August 1969 — VOL. 50, No. 8 — Time to Talk Things
Over
Download PDF
version
Man is the only creature who can talk himself
into trouble, but he is also the only creature who by talking
things over can find a way out of trouble. The history of
any improvement in politics, business or society, is a course
of persistent, reasonable, confrontation of facts and differing
ideas with one another.
Anyone who unswervingly refuses to submit his ideas to the
test of dialogue will be quite unfit to meet the demands of
existence in these days. Everyone, whatever side he supports
in discussion of art, religion, government, business or education,
must recognize that technological extension of human capacity
to do things has worked a radical change upon our environment
and demands new ways of thinking, feeling, valuing and deciding
what is to be done. The ideal society in an age of total communication
is the civilization of the dialogue.
It would be fatal to the values in our way of life if we
were to give in to the technological forces which threaten
our personal reception and communication of ideas. We could
become so busy tending our timesaving devices that we have
no time to marshal and express our innermost thoughts and
ideals; we could lazily allow the mass media to deaden our
minds with singing commercials and ready-made opinions; we
could shush one another in dimly lighted television rooms
instead of talking, debating, and expressing ourselves in
the joint discovery of exciting and inspiring new facts and
ideas.
Discussion takes for granted that everyone has had experiences
which may contribute something of value to the group. It recognizes
that one does not possess the whole truth, but seeks, pursues,
and finds some part of it.
Dialogue is the language of the adventurer, confronting
new things, seeking to enlarge his territory, wanting to expand
his knowledge, eager to deepen his understanding. Monologue
is the language of the primitive-brained man who thinks he
is the centre of the universe. Dialogue is constructive because
it adds to knowledge; monologue is destructive because it
evidences fear that a creed or opinion is in danger of being
disproved by question and answer.
Conversation
It is important for most people to talk and to be heard,
to voice their problems, to get things off their minds. A
really satisfying talk is one of the greatest pleasures there
is.
Conversation has four main purposes: to give information,
to get information, to persuade, and to show a human interest
in other human beings. No measure comes before the high court
of Parliament until it has been long prepared by the grand
jury of the talkers.
Conversation is the simplest form of dialogue. It was conversation,
in this form, in the age of Socrates, an age without books
or their latter-day substitutes, which laid the foundation
of the civilization we enjoy. It was conversation of which
the New Testament was composed. It was conversation among
scholars in a bookless world which revived learning at the
end of the dark ages.
Good conversation stretches your mind. Even if no usable
conclusions are reached through a conversation, there is profit
in the exercise, for we have churned up our minds so as to
see new views. But to make the best of it, people must realize
conversation as a mental occupation, and not merely a dribbling
into words of casual thoughts.
Conversation consists of both transmission and reception.
One man put it neatly when he said: "I like so much to talk
that 1 am willing to pay my audience by listening in my turn."
To speak and to listen brings into the midst of the group
masses of experience, anecdote, cross-lights, quotation, historical
incidents, the whole range of minds centred upon the topic
from all points of the compass.
There can be a lively diversity of views expressed without
appeal to any book of rules of order. You do not need an elaboration
of formality, just ordinary politeness. For example, a brilliant
conversationalist is not one who holds a group spellbound,
but one who draws everyone else in.
Intelligent conversation is only fit for intelligent society.
It is downright abhorrent to narrow-minded people who are
fixed on a plane of the commonplace and dull. Nothing can
be more deadly boring than this: two persons saying words
about something in which neither is interested. Rag-bag conversation
about threadbare things is unprofitable, depressing and futile.
You would die of shame if you heard it played back on a tape
recorder.
The mistake that many earnest and persistent talkers make
is to suppose that to be engrossed in a subject is the same
thing as being engrossing. The self-centred person talks without
reference to his listeners' interests. If he has been reading
about dinosaurs or water pollution or the state of unrest
in mid-Africa, he brings out all that is in his mind on the
topic.
Story-telling is not conversation, but parlour entertaining.
The person is a bore who, on the sidewalk or in a café,
on the train or in an office, buttonholes you to listen to
anecdotes and jokes pulled out of the air. As Ernest Dimnet
wrote in What We Live By: "Stories are the stupid man's
wit."
