus
on battling or on seeking solutions in order to emphasize improving relationships? If so,
what experiences have led them to believe this is so?
What is the history of the idea to convene a dialogue? Who else has been in communication
about this? What hopes and/or concerns have been expressed?
Have there been previous attempts to improve relationships or engage in conflict
resolution on this issue? If so, what has been helpful? What has not been helpful — or
made the situation worse?
Who are the potential dialogue participants? Are there others who care about the issue
and have not been vocal? How do the initiators understand the history of the conflict, patterns of involvement, and the relationships among the stakeholders? Are there significant
differences of power or status among the players? What role(s) have the initiators played?
Do the initiators see themselves as conveners? If so, are they credible to all sides as conveners? If not, who needs to be added to the convening group or sought as an alternative
convener?
What resources do the initiators see in the community — in themselves and other possible
key participants — to support a dialogue process; in the planning phase, during the dialogue,
and/or in the follow-up phase?
Are we likely to be credible to all sides as conveners or co-conveners? As facilitators? If not,
would it make sense for us to partner with — or refer the initiative to — other practitioners?
Of the people who might be involved in the dialogue initiative, with whom should we speak
next to gain a fuller picture? Are there any people who know this community and this conflict in a special way who are not (for some reason) likely participants but who might be
willing to have a phone conversation with us about their perspectives?
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
3
Talking with Potential Participants
About the Conflict and their Hopes for Dialogue
Purposes
From the moment we begin to consider working on a dialogue initiative until the meeting
takes place, we engage in many conversations with potential participants and others who
can contribute to our understanding of what has been and what is hoped for in relation to
the conflict. Among the purposes of these conversations are:
- to prepare ourselves to be informed, effective designers and facilitators of dialogue;
- to ask questions that foster reflection in participants on their experience of the conflict
to date and what they would like in the future for themselves and the community; and
- to begin to build collaborative relationships with participants — relationships characterized
by curiosity, new learning, respect, and trust.
Questions
The questions that we develop vary with the situation and the phase of planning. We rarely
ask only the questions we prepare; many other questions emerge for us during the
conversation in response to what we learn. However, it is quite common for us to elicit—
in one way or another—from potential participants the following seven accounts:
1) How things are. (From where you are, how do you see the current situation? What
needs to happen? Who should be involved? etc.)
2) How things got to be this way and who the key players are.
3) Where the under-tapped resources reside. These resources are often revealed in
experiences that stand in contrast to the account of the situation focussed on problems,
e.g., a time when an exchange was satisfying or effective. (What happened? How did it
come about? What became possible? What part did the respondents or others play?
4) The wishes, visions, and hopes that the respondents have for a less divisive future. (When
eliciting this account, we seek to move beyond generalities to learn about specific
elements in their vision of a desired future.)
5) Participants’ hopes and concerns for the proposed dialogue, both during the meeting
and when it is over.
6) What the respondents (and others) might need in order to participate in the proposed
dialogue. (Often mentioned are ground rules, timeframe, procedures, and goals for the
meeting; the presence of particular people; and facilitators who have done some key
background reading.)
7) What potential participants would want to personally restrain or practice in order to
participate as their “best” selves in such a meeting.
Copyright © 1998 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
4
A Model for An Introductory Dialogue on Abortion
Notes to the Reader:
The model described below was developed for the single session introductory dialogues on abortion that Public Conversations Project conducted in 1990-1992 (eighteen
sessions) and 1995-1998 (ten sessions). Most of these dialogues took place on weekday
evenings between 6:00 and 9:30 and involved four to eight participants who did not know
one another ahead of time. Several participants were activists but few were highly visible
leaders. All groups were evenly balanced with people who described themselves as “prochoice” or “prolife.” To learn more on this web site, see “An Overview of the Project’s Work
on Abortion” and our resources Bibliography (especially the article “From Stuck Debate to
New Conversation on Controversial Issues”). Also, let us know if you would like to order
our Handbook on dialogue on abortion. Phone: 617-923-1216.
Before the Dialogue:
Telephone Invitations. We gathered names from activist organizations and through informal
networking. And telephoned potential participants. During each call, we outlined the goals of
the event, described the group agreements (ground rules) that would be proposed, and
addressed any questions and concerns that came up during the call. If the potential participant was interested and available, we promised to send a letter of invitation and encouraged
him or her to call us if new questions or concerns came up after receiving the letter.
Written Invitations and Additional Information. All who agreed to participate received an
identical letter of invitation which stated the goal of the dialogue. To foster clarity about
what the event was — and what it was not — we enclosed a table: Distinguishing Debate
from Dialogue. The letter also included the group agreements that would be proposed,
some questions for participants to think about ahead of time, and logistical information.
