The Definition of Dialogue
As per Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, dialogue is a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversation; a conversation between two or more persons; a similar exchange between a person and something else (such as a computer); an exchange of ideas and opinions; a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution; the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition; | a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation.
True Dialogue According to Bohm
David Bohm (1917-1992) was an American-Brazilian-British scientist and philosopher who contributed to quantum theory, neuropsychology, and philosophy of mind. In this blog, I am going to take a closer look at the Bohmian Dialogue. He was deeply interested in exploring the nature of consciousness, especially the function of thought and its relationship to motivation, conflict, and focus in both the individual and the society. His "Bohm Dialogue" is a proposal he wrote in later life to address societal issues.
Bohm's conception of dialogue is multifaceted and goes far beyond conventional ideas of conversational language and exchange. It is a process that delves into an extraordinarily broad spectrum of human experience, including our deeply held beliefs, the kind and intensity of our emotions, how our minds work, the significance of ingrained cultural myths, the role that memory plays, and how our neurophysiology structures experience moment to moment. Most significantly, dialogue examines the processes that lead to the creation and maintenance of thought at the group level. Bohm saw thought as an intrinsically restricted medium rather than an impartial portrayal of reality. Deeply held beliefs about culture, meaning, and identity must inevitably be called into doubt by such exploration. In its most fundamental sense, dialogue is an invitation to investigate the possibility of a better humanity as a group and to test the validity of established notions of what it means to be human.
According to Bohn; “Shared meaning is really the cement that holds society together, and you could say that the present society has very poor quality cement… The society at large has a very incoherent set of meanings. In fact, this set of 'shared meanings’ is so incoherent that it is hard to say that they have any real meaning at all.”
Bohm discusses the difficulty of just allowing different points of view to exist in a dialogue. It can be challenging to just let different points of view coexist because we are so ingrained in defending our own, agreeing with those that align with our own, and disagreeing with those that don't. It is almost impossibly difficult. “The thing that mostly gets in the way of dialogue,” he says, “is holding to assumptions and opinions and defending them.” Incoherence stems from this natural tendency to judge and defend, ingrained in our biological heritage's self-defence mechanisms.
Our personal meaning starts to become incoherent when it becomes fixed. Imposing past meaning on current circumstances exacerbates the incoherence. As a result, what was once meaningful becomes today's dogma and frequently loses much of its original significance. When this occurs on a collective level, societies are taken over by shadows, debased myths from the past that are enforced as unchangeable realities in the present. In other words, Bohm came to the realisation that the fundamental issue is that we do not know how to coexist in a world that is changing. Because we are only able to live by the truths of the past, one group will always try to force its truths on another one.
Instead, according to Bohm's ideas, every individual participates, shares in the group's meaning, and takes part in a true dialogue. This is not necessarily pleasant, as Bohm warns. There is unavoidably both profound anguish and sublime beauty, intense rage, and unwavering love in the current state of the systems in which we live. We are unable to participate in the whole if we isolate ourselves from whatever makes up the whole. Instead, we revert to abstracting, condemning, and defending: "I am not like that person," "he is bad and I am good," or "she does not see what is happening and I do." This is the first step towards starting a dialogue and creating a more cohesive tacit ground. To take part in the truth, we must see our part in it. "Bad guys" and "good guys" are not distinct from ourselves. We all contribute to the forces that give rise to what exists in modern society, both the things we value and the things we detest.
Key Principles of Bohm Dialogue:
- To foster an open and responsive environment for inquiry, participants are urged to temporarily put aside their preconceived beliefs and biases.
- Engaging in dialogue as inquiry is about sharing knowledge and finding deeper truths, not about persuading others to agree with your point of view.
- The discussion is led by an impartial facilitator who makes sure that everyone has an equal chance to contribute and that the topic remains on topic.
- Determining the root causes of problems and coming up with creative solutions
- Suspending assumptions allows for a better understanding of various perspectives and viewpoints.
Bohmian Dialogue Example:
Resolving Workplace Conflict
Scenario: Two colleagues, Alex and Ben, are disagreeing about a project deadline.
Facilitator: "Let us put aside our presumptions about the circumstances and concentrate on the underlying feelings and ideas that are fuelling this conflict."
Alex: "The impending deadline has me feeling anxious and overwhelmed. If we hurry, I am concerned about the quality of our work."
Ben: "I know you are worried, but our manager is also putting pressure on me. If we collaborate effectively, I think we can make the deadline."
Facilitator: "Let's explore those feelings. Alex, what thoughts are causing you to feel so stressed? Ben, tell me what gives you confidence in meeting the deadline?”
Alex: "I am worried that we will not have enough time before the deadline to test the product thoroughly."
Ben: "Our group can work well together. I think we can do this." We should be able to properly assign resources and prioritise our tasks."
Facilitator: "You both seem to be raising legitimate concerns. Let's try to find a solution that addresses both of your needs."
Alex: "Although I am willing to talk about other options, I am also worried about the possible repercussions of missing the deadline."
Ben: "I understand. Maybe we should look into asking for an extension or rearranging the order of some tasks."
Facilitator: "Let us talk more about those options. What possible benefits and drawbacks might each strategy have?"
As the dialogue goes on, Alex and Ben might consider different approaches, have their presumptions tested, and come to a mutual understanding of the circumstances. They may be able to resolve the conflict in a way that benefits both of them with this cooperative approach.