A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE
BY ROGER DOEBKEAll of the source documents used to produce this pamphlet are available in the public domain. Since this is not intended as an academic paper I have not generally included footnotes and references even though I have freely paraphrased from a variety of sources.
Roger Doebke - September 10, 2023PROLOGUE
In conversation with numerous people I have noted some confusion about the process we call dialogue. The purpose of this pamphlet is (a) to provide some definitions we can all use to describe dialogue; (b) consolidate my previous writing about the current conflict in the Chautauqua community; and, (c) set forth additional comments about establishing a culture of dialogue at Chautauqua.
When you give someone else space to speak and truly be heard, they are more likely to try to offer you that same space. When that space is not created the message communicated is that the person is not important or worthy of attention.
Dialogues provide a protective environment, which allows for open exchange about underlying causes of a conflict, where controversial topics can be addressed without doing harm to any participant, taking into consideration a legitimate multiplicity of interests. Through reflection and mutual learning dialogues make it possible to influence behavioral
patterns, attitudes and mutual relationship structures in a positive way.
Understanding specific needs and priorities of the stakeholders within the community can only be achieved through listening during a dialogical process. Listening to the community would allow the Institution to better manage, in advance, potential challenges and refine their actions in response to stakeholder interests. Constantly monitoring the communities expectations, needs and opinions, are the starting point for setting up an effective engagement process.
Today, no culture for dialogue exist between the community and the Institution. And, no amount of engagement on Bestor Plaza between staff and individual community members; no amount of Q&A following web presentations; and no amount of monitored Q&A at public events will ever contribute to a culture of dialogue. This is not to say that some of these protocols are not useful, simply said, they are not dialogue.
Through the CHQ Dialogues we now have in excess of eighty trained facilitators available to lead
groups. During the 2023 season we staged over 200 dialogue groups attended by over 1,200 participants. We have a strong leadership team and we are developing strong management practices to make sure we deliver the best dialogical experience possible.
The subject matter for the CHQ Dialogues are primarily the 10:45 and 2:00 lecture platforms. The subjects discussed are always gleaned from what resonated most to the participants from those lectures. At the end of each session we ask participants to complete assessment cards which we evaluate and distill into a report for the Institution at the end of the year. We use the assessments to improve our protocols and methodologies for the ensuing year.
New for the 2023 season was a “Lecture Journal” we prepared and distributed in limited quantities before the 10:45 lecture. The purpose of this initiative is to encourage a culture of listening as part of the dialogical process.
We also added the Red Bench program in 2023. Six red benches were placed around the grounds
with a placard attached describing their use. The message was simply, if you sit here you are inviting conversation.
We have the human resources, the venues and the materials we need to continue to expand a culture of dialogue at Chautauqua. We also have the institutional support we require to sustain this program. Chief Diversity Officer, Amit Taneja, and Vice President of Religion, Mellisa Spas, have been affirming partners in developing this program. Other Staff, including Jordan Steves, Emily Morris. Ray Donovan and James Freay have been contributors to our success providing specific services that have both enhanced the branding and the production of materials used by CHQ Dialogues.
As well as we have done in establishing a basis for dialogue in one form, we now need to establish the culture to include conflict resolution. A culture of dialogue must be established between the Institution and the community. Our 2023 season was marred by conflict with no resolution in sight. It is time to announce a program of additional facilitated CHQ Dialogues where participants would include members of the Board of Trustees and members of
the community not just to address the current conflict, but, If the relationship of the Institution and the community is based on continuous dialogue, chances of mis-steps that affect the stability of the Institution can be avoided in the future.
Because the Chautauqua Institution is reliant on members of the community for critical financial support in order to meet its budget goals, the manner in which it engages the community (stakeholders) should be of the highest priority to the Board of Trustees.
The Board is asked for the following action:
(a) Agree to the Doebke Proposal to immediately engage in dialogue with the Branch group of 6.
(b) Announce a program of Chautauqua Community Dialogues that will begin during the 2024 season.
(c) Select a team to work with the CHQ Dialogues leadership in formulating the protocols for the Community Dialogues.
READY TO ACT
A team has been assembled to facilitate dialogue between the Institution and the Branch group of 6.
Roger has been a full time summer resident of Chautauqua for the past 17 years. During that time he has been active with the Department of Religion in leading inter-faith dialogue and subsequently has lead the Chautauqua Dialogues for the past 11 years. He is currently serving his 10th year as President of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Chautauqua.