Dialogue
Dialogue is conversation with a purpose. It is reason's
only weapon. It is a civilized operation, democratic and constructive,
and those who refuse dialogue are playing a game with some
serious overtones. There was no dialogue in the primitive
medicineman's manipulation of people's passions. There was
no dialogue for Stalin, who refrained from debating his views
in favour of exterminating his opponents physically or compromising
them personally.
Democratic institutions and political freedom cannot survive
without discussion, criticism, and deliberation. Are we too
busy enjoying life to engage in a dialogue designed to make
possible the continuation of life? Or too ignorant? Or too
lethargic? Or too parasitical? All these entered into the
decline of the Roman Empire.
To take useful part in reaching decisions is to seek understanding
through consideration of alternatives. In this debate, traditions
and dogmas rub each other down. We attain insight and understanding.
A dialogue is not a bargain-basement transaction with haggling
and bickering, a low form of negotiation. Neither is it a
situation in which A confronts B in a contest, but a conversation
in which each presents facts and each considers the other's
facts. It is a reasonable exchange of ideas, bringing into
being a new body of knowledge. It takes you out of the doldrums
of fiddling with good intentions into the region where you
act with knowledge and understanding.
Monopoly of the conversation has no place in dialogue. The
ball must be thrown back and forth. There is give and take.
Participants expect to find things out by examining ideas
and facts from several points of view.
This exercise reveals the true personality of those taking
part in it. It dissolves the solemn humbug and punctures the
know-it-all; it unveils the person who speaks in malice or
in self-interest. It reduces prejudice and builds up mutual
confidence, the hallmark of social intercourse among equals.
See from other viewpoints
Impartiality in listening to points of view is a great aid
to the making of good judgments about what is being discussed,
and this requires that we try honestly to see things through
the other person's eyes.
Many irritations in society are due to the fact that some
people do not recognize problems which others think are important.
Two cultures may have institutions that look very much alike
to the outside observer, and words in their languages which
are so alike as to suggest the same meanings, but the realities
are different.
When we go abroad we are accustomed to accommodating ourselves
to evident differences, such as those of dress, language and
architecture. Where we run into trouble is in the little differences:
the taste of coffee in England, the siesta hour in Italy,
the sounds in the narrow streets of Paris, the rosary of devotion
formed by the 24,000 bell-ringing shrines in Benares. These
things, nevertheless, are an essential part of the everyday
life of people living in those places.
This is not to say that we must be pleased by all sights
and sounds. It is quite possible to form and hold a strong
opinion of our own and yet to realize that it is after all
only one point of view.
In praiseworthy dialogue we show respect for the other man's
opinions, and try to push the right button to open him up
so that we learn his real thoughts. It is easy and immature
to recognize only the spurious and mistaken in a man's contentions:
it requires more effort and intelligence to recognize and
admit the excellence of some of his ideas.
There are certain simple rules associated with effective
dialogue. Much that passes for dialogue is not that at all,
but merely the noise made by contending propagandists. Such
a debate is governed by the rules of the prize-fight: "Shake
hands ... ready ... gong!"
Good dialogue requires common substance, a topic about which
the participants are informed and to which all can make a
contribution by original thinking. It requires a large measure
of goodwill. It begins in an act of faith: the assumption
that those who converse will speak in honesty for the purpose
of reaching understanding, and with generosity toward one
another.
The ground rules for dialogue do not call for that glowering
acquaintance with Bourinot or Robert's Rules of Order so
insisted upon by militant chairmen, but only those appropriate
to mutual enlightenment and to growth of knowledge in all
those participating: "Use reason; be fair and gracious."
A good way to start a dialogue is by asking questions and
listening to the answers. When Napoleon noticed that his councillors
were simply echoing whatever he said he was quick to call
them to order. "You are not here," he told them, "to agree
with me, but to express your own views."
It is by comparison of views that we reason our way toward
truth. We increase the odds of finding the best solution to
a problem by considering alternatives.
Do some homework
The man who believes in dialogue does not come to the conference
table with a fistful of fast deals but with a head full of
constructive ideas. He has studied the subject so that he
does not need to waste time in quibbles about trifles or to
indulge in off-the-cuff masterminding. He has something to
contribute that is relevant to the topic.
