Deep Democracy: Dialogue Guidelines
Some guidelines for dialogue when people in a community disagree - and why dialogue is usually the right choice, not debate or discussion
A short post — I have long made the distinction between debate, discussion, and dialogue. Debate is competitive, with each speaker trying to persuade others to adopt their position. Discussion is for exchange of ideas and information. Dialogue is a deeper exploration of differences, with the aim of understanding those who have different ideas, without an aim of persuading or being persuaded. Debate is about winning, discussion about learning, and dialogue is more about connecting with each other as persons.
In a community that practices deep democracy, every voice matters, though not all will get exactly what they want. Deep democracy is far more than just a majoritarian vote version of democracy after brief debate and/or discussion. Dialogue focuses on understanding each other and fosters more equitable relationships and connection. In practice, dialogue can also lead to those participating changing their mindsets, often in ways nobody could have predicted ahead of time. But changing minds is not the focus of dialogue, it is a possible and common outcome. When it does happen, if often leads to a better resolution of the conflict being addressed, than debate or discussion or a quick vote would. New ideas can come up and also be explored together.
I have found the list below very useful in defining what dialogue is and isn’t. There are other guidelines I’ve used for circles and other discussion or dialogue groups. This resource may be of help in your community when you need to talk about issues around which your community members have disagreement, especially profound disagreement, and you want to be sure you understand each other (and yourself) before coming to a decision.
Source: Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. 4th. edition. Duane Campbell. 2010. Allyn and Bacon.
Dialogue
I search for basic agreements.
I search for strengths in your position.
I reflect on my position.
I consider the possibility of finding a better solution than mine or yours.
I assume that many people have a piece of the answer.
I want to find common ground.
I submit my best thinking hoping your reflection will improve it.
I remain open to talk about the subject later on.
Anti-dialogue:
I search for glaring differences.
I search for weaknesses in your position.
I attack your position.
I denigrate you and your position.
I defend my solution and exclude yours.
I am invested wholeheartedly in my beliefs.
I assume there is one right answer, and that I have it.
I want to win.
I submit my best thinking and defend it to show it is right.
I expect to settle this here and now.
I seek to silence those who disagree with my position.