The Pre-Dialogue Dinner. When participants arrived they were offered a light buffet
dinner during which they and the facilitators became acquainted. Participants and facilitators were each asked to say something about themselves unrelated to having particular
views on the abortion issue or to being facilitators of the dialogue. Before moving to the
dialogue room, participants were asked to turn in their video release forms. (For research
purposes, we videotaped sessions with the understanding that if we wished to use the
tape for broader educational purposes, e.g., in a training or presentation, we would contact the participant with a specific additional request.)
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
5
The Dialogue:
Seating and Orientation to Roles and Schedule. In the dialogue room, each participant
was seated next to someone on the other side of the issue. Then one of the two facilitators made opening remarks about the structure of the evening.
Making Agreements. The facilitators reviewed the proposed agreements. These agreements,
which were generally adopted with little or no discussion, pertained to:
- maintaining confidentiality.
- voluntary participation (i.e., accepting “pass” or “pass for now” as a response).
- using respectful language (in this case we asked that “pro” terms rather than “anti” terms
be used to describe positions on the abortion issue).
- avoiding negative attribution, stereotyping, and other forms of communication likely to
raise the listener's defenses.
- listening attentively, refraining from interrupting, and sharing “airtime.”
Opening Questions. The following three questions were asked and answered in this way:
The question was read. Participants were given a minute to think. Then each person
responded. The first and second questions were answered in “go-rounds” and the third was
answered “popcorn” style, i.e., as people felt ready. Participants were asked to take up to 3
minutes for questions #1 and #3 and up to 2 minutes for question #2.
Question 1: What events or other personal life experiences may have shaped your current
views and feelings about abortion? Could you tell us something about one or
two of these events or experiences?
Question 2: What is at the heart of the matter for you, as an individual?
Question 3: Many people who have participated in dialogues like this have said that
within their general approach to this issue they have some dilemmas about
their own beliefs, for example, some value conflicts or ambivalent feelings. Do
you experience any mixed feelings, value conflicts, uncertainties, or other
dilemmas within your overall perspective on this issue?
Questions Arising from Curiosity. We invited participants to ask questions of each other, asking them to avoid rhetorical questions, and instead, to ask each other questions arising from
their genuine curiosity about the feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the people in the room.
Closing Questions. About twenty minutes before the end of the session, we posed two
closing questions, each answered in a go-round format.
Question 1: What do you think you have done or restrained yourself from doing that may
have contributed to this conversation going the way it has?
Question 2: Do you have any parting words you would like to say, to bring this conversation
to a satisfying close?
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
6
After the Dialogue:
Team Assessment. After the participants left the facilitators reviewed the session, discussed how they worked together and individually, and considered whether any difficult
moments suggested a need to change the model in the future. They also considered
whether there were any new questions they wanted ask in the follow-up call.
Follow-Up Telephone Calls. About two weeks after the session, we called participants to
elicit feedback, ask about their further reflections, and learn what they might have taken
from the experience into their lives.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
7
Common Phases in an Opening Meeting
Given the collaborative nature of our meeting design process and the high degree of
customization of our meeting designs, we can offer no “typical” meeting format. However,
many meetings — in particular meetings that bring a group together for the first time —
have the following phases.
PHASE
ENTRY
OBJECTIVE
To greet people as they enter in a manner that is welcoming and
hospitable.
OPENING
COMMENTS
To welcome people as a group, remind them about the objectives
of the meeting and, perhaps, its history, and to say a few words
about the structure and time boundaries of the meeting.
INTRODUCTIONS
To help people become known to each other as people.
AGREEMENTS
To achieve consensus in the group about how participants want
to relate to each other during the meeting. This involves either
accepting or revising proposed agreements that have been
included in pre-meeting communications. (This phase may occur
before introductions.)
OPENING
QUESTIONS
POSED BY
FACILITATORS
To generate a shared pool of information about the concerns and
interests of those in the room; to reveal information ordinarily
silenced on the issue; to encourage participants to reflect upon
and speak from their experience; and to enhance curiosity about
others’ views.
PARTICIPANTS
ASK QUESTIONS
ARISING FROM
THEIR CURIOSITY
To encourage listening guided by curiosity and interest and to
support and expand upon speaking that is fresh and engaging.
MIDDLE PHASE
The objectives for this phase are highly dependent on the groups’
objectives for the meeting and on what has occurred in the meeting
so far. The spectrum of possibilities is wide, ranging from highly
structured exercises to very open discussions.
NEXT STEPS
To assess whether what has occurred has stimulated ideas for
actions and, if so, to achieve consensus about what should
happen and who will do what to make it happen.
