The Fall (and Rise!) of Dialogue
Effective civic dialogue is vitally needed at this time in our country. Local communities can model how to talk about critical community issues with people from very different backgrounds and perspectives. This month, we highlight an important local economic dialogue that crossed faith and partisan boundaries and cultivated new relationships among Puget Sound neighbors. You will also learn about the questions we ask to help people open up their minds and hearts to these conversations. ~ Dale Nienow
Effective civic dialogue is vitally needed at this time in our country. Local communities can model how to talk about critical community issues with people from very different backgrounds and perspectives. This month, we highlight an important local economic dialogue that crossed faith and partisan boundaries and cultivated new relationships among Puget Sound neighbors. You will also learn about the questions we ask to help people open up their minds and hearts to these conversations. ~ Dale Nienow
Can We Talk? Beyond Divisive Public Dialogue
If you were asked to describe the state of public dialogue and civic engagement in your community, what would you say? The Center recently asked Sherry Timmerman Goodpaster, a community partner in northern Wisconsin, to share her thoughts. She said that “the issues surrounding Governor Walker have divided the rural communities in [her] part of the state. The conversations are painful and hurtful.The community is divided. Families are divided. Even family reunions are affected as people get into arguments over politics.” The divisiveness created by the governor’s initiatives has spilled out from the state capital into the communities across the state. This is not unique to Wisconsin. Public dialogue is spiraling down rapidly to a low standard throughout the nation. What if we stopped emulating divisive leaders?
Political speech is often used to gain power instead of inspiring people to be their highest and best selves. Many of our elected leaders, political pundits, and radio talk show hosts make their living by diminishing opponents and elevating their own perspectives. They seek to please the like-minded and use polarizing language to co-opt those in the middle. It is no longer enough to simply disagree with another’s viewpoint. The opponent must be labeled unpatriotic or a treasonous enemy of the American people. The more outrageous the accusations, the better the ratings.
It is easy for community members to repeat the sound bites they have picked up through the media. We are pummeled with these messages. When everyday citizens repeat these messages and opinions, opportunities for relationship and real dialogue are undermined. Sound bites cannot help us understand critical issues because they tell such a small slice of the story. There are groups that are working to offer a different kind of public engagement – the Center for Ethical Leadership, Everyday Democracy, and the Whidbey Institute, to name a few. At the Center, we have found that it helps to ask people to reflect upon their reactive impulses, because when righteousness and certainty are not held in check, they can block dialogue.
It also helps to focus conversation on creating a shared understanding of the whole picture of an issue. This encourages people to combine their analyses of the factors that contribute to issues and those that offer solutions. This creates a space for learning, a crucial step before developing solutions that work for the entire community.
Sherry wants to heal her community and bring a more productive dialogue to Wisconsin. As she and others take the responsibility to cultivate a more effective and civil local dialogue, it opens up new possibilities. We hope that encouraging higher standards for local public engagement will influence regional and national discourse and reverse the trend in civic dialogue.
If you were asked to describe the state of public dialogue and civic engagement in your community, what would you say? The Center recently asked Sherry Timmerman Goodpaster, a community partner in northern Wisconsin, to share her thoughts. She said that “the issues surrounding Governor Walker have divided the rural communities in [her] part of the state. The conversations are painful and hurtful.The community is divided. Families are divided. Even family reunions are affected as people get into arguments over politics.” The divisiveness created by the governor’s initiatives has spilled out from the state capital into the communities across the state. This is not unique to Wisconsin. Public dialogue is spiraling down rapidly to a low standard throughout the nation. What if we stopped emulating divisive leaders?
Political speech is often used to gain power instead of inspiring people to be their highest and best selves. Many of our elected leaders, political pundits, and radio talk show hosts make their living by diminishing opponents and elevating their own perspectives. They seek to please the like-minded and use polarizing language to co-opt those in the middle. It is no longer enough to simply disagree with another’s viewpoint. The opponent must be labeled unpatriotic or a treasonous enemy of the American people. The more outrageous the accusations, the better the ratings.
It is easy for community members to repeat the sound bites they have picked up through the media. We are pummeled with these messages. When everyday citizens repeat these messages and opinions, opportunities for relationship and real dialogue are undermined. Sound bites cannot help us understand critical issues because they tell such a small slice of the story. There are groups that are working to offer a different kind of public engagement – the Center for Ethical Leadership, Everyday Democracy, and the Whidbey Institute, to name a few. At the Center, we have found that it helps to ask people to reflect upon their reactive impulses, because when righteousness and certainty are not held in check, they can block dialogue.
It also helps to focus conversation on creating a shared understanding of the whole picture of an issue. This encourages people to combine their analyses of the factors that contribute to issues and those that offer solutions. This creates a space for learning, a crucial step before developing solutions that work for the entire community.
Sherry wants to heal her community and bring a more productive dialogue to Wisconsin. As she and others take the responsibility to cultivate a more effective and civil local dialogue, it opens up new possibilities. We hope that encouraging higher standards for local public engagement will influence regional and national discourse and reverse the trend in civic dialogue.
