Dialogue Frustration

by Joe Katzman at November 25, 2003 7:54 AM

In "Calpundit on Terrorism," Armed Liberal writes:

"It's not that they don't like me - hell, lots of people in the real world don't like me, which tells me that I'm an actual person as opposed to a Beanie Baby - it's that I really and truly just don't get the worldview that they are speaking from. I spend a lot of time on the left side of the media and blog world, and am increasingly finding islands there where the words are English and yet I just don't understand the concepts laid out in those words, and I'm finding that depressing and frustrating, given my goal of creating constructive dialog."

A.L., I wish I had a solution for your dialogue issue where the words are English but the meanings alien, and you want meaningful dialogue. What I do have is 2 alternatives, but here's the catch: the first is sometimes true, and only the second has any chance of creating real dialogue, and I can't guarantee either one.

Behind Door #1...

Your first option is to accept that the real meaning of the statements is the actions they support, or the behaviour patterns and preferences displayed over time. This is depressing, because real dialogue becomes the equivalent of winning the lottery. But sometimes it's true.

Think "Type I" for solipsism, or "i" for "ignorant" of you like.

George Orwell's "objective pro-Naziism" is one manifestation, and so is A.L.'s diagnosis of liberals who value preening moral purity, self satisfaction, and comfort above all else. Orson Scott Card's "On Lying" also talks about this type.

Hey, some left-liberals really don't understand what makes their civilization tick, but they've been taught to treat it the way an abusive parent does - or they may actually hate it. Some right wingers really are selfish pricks who don't give a damn, or can't tell the difference between economics and governance, or go certifiable at the mention of the word "c-l-i-n-t-o-n". Or there may be some kind of very personal agenda at work, in either case. It happens.

Reason almost never works here, only external pain severe enough to force internal turmoil and questioning. Fisking won't cause one's opponent to change, but it may back others of a similar persuasion away from that position and help feed the external pain level associated with it. It's an efffective boundary setter for dialogue if used sparingly and well, and an effective way to train and motivate the troops if you're completely on the other side.

Dialogue Solution: tune Type Is out quickly, and fisk only when presented with a can't miss target (N.B. not can't ignore, can't miss). Focus your presentation on those who have not yet made up their minds, or are on the other side but reachable. If there are too many Type Is around, the best you can do is sow serious doubts and cause some people to leave that area. Even a new willingness to 'venture outside' on occasion and meet you in a better online place is a big step forward.

If Calpundit is losing its status as that kind of better place, there's only so much you can do. The site owner has to conclude it's a problem, then deal with it. Backchannel and private sharing of examples from the comments around your dialogues may get you an ally - but remember, he has a lot of readers. Managing that many and still creating a good atmosphere is hard, and the difficulty increases faster than readership does.

P.S. Anyone with ideas re: how Winds of Change.NET can avoid this trap as it grows, please use the Comments section.

Door #2: Dealing With Type IIs...

Type IIs are, as the symbol suggests, people willing to engage in dialogue. You build better places, and support others who do, for them. The stronger this support structure is, the easier it becomes for people to migrate from both sides into "dialogue zones." Which may help sharpen your understanding of what you're really trying to build here at Winds of Change.NET, and via support for a network of liberal-centrist bloggers.

Some of those Type IIs are people you can just pick up and dialogue with, because they're already close to your starting point, or have a lot of similar background knowledge, or harbour serious doubts already. But sometimes, even with Type IIs, their worldview is so different from yours that the only way to begin a dialogue is to start from fundamental premises rather than specific proposals, or even overall analysis.

Let's Start At the Very Beginning

Which means your dialogue with Calpundit wouldn't even start from "what's to do in Iraq." It would have to start with topics like:

  • "Traditional notions of state sovereignty should remain absolute in an age of ethnic genocide, state terrorism and WMDs: discuss"
  • Why do humans fight wars? (no, that's not too basic)
  • "What role does military force play in the modern world?"
  • "Who should make decisions about the use of American military force, and why?" Which may lead to...
  • "What would have to change at the U.N. in order for it to become an effective body with respect to security issues? How likely is this?"
  • The idea that terrorism is a product of poverty.
  • "What is the role and importance of cultivated hatred in the Islamic world, and how can it be addressed effectively?"

Etcetera. And while you're having at those questions, the only way to do effective dialogue is to keep hammering back to fundamental premises to avoid diversion, always ask for evidence (esp. "where has this approach worked in the past?"), and offer counter-examples that show different approaches working or that shine a tough light on bad generalizations. Meanwhile, of course, one must be extremely fair and open to influence oneself in order to influence sincere others.

The absolute best guide I've ever found for this kind of work is Owen Harries "A Primer for Polemicists" in Commentary magazine, Sept. 1984 (PDF | Text).

The Deeper Discourse

That's the top level of the discussion, but it isn't the most important one when addressing groups with which one shares some common bonds. That title belongs to the deeper work of searching and probing for the underlying emotions and attachments in dialogue partners. It's about finding that language to really speak to each other, and to probe for areas of common understanding one can build upon. Many of your centrist friends could fairly be characterized as "Kosovo liberals," for instance - that was the "Darmok & Jilad at Tenagra" event that changed the way they talked about international relations. 9/11 worked for others like ex-peacenik leftist Tom Paine. Etc.

Still, let's face it: this is not even remotely easy to do. I've always found it extremely energy consuming, and respect those who will engage in it (tip of the hat here at Winds to praktike in particular). Being able to execute the techniques well in live situations is like learning a martial art, and practitioners of aikido, defensive tai chi, and jiu-jitsu in particular will be able to see a lot of parallels.

I Have Bad News, and "Good" News...

So, Does This Really Work?

Not necessarily. The bigger the worldview difference, the less shared ground, the harder dialogue gets. Then you throw in personalities on top of that, for good or ill. Some folks are just Type I, after all. Others simply refuse to do dialogue, it's either foreign or beyond them. A.L., you & I can think of commenters right here on Winds who were really trying to do dialogue as they saw it, and it was just... like Stevie Wonder trying to drive a motorbike, y'know?

So there you have it. For Type Is, dialogue won't work. For Type IIs, it might work but enormous energy is required if you're venturing as far as "alien worldview" territory.

Ironically, the thing that helps most is pain from the external environment. If there's enough pain from the external environment, it creates an inner questioning that's much more receptive to questioning from outside. It also helps sideline or eliminates the Type Is who would otherwise serve as influences to keep the examination from happening, by making other less likely to listen and by replacing their ideological support systems with alternative structures.

The fractal similarity of this dynamic to our economy, and to the larger conflict we're engaged in, are left as exercises for the reader. Shouldn't surprise, though - all are driven at their core by the same aspects and dynamics of human nature.

UPDATE: Dean Esmay has a good response that extends some of the ideas here. Note that he uses this word in its original sense:

"The liberal wants to find the truth, no matter where it leads him. If he encounters disagreement, the liberal wants to understand the other's position, with an open mind toward some exciting possibilities.... The goal, always, to find the truth, or, failing that get as close as possible to the optimum solution."

All rights reserved. This article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/dialogue_frustration.php

Persons wishing to contact the author of this article for reprints etc. should put a request in the Comments section, or send an email to "joe", over here @windsofchange.net.