Acquiring special skills for the art of dialog

Acquiring special skills for the art of dialog

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Dialogs can be conducted in different formats.
The simplest is a conversation between two people. But not every
such exchange of words, however, can be called a conversation or
dialog. A true conversation or dialog is, according to Thomas
Moore (1779-1852), "an interpretation of worlds, a genuine
intercourse of souls, which does not have to be self-consciously
profound but does have to touch matters of concern to the soul."

A genuine conversation or dialog can take place only if the
two sides have the ability to listen to each other and talk to
each other. "The art of conversation," wrote William Hazlitt in
1826, "is the art of hearing and the art of being heard." If in
an exchange of words the two sides talk about different matters,
then usually they do not listen to each other and do not talk to
each other either. They talk past each other. This is not a
conversation or a dialog. This is a double monolog.

Organizing a meeting for a group of people with the aim of
eliciting a dialog is not a simple matter. A number of factors
must be considered carefully. These include the complexity and
scope of the problem to be discussed, the purpose of the dialog,
and the number of participants to be invited. A dialog to discuss
a complex national matter like economic and political reform to
rescue the country from its present crisis cannot possibly be
conducted as a one-shot affair. Especially if the number of
participants is large, say 50 or more.

Even if such a meeting is designed simply to make an inventory
concerning the views that are alive among university students, a
one-shot affair will still not be sufficient, in my opinion. The
best format for this kind of dialog is a series of symposia. In
each symposium a specific aspect of this complex problem would be
discussed, and each discussion must be led or moderated by a
person whose expertise in the specific aspect is indisputable.

The breakdown of a complex issue into a number of more
specific topics is necessary to ensure that the discussion will
remain manageable. Compressing the discussion into just one
meeting will at best result in a superficial and inadequate
understanding of the problem. Such understanding will not bring
us closer to any solution.

A dialog can be called successful only if all the opinions
expressed in it can be structured to make a comprehensive and
systematic view of the problem. This is possible only --
according to Ralph Waldo Emerson -- if there is confidence and
perfect understanding among the participants, each of whom must
be sincere. For this purpose it is absolutely imperative that the
participants adhere to the ethics of dialog, i.e. "listen
acutely" and "say thinkingly". These are two mentally taxing acts
because, according to Cynthia Ozak, "to listen acutely is to be
powerless, even if you sit on a throne", and "to say thinkingly
what everybody says without thinking is the most difficult thing
in the world," according to Emile Auguste Chartier (1868-1951).

Listen to what is being said by other participants, and
express your opinions as clearly as possible without repeating or
duplicating what has already been said by others. Simple as this
recipe may sound, in reality it is very hard for a moderator in
any symposium to make participants observe this basic rule.
Especially if the meeting is attended by "peacocks", i.e. persons
who love to hear themselves talking. Equally troublesome are
participants who think that they are the experts or the
authorities on the subject. In cases like this it is important
that the moderator be firm and fair. Gentle if possible and rude
if necessary. Otherwise the conference will degenerate into
rubbish.

If the purpose of a dialog is to have a more delimited problem
analyzed and to develop formulae concerning possible ways of
solving the problem, then the recommended format is a seminar.
The participants in this kind of seminar must prepare analyses of
the problem and their ideas of solving the problem in advance,
both of which must be methodologically accountable.

And here the problem of ethics is of the highest importance.
Only when each participant contributes the best view he or she
can develop, when there is tolerance of different views,
cooperation among the participants to sort out the differences
and put the remaining pieces together into a coherent picture and
when ethics are strictly observed can a seminar attain its
objective. According to Emerson again, in this kind of seminar,
every participant must resist the temptation to "talk for
victory", and do his or her best to talk instead "for truth, for
comfort, and joy."

In a dialog about economic and political reforms for our
country, these things are very important to remember. I am quite
sure there are significant differences in views about the meaning
of political reform and the purpose of economic reform between
the Armed Forces on the one hand, and demonstrating students on
the other. If such differences did not exist, we would not have
this need for a dialog in the first place. That is if by
"university students" we mean students who are conducting
demonstrations now and not students who were demonstrating in
1966.

How are these differences going to be sorted out? I think it
depends on the purpose of the meeting. If the meeting is merely
designed "to absorb students' aspirations", then no serious
problems will be encountered. This kind of design implies that
there exists already a model for economic and political reform
which does not need to be discussed with the students. The
students or their representatives simply state their views and
aspirations, and they will be put in the right cell within the
big model. If there is a view which does not fit into any cell,
it can simply be disregarded and thrown out.

But will such a dialog touch "matters of concern to the soul"?
This approach will not bring about a "happy conversation" or
dialog where, paraphrasing Samuel Johnson, "there is no
competition, no vanity, but a calm quiet interchange of
sentiments".

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.