C. Becker, L. Chasin, R. Chasin, M. Herzig, and S. Roth (1995) From stuck debate to new conversation on controversial issues: a report from the Public Conversations Project.

_______________________________________________________

‒          When democracy works well: a broad and open discussion

‒          A ‘living tradition’, like a ‘living metaphor’, involves indeterminacy - an ongoing, open conversation.

‒          Each ‘stuckness’ is thus talked out.

‒          Debate: irreconcilable polarities: two clear horizons; two clear sides; clear oppositions.

‒          In these clearly two-sided conflicts,

                                    Each side represented

                                    Each side equal time

                                    Each side taken seriously, etc.

‒          But often they can become perversely counter-productive:

                                    Analysis becomes a slave to dogma

                                    Advocacy gets laced with vituperation

                                    Argument degenerates into diatribe

                                    Discussions become shouting matches

Compromise seen as surrender... a widely accepted resolution becomes hard to imagine

‒          The time-honored practices of democracy can work to intensify and entrench conflict

Dominant discourses

‒          Polarized conversations conform to dominant discourses.

‒          Delineates an either-or, win-lose bipolarity

‒          Benefits:         i) member of a group;

                                    ii) supporters

‒          Costs:  i) portrays opponents as single-minded and malevolent;

ii) to be loyal to one’s group, one must suppress doubts, uncertainties, and ideas about alternatives;

                                    iii) complexity and one’s own authenticity is sacrificed to unity.

‒          Dominant discourses sustained by a number of forces: media, bureaucracies, and those in power

‒          Win-lose exchanges create:

i) losers who feel they must retaliate to regain lost respect, integrity, and security

                                    ii) winners who fear to lose disputed territory won at great cost.

‒          Costs, not only for participants, but also for non participants:

                                    i) those who feel conflicted will feel their views unwelcome

                                    ii) will place themselves safely ‘on the sidelines’ and not speak

iii) fear their reluctance to be politically ‘committed’ will be seen as being ‘soft’

                                    iv) the may stop conversing, even with themselves - who am I to speak?

‒          Democracy suffers

Dialogue as an alternative to polarized debate

‒          Dialogue:

                        i) exchanges in which people speak and listen openly and respectfully

                        ii) exchange experiences, perspectives, and beliefs

                        iii) speak as individuals over a range of stances

                        iv) listen with interest

                        v) differences become resources

‒          Debate:

                        i) people speak from a position of certainty as representatives:

                        ii) defending their own beliefs

                        iii) attacking the other side

                        iv) listen to oppose

                        v) differences become barriers, insurmountable social problems

‒          Old patterns of retaliation lose their appeal, as the experience of being respected increases

Clinical skills

‒          Group of family therapists

‒          Similarities between polarized public debates and ‘struck’ families

‒          Conflicted couples:

                        i) tend to ‘overgeneralize’

                        ii) to build ‘a case’ about the other

                        iii) to support the case by ‘selective attention’

                        iv) replete with ‘blaming’ and ‘counter attack’

‒          In consulting room see couples move from ‘impasse’ to dialogue, from ‘stuckness’ to fluidity:

                        i) new ways of being together

                        ii) ways which do not require shouting or self-silencing

‒          Choice of abortion controversy for early work: create safe atmosphere to encourage expressions of :

                        i) ethical complexity

                        ii) no urges to ‘convert’ other side

                        iii) welcome ‘diversity’

                        iv) free flow of genuine exploration

Background to the model

Project team has worked together since 1989. Tested a single dialogue session among strangers who have different views on abortion. 19 such sessions. Groups range from 4 to 8. We have found groups of six ideal. Sessions took place from 6.00 to 9.30pm on weekday evenings.

Outline of the model

Seven steps:

‒          1 telephone call;

‒          2 light dinner;

‒          3 orientation (20 mins): begin by suggesting participants make agreements with each other maintain confidentiality; to use respectful language; to let each person finish speaking; and to allow ‘passing’ in response to a question.

‒          4 First 45 mins – three questions (two go-rounds and one popcorn):

i) “We would like you to say something about your own life experiences in relation to the issue of abortion. For example, something about your personal history with the issue, how you got interested, what your involvement has been”

                        ii) “What is at the heart of the matter for you?”

iii) “Many people have within their general approach some grey areas, some dilemmas about their own beliefs, or even conflicts within themselves. Sometimes these grey areas are revealed when people consider hard-case circumstances in which a prolife person might want to allow an abortion, or situations in which a prochoice person might not want to permit an abortion. Or...”

‒          5 Next 65 mins – ask questions of each other

‒          6 Last 20 mins – “What do you think you have done to make this conversation go, or not go, as it has?” And: “Have you any parting thoughts you would like to share?”

‒          7 Few weeks later: follow up telephone call

Some of the replies to the questions:

i) “We would like you to say something about your own life experiences in relation to the issue of abortion. For example, something about your personal history with the issue, how you got interested, what your involvement has been”

Prolife Woman: As a sophomore, my closest friend took it upon herself to be president of the prolife group on campus ... [She] was physically handicapped with cerebral palsy and she was very concerned about the value our society places on handicapped individuals. She died, for reasons we still don't understand to this day, and I couldn't bear to see all that she worked so hard for go by the wayside.... At this point, I had come to what I term a prolife feminist position.