REFLECTIONS
AND PARTING
WORDS
To give participants an opportunity to reflect on and speak
about their contributions to the process, learning, and shifts in
understanding and to express appreciation for what others have
offered. This is also a time to say anything that feels left over
or incomplete and, perhaps, to note what has been especially
useful or might be improved.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
8
Beginning a Dialogue Session: Go-Rounds & Questions
Introductory Go-Rounds
We often ask participants, in turn, to say their names and tell the group something about themselves. Sometimes we model responses, e.g, “If I were answering this question I might say…”
Some introductory go-rounds we have used are:
Please tell us in a sentence or two about something you had to give up or set aside in
order to be here now; anything that may be competing for your attention as you try to
settle in, or anything that you need to let go of to be present.
Tell us something you would like us to know about you; something that you consider to
be a strength of yours, something that you value about yourself, possibly a personal
quality that may be a resource for this process.
Please tell us something about yourself that is important to you and not directly related to the issue we are here to discuss; something about a passion, an interest, a
hobby, or a pre-occupation in your life.
Questions to Consider for the Opening Phase
1) Do you have any fears or concerns about participating in these conversations that you
would like to identify as we begin? What enabled you to come today despite your fears
and concerns?
2) Do you have hopes for these conversations that you are willing to speak about at this
time? What could happen while we are here that would strengthen your hopes?
3) Can you tell us something about one or more of the life experiences that are connected in your mind with your commitment to the issues we are here to discuss?
Design and Facilitation Tips
GIVE PEOPLE TIME TO THINK. After we pose a question, we try to give people time to
think before anyone responds. This time for reflection allows participants to decide what
they will say. Having decided that, they can listen carefully to what others say. When their
turn comes to speak, they are more likely to speak their own considered thoughts rather
than simply a reaction to what others have said.
SPECIFY AN AMOUNT OF TIME TO TALK. We typically give participants a specific (and
fairly short) amount of time to respond to each question. This prevents wide variations in “air
time” and monopolization of the floor by a few participants. The amount of time allotted can
vary from question to question. We often involve participants in time management by asking
them to pass a watch. The person who has just spoken keeps time for the next speaker.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
9
OFFER A STRUCTURE FOR SPEAKING AND LISTENING. We often use a “go-round”
format in which people speak after the person sitting next to them has finished. This
format allows people to focus their energy on speaking and listening, rather than on trying
to decide when to speak. (If people are not ready to answer a question when their turn
comes, they can “pass” and will be given another opportunity when the others have
finished.) By prior agreement, when a speaker learns that time is up, he or she wraps up,
adding a concluding sentence if needed. An alternative to the “go-round” format is the
“popcorn” format, which allows participants to determine the order of their talking; they
simply speak up when they feel ready.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
10
Sample Ground Rules (Agreements) for Dialogue1
1) Speak personally, for yourself as an individual, not as a representative of an organization
or position.
2) Avoid assigning intentions, beliefs, or motives to others. (Ask others questions instead
of stating untested assumptions about them.)
3) Honor each person’s right to “pass” if he or she is not ready or willing to speak.
4) Allow others to finish before you speak.
5) Share “air time.”
6) Respect all confidentiality or anonymity requests that the group has agreed to honor.2
7) Stay on the topic.
8) Call people and groups by the names that they prefer.3
We often use the term “agreements” instead of “ground rules” to underscore the
participants’ ownership of their process. The agreements we propose are tailored to
address the hopes and concerns expressed by participants in the planning phase. The list
we propose becomes the group’s agreements only after the group has amended and
adopted them at the beginning of the meeting.
1
Many groups make a provisional confidentiality agreement at the beginning of the meeting
when they do not yet know what will happen. Example: “Unless we change our confidentiality agreement at the end of the meeting, no one here can say who was here or anything that
was said. At the end of the meeting we will revisit the issue of confidentiality and may change
the agreement if all agree to do so.”
2
For example, a participant may prefer to be called “African-American” rather than “Black”
or “pro-life” rather than “anti-abortion.”
3
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
11
Self-Help Tools for Participators1
1. If you feel cut off, say so or override the interruption. (“I'd like to finish…”)
2. If you feel misunderstood, clarify what you mean. (“Let me put this another way...”)
3. If you feel misheard, ask the listener to repeat what she heard you say, then affirm or
correct her statement.
4. If you feel hurt or disrespected, say so. If possible, describe exactly what you heard or
saw that evoked hurt feelings in you. (“When you said x, I felt y...“ where “x” refers to specific language.) If it is hard to think of what to say, just say, “OUCH” to flag your reaction.
5. If you feel angry, express the anger directly (e.g., “I felt angry when I heard you say x...”)
rather than expressing it or acting it out indirectly (e.g., by trashing another person’s statement or asking a sarcastic or rhetorical question.)
6. If you feel confused, frame a question that seeks clarification or more information. You
may prefer to paraphrase what you have heard. (“Are you saying that...?”)