When approaching a dialogue, it is well to sketch out your
theme roughly. The actual presentation will see the details
changed in many points, but the general idea of what your
points are and where they fit into the debate ought to be
clear in your mind. Then get busy collecting materials, the
facts you will need so that you may present your case effectively.
Marshal your thoughts in orderly array.
If the dialogue is to be about an important matter, it is
beneficial if all who will participate prepare a sort of "white
paper" or preliminary brief, and circulate it. Then everyone
will come to the table with an over-all view of the problems,
prepared to discuss the way in which the varying ideas or
proposals may be reconciled.
"Facts" are worse than useless unless they are accurate.
Inaccuracy does not necessarily mean deceitfulness, but may
take the form of not being particular to be exact.
Facts are different from opinion. Look at the confusion
caused in many conversations when people apply differing opinions
to the same body of facts. They confuse belief with evidence,
and insist upon the truth of a statement because they believe
it to be so. Truly, it is not things, but people's opinions
about things, that trouble mankind.
Mutual understanding is helped by clear definition. Make
sure that everyone knows exactly what your language means.
It helps, often, to define conflicting arguments with clarity,
so as to arrive at the critical point free of non-essentials.
To do this honestly you need to understand not only the technicalities
but the nature of what is proposed. If the point is not clear
to you, say: "Well, if my view of this is not acceptable,
could you make some proposals?" This leaves you free to modify
your view if given convincing reasons.
Make sure that the real problem is brought out into the
open. There are no solutions to unknown problems. Einstein
is quoted as saying: "The formulation of a problem is often
more essential than its solution." And John Dewey summarizes
the procedure well in his How We Think: first there
is awareness of the problem, resulting in perplexity; then
definition of the problem by analysis and observation; then
consideration of different solutions; selection of the most
effective solution; verification of its fitness to attain
the desired result.
Sweeping generalities must be broken down if they are to
be digested into something useful. Small problems are more
easily solved than large ones, but at the same time the pattern
of the whole must be kept in mind. People discuss and debate
certain fragments of a total situation. For example: war in
Vietnam, hunger in Africa, poverty in America, missiles in
the sky. The overriding concern of mankind is not the survival
of this or that nation-state or the saving of some people
from hunger: the over-all issue at stake is the survival of
the human race.
Keep to the point
In discussing the small problems within the large picture
it is necessary to stick to the point. The truly basic elements
in a good pictorial composition are unity and simplicity.
No picture can be strong, and no spoken presentation can be
effective, if it tries to tell several stories at once.
Most of us, when we get on a subject we think we know, are
likely to say too much. The centre of the answer to a question
should be the point of the question and the circumference
no wider than is needed to answer the question adequately.
Irrelevant particularities slow down conversation and sometimes
bring it to a complete stop. Everyone knows the feeling of
frustration caused by people who digress from the point in
a spate of words and never omit an unnecessary fact.
Dialogue is seeking truth. St. Thomas Aquinas said: "An
angel perceives the truth by simple apprehension, whereas
man becomes acquainted with a simple truth by a process from
manifold data." The search involves having willingness of
mind to reach out to that which is not yet understood, or
even to something which at first repels you. When one idea
supplements another it is surprising how often a joint truth
emerges from the dialogue of persons who started with divergent
beliefs.
Some solutions to problems may seem harsh, but no true values
are destroyed by learning the truth about them. Pontius Pilate
stands condemned in history not because he asked a great question:
"What is truth?" but because he did not wait for an answer.
The honest person in a dialogue is he who does his best
to learn and to tell the truth, confesses to uncertainty when
he is uncertain, does not pretend to knowledge he does not
have, and is candid and fair.
The benison of silence
Sometimes it is well to converse mostly in pauses. Mozart
is quoted as saying: "My rests are more important than my
notes."
There are, of course, modes of silence: that of listless
ignorance and that of intelligent attention. To ask oneself
what can be left unsaid is a golden attribute in diplomacy
and it plays a big part in that everyday tact that helps people
to get along better with one another.