Prochoice Man: Well, I was catapulted into this many decades ago because my sister had an abortion and it turned out that the baby's father was my father. And that's a hard place to begin to think about all this stuff. When I was married, my wife had three miscarriages before our son was born and I have seen what it does to a woman, even in terms of that being something she has no control over... I cannot advise people about [abortion]. I have to see what their particular feeling is.

ii) “What is at the heart of the matter for you?”

Prochoice Woman: I think the moral maturity of women is what's really at stake for me. Anything that legislates or removes choice from an individual woman removes the respect for her as a mature, moral person who is capable of making decisions that are right for her in the context of her life and her relationships.

Prolife Woman: The fact that a child is wanted or not wanted by someone else-it would frighten me to think that the importance of my life is contingent upon the fact that someone wants me. I am special in myself and it doesn't matter to me whether someone wants me. My life certainly shouldn't depend on it at any stage.

iii) “Many people have within their general approach some grey areas, some dilemmas about their own beliefs, or even conflicts within themselves. Sometimes these grey areas are revealed when people consider hard-case circumstances in which a prolife person might want to allow an abortion, or situations in which a prochoice person might not want to permit an abortion. Or...”

Prolife Man: I guess the way I look at it, if you terminate that life ... there's an evil there. If it's a case of an unwanted pregnancy, there's an evil there. If it's a byproduct of rape or incest, if you have a severely impaired baby in the process, all of those things are evils. And where the uncertainty comes in for me is [in a situation like] a 13 year old girl has just been raped by her uncle and it's basically going to destroy her life.... And I can't just sit there and say, on my high moral horse, "It's the ultimate universal wrong to kill an unborn child." Because I know that there are other bad things in the world and you've got to balance them.

Prochoice Woman: The sanctity of life is precious to me . . and I don't think God takes it lightly that we make a decision about choosing to end a life, for whatever reason it may be. I would like us not to make abortion something we can do without having to think about it.... I don't think there is a right answer. Sometimes there is a less bad answer than another.

Prolife Woman: One time I was discussing this issue with a friend and he said. "Obviously you never grew up an unwanted child." And he was right, they wanted me. I think of the children that suffer and think to myself, would it have been better if they had been aborted? Then I think, well, they have life. But it's really hard to watch children in pain and sometimes it's hard to be prolife, but I'm so prolife. So that's something I really struggle with.

Prochoice Woman: After I had my baby I realized that I would never have an abortion, personally. That changed my personal view of abortion.... It bothers me that there hasn't been much dialogue within the prochoice community about how far along abortions should be allowed. To me an end point would be 5 or 6 months. That, to me, is the point where we are talking about a baby, not a fetus.

Guiding objectives

1. Preparing participants for a journey

i. draw attention to differences between debate and dialogue

ii offer expectations of the session

iii exhibit themselves as models for the respectful and attentive ways of talking required

2. Creating a safe context

i ask participants to come rhetorically disarmed

ii role clarity: what is expected of whom when

iii involve participants as co-investigators

iv do not claim to be all-knowing experts

3. Avoiding old debate

i people not reveal their positions at dinner: meet as ordinary persons

ii assigned seats next to opponents

iii pass rule

iv set aside pre-prepared responses

v speak personally

4. Fostering creative conversation

            Three questions:

‒          i) “We would like you to say something about your own life experiences in relation to the issue of abortion. For example, something about your personal history with the issue, how you got interested, what your involvement has been”

‒          ii) “What is at the heart of the matter for you?”

‒          iii) “Many people have within their general approach some grey areas, some dilemmas about their own beliefs, or even conflicts within themselves. Sometimes these grey areas are revealed when people consider hard-case circumstances in which a prolife person might want to allow an abortion, or situations in which a prochoice person might not want to permit an abortion. Or...”

‒          Then question of each other

‒          Then closing comments:– “What do you think you have done to make this conversation go, or not go, as it has?” And parting comments.

Dialogue in a democracy

“None of us knows the truth. But together we can come closer to the truth. We can be safe, liberated and accepted. We can continue struggling, even though we may never have it right.”

We hope this account of our experience will encourage people everywhere to consider engaging in dialogues about abortion and other protracted disputes. In this world of polarizing conflicts, we have glimpsed a new possibility: a way in which people can disagree frankly and passionately, become clearer in heart and mind about their activism, and, at the same time, contribute to a more civil and compassionate society.

APPENDIX: Taken from: C. Becker, L. Chasin, R. Chasin, M. Herzig, and S. Roth (1995) From stuck debate to new conversation on controversial issues: a report from the Public Conversations Project. In K. Weingarten (Ed.) Cultural Resistance: Challenging beliefs about men, women, and therapy (pp.143-164). New York: Harrington Press.

ON DISTINGUISHING DEBATE FROM DIALOGUE