7. If you feel uncomfortable with the process, state your discomfort and check in with the
group to see how others are experiencing what is happening. (“I’m not comfortable with
the tension I’m feeling in the room right now and I’m wondering how others are
feeling.”) If others share your concerns and you have an idea about what would help,
offer that idea. (“How about taking a one-minute Time Out to reflect on what we are
trying to do together?”)
8. If you feel the conversation is going off track, share your perception, and check in
with others. (“I thought we were going to discuss x before moving to y, but it seems that
we bypassed x and are focussing on y. Is that right?”) If so (“I’d like to get back to x and
hear from more people about it.”)
These self-help tools were derived from discussions with participants about difficult
moments and what they might do in the future in similar situations.
1
Copyright © 1995 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
12
Guidelines for Facilitators
A. Prevent: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of intervention.
What are some means of prevention?
1. A collaborative mindset among participants leads people to share responsibility for
what happens.
2. General expectations of participants are included in the invitation, repeated at the
beginning of a meeting, and explicitly accepted.
3. Agreements are explicitly made, covering many aspects of individual action and
group interaction.
4. Specific expectations and agreements may be developed as the group evolves.
B. Prepare: Show participants how they can meet challenges.
1. Participants may be asked to recall what has been useful to them in prior experiences
with conflictual situations.
2. Participants may be given suggestions (self-help tools) about what they can do when
faced with challenging moments in a group.
C. Be legitimate: Use interventions that are authorized by the group.
1. General agreements for the entire dialogue.
2. Specific agreements about each section of the dialogue.
3. A role description for the facilitator that has been approved by the group.
D. Be compassionate by being flexible not rigid, positive not punitive, inquisitive
not judgmental, transparent and human, rather than cryptic and mechanical.
1. Be flexible. Intervene for the well-being and progress of the group. Intervene more
frequently at the outset to set precedent for behaviors specified by the agreements.
Later, don’t intervene on every infraction. Be alert and flexible.
2. Be positive. Instead of naming infractions, suggest a relevant alternative that is in
keeping with the agreements. If someone is taking a lot of air time, you might ask if
those who have not spoken would like a chance to speak. If someone speaks in generalities about the experience of others, you might ask, “how did you experience that?”
3. Be genuinely curious about group processes and needs. If there is a dilemma about
how to proceed, name it and propose a time-limited conversation about options.
4. Be transparent and human. If you are uncertain about how to respond or what to do,
inquire about the ideas and perspectives of your team members and/or the participants.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
13
A Sample Protocol for a Follow-up Interview
1) What were the highlights of the dialogue for you?
2) Did anything (else) especially interest, move, or surprise you?
3) Was anything difficult or uncomfortable? (If so) Can you think of any way the facilitators
could have helped with this? Can you think of any way the difficulty could have been
prevented?
4) Do you have any (other) specific feedback for the facilitators? How fair and balanced
was each of them?
5) Do you have any feedback for us about the invitation or the pre-dialogue exchanges?
6) Do you anticipate that your experience in the dialogue will affect your thinking, speaking,
or actions related to this issue? If so, how?
7) Overall, how would you rate your dialogue experience on a 1-5 scale where 5 is
Outstanding and 0 is Wish I had Not Come?
8) Would you have any thoughts to share with someone who is not sure about participating
in a similar dialogue?
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
14
The Exercise on Stereotyping
About the Exercise on Stereotyping
This exercise was originally developed by PCP’s Senior Associate Richard Chasin, MD, for
use in a workshop in Moscow at the 1986 Congress of International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). It was adapted for subsequent IPPNW workshops by
Dr. Chasin and his colleagues Margaret Herzig (also a PCP Senior Associate) and Paula
Gutlove, DMD. For reports on this work see the “Creating Systemic Interventions” article
in the resources section of PCP’s website.
During the life of the Public Conversations Project we have adapted this exercise in a number of ways. We present here two versions.
The partisan subgroup version was used in a dialogue group of 20 women in a
Pennsylvania town whose common interests in a YWCA were overshadowed by their deep
divisions over abortion. This dialogue group was clearly composed of groups with opposing perspectives, and the exercise was done in those subgroups.
The individual version was developed for one of the dialogues we convened on the
Northern Forests. In this case, multiple stakeholders were involved — many not easily categorized — and it seemed that any attempt to create groups would run counter to the
goals of enhancing appreciation for the variety of perspectives in the room and within each
person; in fact, conducting the exercise in subgroups could have had the effect of inviting
“us vs. them” thinking.
The Exercise on Stereotyping: The Partisan Subgroup Version
Note: The time limits indicated here are for a group of about 20 and can be adjusted.
