VOL. 50, No. 8 HEAD OFFICE: MONTREAL, AUGUST 1969

Time to Talk Things Over

MAN IS THE ONLY CREATURE who can talk himself intotrouble, but he is also the only creature who bytalking things over can find a way out of trouble. Thehistory of any improvement in politics, business orsociety, is a course of persistent, reasonable, confronta-tion of facts and differing ideas with one another.

Anyone who unswervingly refuses to submit hisideas to the test of dialogue will be quite unfit to meetthe demands of existence in these days. Everyone,whatever side he supports in discussion of art, religion,government, business or education, must recognizethat technological extension of human capacity todo things has worked a radical change upon ourenvironment and demands new ways of thinking,feeling, valuing and deciding what is to be done.The ideal society in an age of total communicationis the civilization of the dialogue.

It would be fatal to the values in our way of life ifwe were to give in to the technological forces whichthreaten our personal reception and communicationof ideas. We could become so busy tending our time-saving devices that we have no time to marshal andexpress our innermost thoughts and ideals; we couldlazily allow the mass media to deaden our minds withsinging commercials and ready-made opinions; wecould shush one another in dimly lighted televisonrooms instead of talking, debating, and expressingourselves in the joint discovery of exciting and inspir-ing new facts and ideas.

Discussion takes for granted that everyone has hadexperiences which may contribute something of valueto the group. It recognizes that one does not possessthe whole truth, but seeks, pursues, and finds somepart of it.

Dialogue is the language of the adventurer, con-fronting new things, seeking to enlarge his territory,wanting to expand his knowledge, eager to deepenhis understanding. Monologue is the language of theprimitive-brained man who thinks he is the centre ofthe universe. Dialogue is constructive because it addsto knowledge; monologue is destructive because itevidences fear that a creed or opinion is in danger ofbeing disproved by question and answer.

Con versation

It is important for most people to talk and to beheard, to voice their problems, to get things off theirminds. A really satisfying talk is one of the greatestpleasures there is.

Conversation has four main purposes: to give in-formation, to get information, to persuade, and toshow a human interest in other human beings. Nomeasure comes before the high court of Parliamentuntil it has been long prepared by the grand jury ofthe talkers.

Conversation is the simplest form of dialogue. Itwas conversation, in this form, in the age of Socrates,an age without books or their latter-day substitutes,which laid the foundation of the civilization we enjoy.It was conversation of which the New Testament wascomposed. It was conversation among scholars in abookless world which revived learning at the end ofthe dark ages.

Good conversation stretches your mind. Even ifno usable conclusions are reached through a conversa-tion, there is profit in the exercise, for we have churnedup our minds so as to see new views. But to make thebest of it, people must realize conversation as a mentaloccupation, and not merely a dribbling into words ofcasual thoughts.

Conversation consists of both transmission andreception. One man put it neatly when he said: "Ilike so much to talk that 1 am willing to pay myaudience by listening in my turn." To speak and tolisten brings into the midst of the group masses ofexperience, anecdote, cross-lights, quotation, histori-cal incidents, the whole range of minds centred uponthe topic from all points of the compass.

There can be a lively diversity of views expressedwithout appeal to any book of rules of order. You donot need an elaboration of formality, just ordinarypoliteness. For example, a brilliant conversationalistis not one who holds a group spellbound, but one whodraws everyone else in.

Intelligent conversation is only fit for intelligentsociety. It is downright abhorrent to narrow-mindedpeople who are fixed on a plane of the commonplaceand dull. Nothing can be more deadly boring than this:two persons saying words about something in whichneither is interested. Rag-bag conversation aboutthreadbare things is unprofitable, depressing andfutile. You would die of shame if you heard it playedback on a tape recorder.

The mistake that many earnest and persistenttalkers make is to suppose that to be engrossed in asubject is the same thing as being engrossing. Theself-centred person talks without reference to hislisteners’ interests. If he has been reading aboutdinosaurs or water pollution or the state of unrest inmid-Africa, he brings out all that is in his mind onthe topic.

Story-telling is not conversation, but parlour enter-taining. The person is a bore who, on the sidewalk orin a caf6, on the train or in an office, buttonholes youto listen to anecdotes and jokes pulled out of the air.As Ernest Dimnet wrote in What We Live By: "Storiesare the stupid man’s wit."

