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.