INTRODUCTION
TIME: 1 minute
We’ve learned from our previous work that relationships of conflict are often fueled by
distorted perceptions that people hold of one another — by assumptions people make
about others who don’t share their views or their culture or their experiences. Many
people would like to feel less stereotyped by others. We’d like to lead you through an exercise that will allow you to communicate how you feel stereotyped and to indicate which of
those stereotypes are most inaccurate or hurtful.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
15
GENERATION OF LISTS
TIME: 15 minutes (in subgroup)
INSTRUCTIONS: We’d like the people who identify more with a prochoice perspective to
gather around this easel and the people who identify more with a prolife perspective to
gather around that easel. Your task is to generate on the newsprint at least 8 stereotypes
that you think people on the other side of the issue hold of you. That is, when someone
with a different view of abortion learns that you hold a PL or PC view, what negative attributions do you worry that he or she ascribes to you? What stereotypical beliefs, attitudes,
and intentions do you imagine you are assumed to have? You will have 15 minutes to do
this. You might want to start with a rapid brainstorming of many stereotypes, then sort
through and identify several that are somewhat discrete. One of us will facilitate this
process in each group. At the end of the 15 minutes we’ll ask you to pick one of your group
members to report on the list to the full group.
MARKING THE LISTS
TIME: 5-8 minutes (in subgroup)
INSTRUCTIONS: Now we’d like to give you an opportunity to reflect on these stereotypes
and think about which seem most inaccurate in your view. Which is most painful — which
of these really hurts — to think that someone thinks this of you. We’d like each of you to put
an “I” next to the 3 stereotypes you feel are most inaccurate. Then put a “P” next to the
stereotype that is most painful or offensive. Finally, we’d like to invite you to put a “U” next
to the stereotype or stereotypes that you think are most understandable — by doing this
you’re not saying it’s true of you; you could be saying only that this is a stereotype your
movement does too little to correct. This category is an option — we’d like to encourage you
to give it some thought. Before any of you approach the easels, please take a minute to
think. Then go up when you’re ready. When you have finished marking the lists you’ll pick a
recorder to report to the other group on what the feared stereotypes are, what marking were
made, and, if you’d like, you can say something about how the process went.
GROUP REPORTS
TIME: 8-10 minutes (in the full group)
INSTRUCTIONS: Now is the time for each group to report to the other. Each group has been
invited to share not only the lists and the markings but also something about the process.
SHARING ABOUT THE MOST HURTFUL STYEREOTYPES
TIME: 20 minutes
INSTRUCTIONS: We’d like to have each person take the opportunity to say — again you
can pass if you’d like — something about the stereotype that you marked as most painful.
And to say what it is about the way you understand yourself, the way you know yourself,
what is it about your experience that makes the stereotype that you marked as the most
painful, so painful. We’d like you to share just a couple of sentences. Again, what is it about
how you understand yourself, know yourself, understand your experience that makes one
of these judgements or distorted perceptions so painful? This time, instead of doing a goround, we’ll do what we call the popcorn format, which means, that you can speak when
you feel ready. And then, when we get close to the end of our time, we’ll check and make
sure everybody who wants to speak has a chance.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
16
The Exercise on Stereotyping: The Individual Version
INTRODUCTION
Stereotyping has played as important a role in the ________ conflict as it has in other chronic conflicts. We would like to give you an opportunity to address this dynamic directly and to
speak about the ways in which you have felt stereotyped by those who hold different views
on this issue.
INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION AND LIST GENERATION (individually)
When someone who holds a particular view about _______ learns that you have an
opposite perspective, what negative attributions do you think he or she is likely ascribe to
you? What beliefs, attitudes, and intentions do you imagine the person assumes that you
hold? Please make a list of 4-6 such stereotypes not worrying for the moment about how
much truth (if any) there is in those stereotypes.
MARKING THE LISTS (individually)
Reflect on your list and consider the following:
1) Which one or two statements are the most inaccurate as applied to you?
(Mark with an “I”)
2) Which one stereotype would you find to be most painful or offensive if someone applied
it to you? (Mark with a “P”)
3) Which stereotype on your list, if any, do you think is understandably applied to you, even
if it is not fully accurate? (Mark with a “U”)
SHARING (in full group or diverse subgroups of 6-10 participants)
Painful Stereotypes: Please say something, if you wish to, about the one assumption or
stereotype that you would find most offensive or painful if applied to you and then say how
you understand yourself, know yourself, or understand your experience that makes this
stereotype so painful?
Inaccurate Stereotypes: Are there any inaccurate stereotypes on your list that you’d like to
speak about, again, indicating how you know yourself to be different from what these
stereotypes would suggest about you? If so, please share something about the stereotype
and how you understand it to be inaccurate.