Dialogue

Dialogue is conversation with a purpose. It isreason’s only weapon. It is a civilized operation,democratic and constructive, and those who refusedialogue are playing a game with some serious over-tones. There was no dialogue in the primitive medicine-man’s manipulation of people’s passions. There wasno dialogue for Stalin, who refrained from debatinghis views in favour of exterminating his opponentsphysically or compromising them personally.

Democratic institutions and political freedom can-not survive without discussion, criticism, and delibera-tion. Are we too busy enjoying life to engage in adialogue designed to make possible the continuationof life? Or too ignorant? Or too lethargic? Or tooparasitical? All these entered into the decline of theRoman Empire.

To take useful part in reaching decisions is to seekunderstanding through consideration of alternatives.In this debate, traditions and dogmas rub each otherdown. We attain insight and understanding.

A dialogue is not a bargain-basement transactionwith haggling and bickering, a low form of negotia-tion. Neither is it a situation in which A confronts Bin a contest, but a conversation in which each presentsfacts and each considers the other’s facts. It is areasonable exchange of ideas, bringing into being anew body of knowledge. It takes you out of thedoldrums of fiddling with good intentions into theregion where you act with knowledge and under-standing.

Monopoly of the conversation has no place indialogue. The ball must be thrown back and forth.There is give and take. Participants expect to findthings out by examining ideas and facts from severalpoints of view.

This exercise reveals the true personality of thosetaking part in it. It dissolves the solemn humbug andpunctures the know-it-all; it unveils the person whospeaks in malice or in self-interest. It reduces prej-udice and builds up mutual confidence, the hallmarkof social intercourse among equals.

See from other viewpoints

Impartiality in listening to points of view is a greataid to the making of good judgments about what isbeing discussed, and this requires that we try honestlyto see things through the other person’s eyes.

Many irritations in society are due to the fact thatsome people do not recognize problems which othersthink are important. Two cultures may have institu-tions that look very much alike to the outside observer,and words in their languages which are so alike as tosuggest the same meanings, but the realities aredifferent.

When we go abroad we are accustomed to accom-modating ourselves to evident differences, such asthose of dress, language and architecture. Where werun into trouble is in the little differences: the taste ofcoffee in England, the siesta hour in Italy, the soundsin the narrow streets of Paris, the rosary of devotionformed by the 24,000 bell-ringing shrines in Benares.These things, nevertheless, are an essential part of theeveryday life of people living in those places.

This is not to say that we must be pleased byall sights and sounds. It is quite possible to formand hold a strong opinion of our own and yet torealize that it is after all only one point of view.

In praiseworthy dialogue we show respect for theother man’s opinions, and try to push the right buttonto open him up so that we learn his real thoughts. Itis easy and immature to recognize only the spuriousand mistaken in a man’s contentions: it requires moreeffort and intelligence to recognize and admit theexcellence of some of his ideas.

There are certain simple rules associated witheffective dialogue. Much that passes for dialogue isnot that at all, but merely the noise made by contend-ing propagandists. Such a debate is governed by therules of the prize-fight: "Shake hands ... ready...gong!"

Good dialogue requires common substance, a topicabout which the participants are informed and towhich all can make a contribution by original thinking.It requires a large measure of goodwill. It begins in anact of faith: the assumption that those who conversewill speak in honesty for the purpose of reachingunderstanding, and with generosity toward oneanother.

The ground rules for dialogue do not call for thatglowering acquaintance with Bourinot or Robert’sRules of Order so insisted upon by militant chairmen,but only those appropriate to mutual enlightenmentand to growth of knowledge in all those participating:"Use reason; be fair and gracious."

A good way to start a dialogue is by asking ques-tions and listening to the answers. When Napoleonnoticed that his councillors were simply echoingwhatever he said he was quick to call them to order."You are not here," he told them, "to agree with me,but to express your own views."

It is by comparison of views that we reason our waytoward truth. We increase the odds of finding the bestsolution to a problem by considering alternatives.

Do some homeworkThe man who believes in dialogue does not come to

the conference table with a fistful of fast deals but witha head full of constructive ideas. He has studied thesubject so that he does not need to waste time inquibbles about trifles or to indulge in off-the-cuffmasterminding. He has something to contribute thatis relevant to the topic.