Sometimes it is well, during a dialogue, to remain silent
even though it makes you appear eccentric. One man, popular
on committees, carried a little card which he set up on the
table before him. On it he had written: "Keep quiet." James
Simpson, the clerk who became chairman of Marshall Field and
Company, smoked cigars so as to be sure he would keep his
mouth shut in conferences. Perhaps he was copying the geese
migrating over the mountain Taurus, which is full of eagles.
The geese took up stones in their bills to restrain their
gaggling, thus passing over the eagles without being heard.
Silence is not to be confused with listening. Every participant
in a dialogue has the duty to listen. Listening intently and
asking pertinent questions provide you with the needed information
for orderly mental processing.
Listening that is merely courteous is not good enough: you
need to be interested in what is being said, keen to learn
what is in the speaker's mind. This has the added advantage
of assuring him of your entire fairness and predisposing him
to a like attitude.
When you listen attentively you may learn about options
that are not at once visible. You listen to the facts, but
you concentrate on finding what they all add up to. If you
are too busy thinking of what you are going to say next you
miss the points and end up in the confusion of a completely
unrelated line of talk.
There is little room in dialogue for hot and hasty words.
The only downright prohibition in the rules governing dialogue
is against losing your temper, even in the face of the most
petulant or waspish remarks.
Dialogue should be marked by urbanity. Begin in a friendly
way, express your views coolly and without passion. If you
assert your ideas with vehemence you will be suspected of
wilfully trying to shout down the ideas of others, because
the expression of knowledge and conviction is in its nature
cool and unimpassioned.
Show respect for other people's knowledge, say what is needful
and civil, speak compactly, and emphasize a point by increasing
the earnestness of your tone, not the volume of your sound.
You will be called upon sometimes to converse with people
who rub you the wrong way. Concentrate, then, upon the topic,
whose facts are impersonal. Even if you cannot acquiesce,
be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires,
so that you disagree without being disagreeable.
The dialogue is more an occasion to seek light than an occasion
to generate heat. It is more conducive to mature judgment
than would be a shouting match between two small boys. The
ideal participant in conversation or dialogue is not the man
who comes to it with a ready-made theory which he refuses
to abandon. He does not say "Yes, yes" or "No, no", but an
enlightened "Yes, but" or "No, and yet."
To sit still and be pumped into is not an exhilarating experience.
Everyone in a dialogue should contribute; no one should be
denied his word; no one person should dominate. There are
some, possessed by a sense of mission, who will seek to seize
and hold the floor. They have a vast capacity for talk and
great cleverness in evading requests to state clearly what
all the torrent of words is about. As the Straw Man said in
The Wizard of Oz: "Some people without brains do an
awful lot of talking, don't they?"
In the interests of fair play, those who share in a dialogue
should see to it that the zealot is kept within bounds even
though he takes it as a personal affront.
The value of dialogue
To some people the world is so filled with antagonisms and
uncertainties that the resolving of differences of opinion
seems to be impossible. To others, life is so complex as to
be meaningless.
Neither view is right. By talking together reasonably we
may iron out the antagonisms. By exchanging views we may bring
meaning into a life which is too complicated for an individual
to grasp unaided. Through dialogue we enlarge our minds so
as to grasp new ideas and to reconcile the new with what is
old. In dialogue we are putting to use those qualities which
differentiate human beings from the lower animals: intelligence
and the communication of ideas.
Many Canadians have come to believe that dialogue may be
a more effective setting for nation building, or social reform,
or community revival, than is the battlefield. The heart and
soul of dialogue is this: to realize that there is no once-and-for-all
answer to a complicated historical or social problem, but
only an answer as of now based upon knowledge of what is going
on.
People have different ideas even about what is a solution.
Some are satisfied with a temporary settlement, and are content
to have a continuing dialogue in which every new settlement
is a step toward a final solution. Others pursue their purposes
with a sense of finality; they want things settled once and
for all; they wager for all or nothing.
It seems more rational to take the first course: to seek
a philosophy which is adequate for the circumstances of our
time. We must recall that ages are no more infallible than
individuals. Every age has held many opinions which subsequent
ages have deemed not only false but absurd. The way to progress
appears to lie in talking things over with one another, exchanging
and enlarging our ideas, so that we grow into our future.
That is dialogue.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