The Center Partners with Cascadia Center to Host Economic Dialogue
There’s a saying that in polite conversation, the topics of faith or politics are to be avoided. This is understandable – who hasn’t been to a dinner party ruined by divisive arguments and heated opinions? Politics and faith can be difficult boundaries for us to cross as people frequently get stuck in unproductive, and even hurtful, discussions. What happens when the community is invited to discuss both, with the added topic of economics, which is currently a hot button topic?
The Center for Ethical Leadership partnered with the Cascadia Center at Camp Brotherhood recently to hold a trans-partisan, inter-spiritual dialogue on the economy. CEL staff members, Karma Ruder and Dale Nienow, supported John Hale from the Cascadia Center in hosting this day. Seventy-five people gathered around this theme: “Our faith compels us to create a free and fair economy with opportunity for everyone.” Participants included conservatives, progressives, libertarians, independents, and Tea Party members from a variety of faith backgrounds. This day-long dialogue led to deep, respectful, and thoughtful discussions about the economy and its relationships to how we live together in this society.
What made the dialogue work?
Throughout the day, people had let go of the stereotypes they held of each other; the simplistic and narrow stereotypes didn’t fit. One long-time progressive activist commented, “I just had a fascinating conversation with a libertarian woman who was packing a side-arm on her hip. As she talked about the need to address corporate abuses, we found common ground. I don’t know what to make of the image I have carried about her view point.” This was a common sentiment across all the political ideologies and faiths. Participants had deep appreciation for the respectful way people listened to each other. They were delighted to get to know real people and move beyond previously held stereotypes.
When we choose to meet as community neighbors, and ignore the divisive patterns of interaction modeled by political leaders, we can change the storyline. Together, we can share smart conversations to strengthen our communities..
There’s a saying that in polite conversation, the topics of faith or politics are to be avoided. This is understandable – who hasn’t been to a dinner party ruined by divisive arguments and heated opinions? Politics and faith can be difficult boundaries for us to cross as people frequently get stuck in unproductive, and even hurtful, discussions. What happens when the community is invited to discuss both, with the added topic of economics, which is currently a hot button topic?
The Center for Ethical Leadership partnered with the Cascadia Center at Camp Brotherhood recently to hold a trans-partisan, inter-spiritual dialogue on the economy. CEL staff members, Karma Ruder and Dale Nienow, supported John Hale from the Cascadia Center in hosting this day. Seventy-five people gathered around this theme: “Our faith compels us to create a free and fair economy with opportunity for everyone.” Participants included conservatives, progressives, libertarians, independents, and Tea Party members from a variety of faith backgrounds. This day-long dialogue led to deep, respectful, and thoughtful discussions about the economy and its relationships to how we live together in this society.
What made the dialogue work?
- We created a safe and respectful space that could hold the diversity in the room.Using the Gracious Space approaches developed by the Center over the past decade, we invited participants to describe the kind of space that would help them feel safe and supported.
- We invited people to focus on learning together and not to force consensus for solutions. Participants were encouraged to stay open to discovering new ideas.
- The discussions were held in small groups, sitting knee-to-knee where participants could have more personal interaction and build relationships. This allowed them to see each other as members of the same Puget Sound community, rather than as adversaries.
Throughout the day, people had let go of the stereotypes they held of each other; the simplistic and narrow stereotypes didn’t fit. One long-time progressive activist commented, “I just had a fascinating conversation with a libertarian woman who was packing a side-arm on her hip. As she talked about the need to address corporate abuses, we found common ground. I don’t know what to make of the image I have carried about her view point.” This was a common sentiment across all the political ideologies and faiths. Participants had deep appreciation for the respectful way people listened to each other. They were delighted to get to know real people and move beyond previously held stereotypes.
When we choose to meet as community neighbors, and ignore the divisive patterns of interaction modeled by political leaders, we can change the storyline. Together, we can share smart conversations to strengthen our communities..
Compelling Questions Open Minds and Hearts
When bringing diverse groups together, it is important to set the stage for a positive encounter. This is particularly true when those gathered are suspicious of each other or have limited first-hand experience with each other.
When the Center works with groups like this, we begin by inviting people into conversations. By opening with dialogue, participants find common ground, learn about the roots of varying points of view, and come to see each other as partners instead of adversaries. This lays the groundwork for more difficult conversations.
Using compelling questions, we elicit the stories that help people remember their best capacities. At a recent gathering with participants who represented a broad spectrum of different political views and faith traditions, participants were asked, “Remember a time when you were in a diverse group and were open to learning something you had not expected to learn,” and shared their stories in pairs.
From the stories, the whole group identified what elements contributed to opening up to learning. This set the tone for the entire day. For more information, contact Dale Nienow.
When bringing diverse groups together, it is important to set the stage for a positive encounter. This is particularly true when those gathered are suspicious of each other or have limited first-hand experience with each other.
When the Center works with groups like this, we begin by inviting people into conversations. By opening with dialogue, participants find common ground, learn about the roots of varying points of view, and come to see each other as partners instead of adversaries. This lays the groundwork for more difficult conversations.
Using compelling questions, we elicit the stories that help people remember their best capacities. At a recent gathering with participants who represented a broad spectrum of different political views and faith traditions, participants were asked, “Remember a time when you were in a diverse group and were open to learning something you had not expected to learn,” and shared their stories in pairs.
From the stories, the whole group identified what elements contributed to opening up to learning. This set the tone for the entire day. For more information, contact Dale Nienow.
RSS Feed