Understandable Stereotypes: Many stereotypes have some degree of truth — even if very
small — for some people and political groups to which they are applied. It can be helpful
for people with different perspectives to “own” some aspects of their views or activism
about which they are less than proud, or that they feel comfortable with but which others
may see in a somewhat negative light. Were there any like that on your list? If so, please
share if you are willing.
REFLECTION (in full group)
Please speak briefly about one or two things that surprised, touched, or interested you as
you participated in this exercise.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
17
Moving Beyond Polarization over Abortion: Steps You Can Take on Your Own
Have a New Conversation with Yourself
- Listen to your internal dialogue.
- Do you sometimes think about those who disagree with you, “they’re all alike”?
- Do you sometimes refer to activists on “the other side” with terms like “murderers” or
“religious fanatics”?
- Are there slogans used by your “side” that don’t fully resonate with your experience
or values? Some that offend, confuse, or concern you?
- Have you met or seen anyone on “the other side” who seems to be an exception to
the image you may hold of what “they” are like?
- Are your views more complicated than people close to you may imagine?
- Do you have ideas or feelings about abortion that you tend to silence?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of silencing your own complexity?
- What could be the advantages and disadvantages of re-examining some of the
assumptions you make about people on “the other side”? To you? To your “side”? To
the community at large?
- What could be the advantages and disadvantages of participating in a conversation
in which you could speak about what you really think and really hear different views?
To you? To your “side”? To the community at large?
Have a New Conversation with an “Ally”
- Talk to someone who generally shares your perspective, making agreements about
communication guidelines that will foster listening and constructive speaking.
- Agree that your goal is mutual understanding rather than agreement.
- Try learning about each other’s views leaving aside the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life.”
- Are differences in your experiences or beliefs obscured by those labels? For example, if you agree on the question of whether or not abortion should be legal, do you
differ in the way you came to hold that belief? When each of you is asked, “what is
the heart of the matter for you?,” are your answers identical?
- If you discover some differences, share how it feels to surface these differences.
Disloyal? Authentic? A little of both?
- What made this conversation hard?
- What made it rewarding ? What did each do (or not do) that contributed to its course?
What did you learn about fostering authentic and constructive communication about
abortion or other “hot” issues in the future?
Copyright © 1995 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
18
Have a New Conversation with an “Opponent”
- Invite someone with a different perspective on abortion to participate in a dialogue.
- Agree that your goal is mutual understanding rather than agreement.
- Develop and agree to some communication ground rules and guidelines before you
start. (For example, you both might agree to refrain from interrupting, challenging, or
attempting to persuade each other, speaking only for your self. You might establish
time limits, etc.)
- Avoid words that raise your listener’s defenses. Express your feelings and views so
they become sources of contact and learning rather than alienation and antagonism.
- Open your mind to learning something new. Listen and seek to understand.
- Begin by telling each other about personal experiences connected with the development of your views. Then speak about “the heart of the matter” for you.
- Notice what you do not understand and ask each other questions that arise from a
genuine wish to understand more.
- Listen to each other’s responses respectfully and do not argue with any statement.
- Allow time to make final statements about what you learned about the issue and
about constructive conversation.
Help Something New Happen in Your Community
- Consider initiating dialogue in your community or in a particular civic or religious
group. Try to construct a planning team with people from both “sides.”
- Bring people who have diverse perspectives about abortion together to explore what
you can do to resist polarization and identify shared concerns and goals.
- If you know people with “third party” skills such as facilitators, therapists, clergy,
educators, mediators, or negotiators, talk with them about how to create an environment in which conversation on this subject is likely to be constructive.
- Call the Public Conversations Project (617-923-1216), or visit PCP’s resource-packed
website (http://www.publicconversations.org).
Ask the Media for Something New
- Urge representatives of the media to give more time and attention to those who have
complex views about abortion. Challenge them to make constructive conversation
more interesting than shouting matches and extreme statements. Write letters of
appreciation when they do so.
- Express your concern when members of the media foster misinformation, use demonizing stereotypes, give polarizing accounts of events, ask inflammatory questions, etc.
Copyright © 1995 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
19
Thinking about Strains Related to Class Difference
YOUR DESCRIPTION
Describe with a partner a situation in which you experienced strains related to class difference.
Say where you were, who was there, what happened, what people said and did, whether
anyone addressed the tension, and anything else necessary for your partner to understand the
situation and its relationship to social class. Include, if possible...
What you thought and felt. What you said to yourself.
What you did then. What you said. What you considered doing or saying but chose not to.
LOOKING BACK
What social/cultural expectations supported your speaking out?
What social/cultural expectations restrained your speaking out?
What personal beliefs supported your speaking out?
What personal beliefs restrained your speaking out?
LOOKING AHEAD
If you were in a similar situation tomorrow...
What might you think and feel? What might you say to yourself?
What might you say or do?