Roger Doebke
Rev. Dr. Lee Baker
Dr. Lee Barker served as President and Professor of Ministry at Meadville Lombard Theological School from 2003 until his retirement in 2019. His presidency led to the creation of an innovative program of ministerial formation, the relocation of the campus to its 21st-century facility in downtown Chicago, and the development of the school’s “Global, Multi-faith Classroom.
Hon. David Thompson, (Ret.)
David is currently with JAMS (formerly “Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service) after a distinguished 24-year career on the bench. As a Court of Appeal Justice for nine years, he authored hundreds of opinions on civil litigation issues. As a Superior Court Judge for 15 years, he conducted hundreds of civil trials and heard thousands of civil motions. Unanimously ranked "exceptionally well qualified" for appointment to the Court of Appeal, California State Bar Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, 2012.
THREE TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS
In principle, a dialectical relationship emerges when two separate entities are interlinked in such a way that one initiates change in the other: both entities grow until they reach a new synthesis.
The terms “meditation,” “facilitation,” and “dialogue” are often used interchangeably, but they actually have distinct meanings and purposes. All of these processes are designed to help people communicate more effectively and address issues or problems that may be difficult to resolve on their own. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and one may be more appropriate in certain situations than others.
Mediation is a formalized process of dispute resolution that involves a neutral third party helping two or more parties come to an agreement on a specific set of issues. Mediation is often used in legal or organizational contexts and has specific rules and procedures.
Facilitation is a process in which a trained facilitator helps a group of people have a productive conversation, often with the goal of reaching a decision or solving a problem.
Dialogue is a broader term.
Basic dictionaries define dialogue in three ways:
As conversation between two or more people.
As a discussion of positions or beliefs, especially between groups to resolve a disagreement.
As a conversation between characters in a drama or narrative. All simple definitions. But, for our purposes, it is only the second definition, “As a discussion of positions or beliefs, especially between groups to resolve a disagreement” that we will use it to describe the current proposal we have offered to address the disagreements that exist relative to the “Future Direction of Chautauqua.”
Dialogues in areas affected by conflict are ways of bridging divides and bringing communities together to heal divisions - a means of moving parties in conflict toward a mutually acceptable outcome. Dialogue is used to build relationships and can be an important tool in building consensus.
The aim of dialogue is to gain a better understanding of the underlying causes of the conflicts as well as of the different motives of the participants. Mutual exchange of perceptions can help to gradually develop trust and explore pathways away from conflict and toward peaceful coexistence through joint learning and the development of ideas.
Dialogues are not necessarily limited in time and scope. They can pave the way for establishing a culture of dialogue wherein all stakeholders in a community find a way to express their feelings about change and come to rely on facilitated dialogue to resolve differences.1
The proposal to personally engage in the issue of conflict resolution in our Chautauqua community
See www.peaceinsight.org and www.usip.org
1
began with this letter to the Editor of the Chautauquan Daily:
“DOEBKE FIRST LETTER TO THE EDITOR”
Dear Friends,
One only needs to read the letters to the editor that have been appearing in this newspaper to know that there is conflict in our community. I offer the following not to enter on any side of the issues within the conflict, but to seek a better way for us to engage each other when we are in conflict.
A culture of dialogue is such an important element to the long term success of the Chautauqua Institution. A culture of dialogue is often the fruit of conflict. However, differences of opinion, when you have a culture of dialogue, don’t have to result in conflict. We have conflict, but not the dialogue. In any conflict there will be sufficient focus on particulars of the issues, but what must be insisted upon is a focus on how we speak with each other;
with mutual respect and an understanding that “we are better together.”
The process I am referring to requires measuring progress in terms other than who won and who lost. I believe all parties want Chautauqua to be successful, but there is strong disagreement, not only about how to accomplish such success, but what that success should look like. To frame the dialogue we must give value to grassroots citizens‘ organizations and recognize the pragmatic aspects of managing a large institution. Disagreement does not have to be disagreeable.
To establish a solution-based process at Chautauqua, I propose that the “group” who disagrees with the current direction of the Institution create a working group of six to meet in facilitated dialogue with a working group of six from the Institution’s Board of Trustees. At the conclusion of the series of meetings a joint report would be issued to the public with a focus on how to move forward in unison.
