Dialogue, anyone?

The weather today is utterly dismal.
The sun has now reached the point where sunrise fades directly into sunset within about 2-3 hours. It's a very interesting experience; kind of fun, to be perfectly honest.
However, there are days like today when the clouds take over, and it's as if the sun never rises and it remains gray and dismal for a few hours before shifting into darkness. Kind of like Tacoma, actually, only colder.

Today, while I was walking home it seemed to grow colder and colder. By the time I reached my apartment, my I couldn't feel my face or wiggle my nose. I had to smile, because it reminded me of being in Iowa again.

Anyway, the reason I was writing, is because we had a very interesting lecture today, that I thought I would share. I think it gives some good insight to the "Norwegianapproach"...

Our lecturer was Steinar Bryn from the Nansen Dialogue Academy in Lillehammer, Norway. The Nansen Dialogue Network consists of Dialogue centers in the Balkans and in Norway, that are supposed to act as places for people who are involved in conflict in the Balkans to meet each other, hear each other, and have meaningful dialogue about their side of the conflict.

It was really interesting to hear Steinar talk about conflict in general, and the purpose or role of dialogue in creating sustainable peace. He used Kosovo and Albania as the main examples of his case, but he even related using dialogue in relationships between friends or spouses.

Now, I'm not the kind of person who listens to a lecturer and takes everything they say and makes it my own. I very much believe in critical thinking and weighing the arguments. However, in doing so with Steinar's presentation, I discovered that his arguments were simply the articulation of ways of approaching life in general that I have valued and tried to come to terms with on my own throughout my teenage years. He talked about a lot of examples and situations where dialogue can/could be an effective and positive approach, and it made a whole lot of sense to me.

I think it was best summed up in the model he gave us at the end of the lecture, a comparison of dialogue vs. debate (which is so popular in our society, I think.):

Characteristics of Debate:
-Purpose is to convince the other that you are right.
-in order to achieve this, you talk
-You act as a hunter: looking for and pointing out the weak arguments. This makes the other feel insecure
-You act as a moral judge: looking for mistakes, pointing out that the other is wrong. ( I really liked the example he gave for this one: Person A says: "I'm afraid of dogs." Person B: "Oh that's ridiculous, dogs are so friendly." [End dialog]
Versus: Person A: "I'm afraid of dogs." Person B: "Really? All dogs? Or just big dogs? Or Barking dogs? etc.[dialog continues..])
-You defend your position against everything; he pointed out how we have a culture where we don't allow for mistakes, so its more common for people to try to defend themselves, rather than saying "I screwed up."

Characteristics of Dialogue:
-Purpose is to understand the other.
-in order to achieve this you must actively listen, asking good questions to help the person open up.
-you have to have self-discipline to bite your tongue if you hear a weak argument, something wrong, or if they are lying. It's not about them telling the correct truth; its about hearing what they say and understanding why they would say it.
(The example he gave was: A woman from 'Group A' says, "well 'Group B' soldiers came and said if we didn't get out they'd kill us, so we fled." When perhaps 'Group B' soldiers didn't come and threaten them, rather in truth 'Group A' just felt afraid that the next day they would come, or she wanted to make the 'B' side seem more vicious than her side, etc. )
-In the end, you should come to a point of tolerance--but REAL tolerance. Tolerance, as Steinar described it, is when you actually oppose someone or their views, actions, etc., but you recognize their right to be as they are.
-In the end, change of your stance or opinion can be a positive thing.


I thought that was really relevant and practical. Feel free to disagree or call me naive, but I think it is the way to achieve sustainable peace/good relations. I mean, it does take more time than just coming up with a solution. But if both parties feel very strongly that they are RIGHT, then debate doesn't really do any good--they just walk away hating each other more, rather than having heard, understood and appreciating the other side.
Which I guess is ok, if it doesn't effect anyone but you. But what if its a couple with children? Or two entire countries that have to live next to each other?

Another thing that struck me during the lecture:

I had to chuckle when he said "If you treat people according to how they are, you will only make them worse, if you treat them according to their potential, they will act according to their potential." He was talking about how you can apply that to students, and to countries who are trying to achieve peace.

I'm quite certain I've heard the same thing from my mother several times.
I think one day I will write a book about how the worlds problems can be solved by my mother's wise little lectures.

I actually thought of an example of where this worked: for those of you who have seen the film "Freedom Writers" or heard of the Freedom Writers Foundation..I think Erin Gruwell used this philosophy as well.

It was a really superb lecture, in my opinion. I was very intrigued, and just had to share!

I think you must admit...this is more interesting than pictures, right? It's the heart of something very unique to Norway...Think about it...