I was first introduced to the idea of dialogue in my conflict resolution class. This concept was only further solidified during the peacebuilding program. Initially, when I thought of dialogue, I thought of a conversation between people. Now, when I think of dialogue, I understand that it is meant to be a conversation between people without the burden of education or judgement. David Bohem’s model of the Evolution of Dialogue introduced to us by Mara Schoeny helped in clarifying these concepts.

When looking at this model, you see the process of getting to a dialogue neatly drawn out that implies a simple procedure. However, in reality, when we do get into dialogue, especially in conflict situations, it isn’t all that systematic and clarified. More often than less, it is messy, and you see how easy it is for the conversation to fall into “debate mode”. Debate mode would be when two opposing sides stand firm on their grounds and opinions, further reinforcing their stances not allowing for any communication to get through to the other side. How then can we reach this moment of dialogue?

Bohem talks of this concept of suspension where we suspend the current situation and start brainstorming on out of the box solutions and interventions to help solve/transform/manage a conflict. For example, an envisioning tool can be used to build up hypothetical situations about the future to see what it looks like and how we can strive towards that future, putting aside our stances for the time being. Again this sounds easier in theory than it is to implement. How can we effectively make use of this tool or other such tools?

This is where Laura Burian & Jacolyn Harmer helped give me an insight into this question by acquainting us up close and personal with the field of interpretation. When first asked, what do you think an interpreter does? The answer was, well, they listen, understand, think it out in the target language and speak in the target language. However, when shown a diagram of what actually happens in this process, it is amazing how something that looks and may seem so simple is intensely dynamic and overwhelming and can either very well break or make a situation depending on how it is carried out.

This is when it struck me that when talking of interpretation, we talk of breaking the barrier between two different languages. However, even in the same language, the same words mean different things to different people and therefore interpretation doesn’t apply simply across languages but also within languages. As a way of counteracting any misunderstandings, we are constantly interpreting people’s gestures, tones of voices, facial expressions, body language to get a sense of and understanding of where exactly they are coming from and the message they are trying to convey. Understanding just the words at face value, is the very first and basic step, there is so much more going on behind those same words.

On similar lines, one concept that really stuck with me was that of appreciative inquiry where there is emphasis on positively ascribed words as opposed to negatively ascribed words, and this helps in building a better conducive communication environment. As much as I like the concept of appreciative inquiry, I feel like it only barely scratches the surface. The idea behind it is attractive, but it can be applicable to every realm of communication and not just limited to the words we speak.

I strongly believe, tying in these techniques while approaching dialogues will help us in figuring out a way to that suspended moment where we can start tapping into creativity and pushing forward towards peacebuilding.