The objective is to resolve differences to the best of our ability and then, not only to live with the consensus, but endorse the result as worthy of our objective to live as a beloved community.
“DOEBKE SECOND LETTER TO THE EDITOR”
For our community to heal and become a more humane place, we have to embrace those who disagree with us as well as those who don’t. True enduring peace within a community requires real reconciliation when disagreements occur, just as it does between loved ones who have struggled with one another.
Being reconciled is not about pretending that things are other than they are or turning a blind eye to the wrongs. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness; the pain, the hurt, the truth. It seems risky because it makes us so vulnerable. But, in the end, only an honest confrontation can bring real healing.
We should not be surprised at how reluctant most people are to acknowledge their responsibility and to say they are sorry. It is the everyday heroic act that says, “It’s my fault. I’m sorry.” But without these simple words, healing is much more difficult.
Our Chautauqua community can do the hard work of reconciliation. But, if we are going to be a true community, each of us has to agree to give up
something of what we think is most important for Chautauqua in order to come to a consensus that works. There simply is no one right answer, no absolute truth, no programming, no lecture platform, nothing that will be 100% the way each of us would personally design it. In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, “You can't always get what you want; But, if you try sometimes, well, you might just find, You get what you need.”
Let’s stop hurting each other and find joy in being together, proving that there is at least one place in the world where people can find the beloved community.
“DOEBKE LETTER TO THE BOARD”
I have previously proposed that a working group of Trustees and a working group led by William Branch agree to enter into facilitated dialogue to discuss all of the issues currently surrounding controversy at Chautauqua. To further this proposal I suggest the following:
Facilitators: Although I was not necessarily putting myself forward as a potential facilitator, I would certainly be willing to serve. I have discussed this potential with my mentor and friend Rev. Dr. Lee Barker and asked him if he would be willing to serve as a co-facilitator. Lee is the retired President of Meadville Lombard Theological School in Chicago. I hold him in the highest regard and believe he has well developed skills to serve in this capacity. He has been coming to Chautauqua for the past 13 years and he is deeply committed to Chautauqua and its future. As a team, I believe we would be more effective because of our ability to confer and collaborate as the dialogues progress.
Time and Place: The facilitated sessions could be scheduled during the coming off-season to coincide with the meetings of the Trustees. I suggest that such sessions could be the day before the Board meetings so that the Trustee Working Group could report to the full board the following day. The Branch group has indicated they are willing to travel.
Time is of the essence: Preparation is essential for successful dialogue. Lee and I feel that it is important that we receive information from each of the parties prior to the sessions. We may well also
want to consult others we know that might be helpful to us in structuring the dialogues in such a manner that promises the best chance for success. It is also important that the working groups have sufficient time to prepare themselves as a group and individually to make the best contribution to the process. All of this is to say that ground rules need to be established; protocols need to be agreed upon; and a vision for resolution needs to be jointly created.
Editorially I will say that unless we can create a way for people to talk with each other in a productive and constructive way, we will continue to have conflict in our community and that conflict is detrimental to what we all love most - Chautauqua.
A QUESTION OF TRUST - DOEBKE 2ND LETTER TO THE BOARD
For a good part of this summer I have been trying to navigate the complexities of the controversy over “the future of Chautauqua.” I have been persistent in writing to the Board of Trustees, written letters to the
editor at the Chautauquan Daily, met and communicated with a variety of parties with various viewpoints and generally tried to become aware of the elements of the conflict. I will admit that the very fact that such a large scale conflict exists at Chautauqua is very disappointing because it shows that, as a community, we have not developed the skills and behavior that lead to living in community. I do not take the task of conflict resolution lightly and I do not think that I have a magic solution to resolve this conflict, but I do know something about the process called dialogue and I believe that it will only be through this process that resolution is possible.
It has become clear to me that a substantial lack of trust exists on all sides of this controversy. That, in and of itself, is not unusual for parties in conflict. It is not unusual that each party distrusts the other, nor is it unusual for any party in conflict to resist entering into dialogue with the other because of their distrust. Distrust has shown up in the language used by both parties in this conflict. For instance, a party may say “there is a lack of transparency” while another party says “the vitriol shown by the other party is evidence of their insincerity and lack of good faith.” Both of these views shows mistrust.