Current social/cultural expectations that would support your speaking out.
Current social/cultural expectations that would restrain your speaking out.
Current personal beliefs that would support your speaking out.
Current personal beliefs that would restrain your speaking out.
What you wish others would say or do.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEN AND NOW
What differences are there between the way you think, feel, believe, and might act now
as compared with the time of the situation?
How do you account for these developments?
After giving your account, you may wish for the listener to indicate anything you said that
was particularly illuminating, moving, or interesting.
Copyright © 1995 Public Conversations Project
www.publicconversations.org
20
The Uncertain Path to Dialogue: A Meditation
Sallyann Roth
Published in Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue, S. McNamee
and K. Gergen, Eds. (with commentary by associates). Chapter 8, 93-97. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, 1999.
I invite you to join me in a meditation. The questions below are not requests for information; they are invitations to experience the sense of human connectedness and shared
responsibility that comes from allowing ourselves to wonder, to not understand, to participate in the repersonalization of the generalized and objectified, to open up space for the
future, now-being-realized world, the world that we create together. Perhaps, too, the
questions are answers in themselves, pointing beyond themselves.
Think of the “I” voice as yourself as you read and reflect.
Sometimes I am in a conversation, or an argument, or perhaps even a shouting match that
goes nowhere, an encounter that produces nothing but heat. Sometimes I feel certain that
I know exactly what someone else is about to say and I anticipate, with great conviction,
just how wrong-headed it is going to be.
Sometimes I feel hopeless about ever being heard, understood, or adequately listened to
by a particular person or in some particular conversation or on a particular subject. And
sometimes I just get tired of trying to make myself understood. I don’t want to try to explain
myself again, or I feel dismissive, or perhaps violent. Sometimes I want to run right over
what others say.
At times like these,
How can I keep from being taken over by hurt, hopelessness, anger, or disrespect?
How can I keep from being taken over by the belief that the other person — or group
— is really the problem?
How can I keep myself from just shutting down?
But then, on the other hand,
What do I do that shuts others down?
What do I do that leaves others feeling insignificant, blank, out of place, silenced, walled off,
unwilling to be open when they are with me?
What do I do that prompts others to try to convince me of their rightness, of my
wrongness, to will their assertions on me, to not speak directly to me — or to ignore
my presence or even my very existence?
Copyright © 1999 Sallyann Roth
Public Conversations Project • www.publicconversations.org
21
When I meet people who challenge my views, or my beliefs, or my values,
What makes it possible for me to listen to them?
What makes it possible for me to invite them to tell me more about what they think
and feel?
What makes it possible for me to ask them how they came to think and feel as
they do?
When I feel challenged, or even threatened by others,
What makes it possible to wonder about, to be interested in, to ask about, how they
came to believe what they believe or to “know” what they know when it is so
different from what I believe and from what I “know”?
What kinds of actions and contexts encourage me
To speak with an open heart?
To listen with an open heart?
What kinds of contexts feel safe enough
To enable me to speak so openly and listen so openly to others that I may be changed
by the contact, influenced by the conversation?
What kinds of actions and contexts make it possible for me to shift the meanings I make
of my experiences of past and present events and of imagined futures?
How can I open up to explore our many differences, our stories, our lives, our present
circumstances?
How can I speak fully even when speaking fully may reveal that we simply can not
understand one another?
What kinds of actions and contexts encourage me
To abandon assumptions that I know what others mean?
To turn my passion to inquiring about things I do not or can not understand?
To reveal how much I do not understand?
To make space for differences in experience, in the meanings I give to that experience,
and for every other kind of difference there may be?
What do I do
That calls forth from others that which is unusual for them to speak openly?
That brings forward responses of unusual complexity and richness?
That calls forward other people’s reflections, or their most passionate intentions?
Or their readiness to speak of fragmentary thoughts, thoughts that are only on their way
to being fully thought, or those that have been thought but never before spoken?
Copyright © 1999 Sallyann Roth
Public Conversations Project • www.publicconversations.org
22
When I have thought that others would find my thoughts, feelings, beliefs, or perspectives
“wrong,” “off center,” or just too different,
What have others done that has allowed me to be open with them, to think of and
speak of things I have not spoken?
What have others done to call into voice that which I feared to say or perhaps even to
think when I imagined, perhaps rightly, that open speaking might alienate the very
people I cared about, or depended on?
What have others done to call into voice my full feeling, thinking, and speaking in a way
that has permitted me to welcome confusions, to feel less certain, and to open
myself to change through my connection with them?
When I feel that other people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, or perspectives are “wrong,”
“dangerous,” or just too different from mine,
What might others do or say to prepare me to listen to that which feels intolerable to
hear, too different, too confusing, too challenging, too incomprehensible, things I
just don’t want to hear?