When approaching a dialogue, it is well to sketchout your theme roughly. The actual presentation willsee the details changed in many points, but thegeneral idea of what your points are and where theyfit into the debate ought to be clear in your mind. Thenget busy collecting materials, the facts you will needso that you may present your case effectively. Marshalyour thoughts in orderly array.

If the dialogue is to be about an important matter,it is beneficial if all who will participate prepare asort of "white paper" or preliminary brief, andcirculate it. Then everyone will come to the table withan over-all view of the problems, prepared to discussthe way in which the varying ideas or proposals maybe reconciled.

"Facts" are worse than useless unless they areaccurate. Inaccuracy does not necessarily meandeceitfulness, but may take the form of not beingparticular to be exact.

Facts are different from opinion. Look at theconfusion caused in many conversations when peopleapply differing opinions to the same body of facts.They confuse belief with evidence, and insist upon thetruth of a statement because they believe it to be so.Truly, it is not things, but people’s opinions aboutthings, that trouble mankind.

Mutual understanding is helped by clear definition.Make sure that everyone knows exactly what yourlanguage means. It helps, often, to define conflictingarguments with clarity, so as to arrive at the criticalpoint free of non-essentials. To do this honestly youneed to understand not only the technicalities but thenature of what is proposed. If the point is not clearto you, say: "Well, if my view of this is not accept-able, could you make some proposals?" This leavesyou free to modify your view if given convincingreasons.

Make sure that the real problem is brought outinto the open. There are no solutions to unknownproblems. Einstein is quoted as saying: "The formula-tion of a problem is often more essential than itssolution." And John Dewey summarizes the procedure

well in his How We Think: first there is awareness ofthe problem, resulting in perplexity; then definition ofthe problem by analysis and observation; then con-sideration of different solutions; selection of the mosteffective solution; verificatioh of its fitness to attainthe desired result.

Sweeping generalities must be broken down if theyare to be digested into something useful. Smallproblems are more easily solved than large ones, butat the same time the pattern of the whole must bekept in mind. People discuss and debate certainfragments of a total situation. For example: war inVietnam, hunger in Africa, poverty in America,missiles in the sky. The overriding concern of mankindis not the survival of this or that nation-state or thesaving of some people from hunger: the over-allissue at stake is the survival of the human race.

Keep to the point

In discussing the small problems within the largepicture it is necessary to stick to the point. The trulybasic elements in a good pictorial composition areunity and simplicity. No picture can be strong, and nospoken presentation can be effective, if it tries to tellseveral stories at once.

Most of us, when we get on a subject we think weknow, are likely to say too much. The centre of theanswer to a question should be the point of the ques-tion and the circumference no wider than is needed toanswer the question adequately. Irrelevant partic-ularities slow down conversation and sometimesbring it to a complete stop. Everyone knows thefeeling of frustration caused by people who digressfrom the point in a spate of words and never omit anunnecessary fact.

Dialogue is seeking truth. St. Thomas Aquinas said:"An angel perceives the truth by simple apprehension,whereas man becomes acquainted with a simple truthby a process from manifold data." The search involveshaving willingness of mind to reach out to that whichis not yet understood, or even to something which atfirst repels you. When one idea supplements anotherit is surprising how often a joint truth emerges fromthe dialogue of persons who started with divergentbeliefs.

Some solutions to problems may seem harsh, butno true values are destroyed by learning the truthabout them. Pontius Pilate stands condemned inhistory not because he asked a great question: "Whatis truth ?" but because he did not wait for an answer.

The honest person in a dialogue is he who does hisbest to learn and to tell the truth, confesses to uncer-tainty when he is uncertain, does not pretend toknowledge he does not have, and is candid and fair.

The benison of silenceSometimes it is well to converse mostly in pauses.

Mozart is quoted as saying: "My rests are moreimportant than my notes."

There are, of course, modes of silence: that of

listless ignorance and that of intelligent attention. Toask oneself what can be left unsaid is a golden attributein diplomacy and it plays a big part in that everydaytact that helps people to get along better with oneanother.