Recognition of the centrality of promises in establishing and maintaining a trusting relationship are not prerequisites to dialogue, rather they are a beginning point in the first session of the process.
After all, if trust, which is part of a good relationship, already existed, any differences would be easily resolved through normal interaction. To trust is to expect that the other party or parties will do what is required to begin and maintain a relationship because they value both its existence and continuation. In academia this has been referred to as the “binding” approach. The binding approach “invites reflection on the feelings which underpin judgements of value and obligations.”
Resolution of differences relies on both rational thinking and feelings. Trust is comprised of how we think and how we feel. In fact, in the Chautauqua controversy there is clear evidence that emotions are playing a large part in how the conflict is playing out. There is hurt on all sides that is fueling the alienation of the parties. Trust is an emotional belief: how people feel influences their interpretations of another’s behavior.
Yet, such emotional beliefs are not objective or immutable; even those conflicts that appear to be driven by beliefs about the other which are set in stone can undergo transformation, bringing with it the possibility of new practices that can transform such conflicts. There are (at least) two potential sources of transformation of emotional beliefs which shape and influence issues of conflict: (a) new evidence, and (b) empathy.
New evidence can take two forms. New facts can be revealed that help the parties understand the other’s point of view, but there can also be new evidence relative to what is driving the parties to believe what they believe. Dialogue plays a role in this respect because it is commonly through particular communicative practices that trust is articulated and developed. So, while trust/mistrust may be the stated problem which is preventing the parties from entering into dialogue, it is, in fact, the very vehicle which provides the opportunity for resolution.
Empathy can be characterized as a process rather than an emotion in and of itself. The process is one
in which others’ emotional states or situations have an effect upon us. It is through dialogue that we have the opportunity to experience the other as a human being. Empathy is something that occurs during dialogue and something that emerges from dialogue.
The focus on actual evidence frequently masks deep emotions which makes it impossible to understand others feelings and perpetuates mistrust. It is difficult to explain different conclusions based on the same evidence if the role emotions play in framing our interpretations is not considered. To return to the possibilities presented, respectively, by new evidence and empathy for the transformation of conflict, we must assume that effective dialogue will occur through each party taking the perspective of the other and image how it might perceive matters if they occupied the shoes of the other.
I know that the Board of Trustees has been trying to navigate the complexities of the controversy over “the future of Chautauqua” just as I have. It is my hope that the Board will take into consideration these additional comments in their consideration of how to move forward. I truly believe that all of the
literature and practice on conflict resolution begins and ends with an agreement by the parties to engage in facilitated dialogue - a process, not a panacea.
REPORTING TO THE COMMUNITY
An important aspect to consider is how are the results of facilitated dialogue to be communicated to the community. In the proposal for dialogue between the Institution and the Branch 6 there is a reference to a reporting process to wit:
“At the conclusion of the series of meetings a joint report would be issued to the public with a focus on how to move forward in unison.”
The facilitators foresee this potential report as a progress report that would help define the nature of the dialogues and how the parties see moving toward conflict resolution. The report would be the facilitator’s statement comprising the state of consensus and differences, tentative conclusions, and ideas for the continuation of joint efforts.
Scott Peck in his book “The Different Drum” says “if we are going to use the word “Community” meaningfully we must restrict it to a group of individuals who have learned how to communicate honestly with each other, whose relationships go deeper than their masks of composure, and who have developed some significant commitment to rejoice together and to delight in one another. “Community” is taking joy in each other. This is what I think makes Chautauqua special. It’s the people you meet and the friendships you establish. It’s the ability to join with others in common interests whether it be something in the arts, or recreation, religious belief or education. In other words, it provides avenues for a common ground.
“What leadership is, is the ability to use talent, skills and emotional intelligence to mobilize people to a common purpose.”
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Presidential Historian.
INDEX OF RELATED MATERIALS
Lecture Journal
The Red Bench
CHQ Dialogues 2022 Assessment Report
About the Author
David Brooks writes,“no good life is possible unless it is organized around a vocation.” That, “if you try to use your work to serve yourself, you’ll find your ambitions and expectations will forever run ahead of you and you’ll never be satisfied and, “if you try to serve the community, you’ll always wonder if people appreciate you enough.” But, he says, “if you serve work that is intrinsically compelling and focus just on being excellent at that, you will wind up serving yourself and the community obliquely.”