How can I remind myself to speak for myself, from my own experience, and to not shore
myself up by speaking as a member of a group, as if I represented others?
How can I remember to listen fully, openly, with genuine interest, without judgment and
without argument, to another’s challenging, or different, ideas, feelings, beliefs?
How can I stay open to hearing fresh things even in other’s familiar words?
And how can I listen just as fully, just as openly, and just as generously and without
judgment to myself?
If I do hold myself open in this way, and if the “other,” the one who is “different,” does
the same,
Might we then experience and speak of our similarities and refrain from defining
ourselves strongly by our differences?
Might we refuse to define each other as “other?”
And if I hold myself open in this way with “like-minded” people,
Might we speak openly of our differences when we have previously defined ourselves
by our similarities?
Might we step away from seeing ourselves as an “us” that is distinct from the “them”?
How can we create a place where we can experience our connection with each other
through our very differences? A place where neither of us gives up central beliefs, values,
and commitments, but where the tension of our difference can provide a kind of meeting,
so that our conversation about difference can generate a fresh culture?
What does each of us each need to gain the vision, the will, the strength, the simple
doggedness to travel this path?
How shall we find the courage to make this journey?
Copyright © 1999 Sallyann Roth
Public Conversations Project • www.publicconversations.org
23
Sallyann Roth, L.I.C.S.W., a family therapist, is a founding member of the Public
Conversations Project. She has presented widely in the U.S. and abroad on Narrative therapies and the Public Conversations Project’s approach to divisive public conflicts and has
authored numerous journal articles and book chapters on these subjects. Named the
Rappoport Distinguished Lecturer at Smith College School for Social Work in 1993, she is
Co-Director of the Program in Narrative Therapies of the Family Institute of Cambridge and
currently serves as Acting Co-Director of the Institute. She is Lecturer on Psychology,
Harvard Medical School, Cambridge Hospital.
Author’s note: The author is indebted to Michael Hjerth of Stockholm, Sweden, with whom
she is working on an expanded version of this chapter, for contributing his thoughtful comments and ideas to this meditation. The meditation embodies many of the ideas developed
in the Public Conversations Project, for which the author gratefully acknowledges her
colleagues and long-time teammates, Carol Becker, Laura R. Chasin, Richard M. Chasin,
Margaret M. Herzig, and Robert R. Stains.
Bibliography
Anderson, R., Cissna, K.N., & Arnett, R. (Eds.). (1994). The Reach of Dialogue:
Confirmation, Voice, and Community. Creskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, Inc.
Arnett, R.C. (1986). Communication and Community: Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue.
Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Chasin, R., Herzig, M., Roth, S. Chasin, L., Becker, C., and Stains, R. Jr..(1996) “From
Diatribe to Dialogue on Divisive Public Issues: Approaches Drawn from Family Therapy”.
Mediation Quarterly, Summer Issue 1996 13:4.
Becker, C., Chasin, L., Chasin, R., Herzig, M. & Roth, S. (1995). “From Stuck Debate to
New Conversation on Controversial Issues: A Report from the Public Conversations
Project”. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 7:1&2,143-163.
Chasin, R. & Herzig, M. (1994). “Creating Systemic Interventions for the Socio-political
Arena”. In B. Berger-Gould & D. Demuth (Eds.), The Global Family Therapist: Integrating
the Personal, Professional and Political. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Roth, S. (1993). “Speaking the Unspoken: A Work-group Consultation to Reopen
Dialogue”. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.), Secrets in Families and Family Therapy. New York:
Norton.
Roth, S., Chasin, L., Chasin, R., Becker, C., Herzig, M. (1992). “From Debate to Dialogue:
A Facilitating Role for Family Therapists in the Public Forum”. Dulwich Centre Newsletter
(Australia), 2, 41-48.
Roth, S., Herzig, M., Chasin, R., Chasin, L., Becker, C. (1995). “Across the Chasm”.
In Context, 40, 33-35.
Copyright © 1999 Sallyann Roth
Public Conversations Project • www.publicconversations.org
24
Sampson, E.E. (1993). Celebrating the Other: A Dialogic Account of Human Nature. San
Francisco: Westview Press.
Shotter, J. (1993). Cultural Politics of Everyday Life: Social Constructionisms, Rhetoric,
and Knowing of the Third Kind. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
Stewart, J.J., & Thomas, M. (1990). “Dialogic Listening: Sculpting Mutual Meanings”. In J.
Stewart (Ed.), Bridges, Not Walls: A Book About Interpersonal Communication (5th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
As published in Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue, S. McNamee
and K. Gergen, Eds. (with commentary by associates). Chapter 8, 93-97. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, 1999.
Copyright © 1999 Sallyann Roth
Public Conversations Project • www.publicconversations.org
25