Sometimes it is well, during a dialogue, to remainsilent even though it makes you appear eccentric.One man, popular on committees, carried a littlecard which he set up on the table before him. On it hehad written: "Keep quiet." James Simpson, the clerkwho became chairman of Marshall Field and Com-pany, smoked cigars so as to be sure he would keephis mouth shut in conferences. Perhaps he was copyingthe geese migrating over the mountain Taurus, whichis full of eagles. The geese took up stones in theirbills to restrain their gaggling, thus passing over theeagles without being heard.

Silence is not to be confused with listening. Everyparticipant in a dialogue has the duty to listen. Listen-ing intently and asking pertinent questions provideyou with the needed information for orderly mentalprocessing.

Listening that is merely courteous is not goodenough: you need to be interested in what is beingsaid, keen to learn what is in the speaker’s mind.This has the added advantage of assuring him of yourentire fairness and predisposing him to a like attitude.

When you listen attentively you may learn aboutoptions that are not at once visible. You listen to thefacts, but you concentrate on finding what they alladd up to. If you are too busy thinking of what youare going to say next you miss the points and end upin the confusion of a completely unrelated line oftalk.

There is little room in dialogue for hot and hastywords. The only downright prohibition in the rulesgoverning dialogue is against losing your temper,even in the face of the most petulant or waspishremarks.

Dialogue should be marked by urbanity. Begin in afriendly way, express your views coolly and withoutpassion. If you assert your ideas with vehemence youwill be suspected of wilfully trying to shout down theideas of others, because the expression of knowledgeand conviction is in its nature cool and unimpassioned.

Show respect for other people’s knowledge, saywhat is needful and civil, speak compactly, andemphasize a point by increasing the earnestness ofyour tone, not the volume of your sound.

You will be called upon sometimes to converse withpeople who rub you the wrong way. Concentrate,then, upon the topic, whose facts are impersonal.Even if you cannot acquiesce, be sympathetic with theother person’s ideas and desires, so that you disagreewithout being disagreeable.

The dialogue is more an occasion to seek light thanan occasion to generate heat. It is more conducive tomature judgment than would be a shouting match

Postage paid in cash at third class rate.Permit No. 10005 in bulk-en hombre.

between two small boys. The ideal participant in con-versation or dialogue is not the man who comes to itwith a ready-made theory which he refuses to abandon.He does not say "Yes, yes" or "No, no", but anenlightened "Yes, but" or "No, and yet."

To sit still and be pumped into is not an exhilarat-ing experience. Everyone in a dialogue should con-tribute; no one should be denied his word; no oneperson should dominate. There are some, possessedby a sense of mission, who will seek to seize and holdthe floor. They have a vast capacity for talk and greatcleverness in evading requests to state clearly what allthe torrent of words is about. As the Straw Man saidin The Wizard of Oz: "Some people without brains doan awful lot of talking, don’t they ?"

In the interests of fair play, those who share in adialogue should see to it that the zealot is kept withinbounds even though he takes it as a personal affront.

The value of dialogue

To some people the world is so filled with antag-onisms and uncertainties that the resolving ofdifferences of opinion seems to be impossible. Toothers, life is so complex as to be meaningless.

Neither view is right. By talking together reasonablywe may iron out the antagonisms. By exchanging viewswe may bring meaning into a life which is too compli-cated for an individual to grasp unaided. Throughdialogue we enlarge our minds so as to grasp newideas and to reconcile the new with what is old. Indialogue we are putting to use those qualities whichdifferentiate human beings from the lower animals:intelligence and the communication of ideas.

Many Canadians have come to believe that dialoguemay be a more effective setting for nation building, orsocial reform, or community revival, than is thebattlefield. The heart and soul of dialogue is this: torealize that there is no once-and-for-all answer to acomplicated historical or social problem, but only ananswer as of now based upon knowledge of whatis going on.

People have different ideas even about what is asolution. Some are satisfied with a temporary settle-ment, and are content to have a continuing dialogue inwhich every new settlement is a step toward a finalsolution. Others pursue their purposes with a sense offinality; they want things settled once and for all; theywager for all or nothing.

It seems more rational to take the first course: toseek a philosophy which is adequate for the cir-cumstances of our time. We must recall that ages areno more infallible than individuals. Every age has heldmany opinions which subsequent ages have deemed notonly false but absurd. The way to progress appears tolie in talking things over with one another, exchangingand enlarging our ideas, so that we grow into ourfuture. That is dialogue.

PRINTED IN CANADA