Dear All


This is a different kind of email to the others that have been written in
response to the invitation for women in this group to contribute.   It was
highlighted by Gregg that 90% of contributions to this list came from men,
although  women constitute 40% who are signed up – and I notice that
virtually all the videos include interviews with and by men.  This
domination by men really needs to be highlighted and addressed, and I'm
delighted that Gregg has highlighted it.



The main issue for me – and the reason why I do not contribute more - is
that so much of the communication that takes place is a form of ‘grand
narrative’, where individuals are very clear about their perspective, and
although they engage in discussion with others, it is more to try to
persuade the other of the arguments to support their view, rather than to
share perspectives and perhaps each change their views to attain a new and
developed way of understanding, which emerges from that sharing.  This, in
my experience, is very common in contexts where men are in the majority -
or as in this case, because it happens so much, it leads to men being in
the majority, and women opting out, because they don't want to engage in
that kind of (what feels like) a boundaried, linear and competitive process
(and perhaps leads to them questioning their own intellect, which has been
mentioned in this group).



Although there is a strong element of that in this group, it is not as
extreme as in others, and is the reason why I remain in it.  Gregg is
particularly good at reading what is written, respecting, and responding
reflectively (thank you Gregg, that in itself is different from so many
men, who can be, not only dismissive, but also offensive in how
they dismiss!).  However, nevertheless, he is certainly  promoting and
arguing for a very sophisticated ‘grand narrative’ way of understanding the
world, and although on the one hand, I am interested in the ideas, and
think it is of huge value, I also feel like there is a barrier to me
engaging in a wider conversation about its significance.  I have written to
Gregg about this, so he knows how I feel; I do think our different ways of
seeing things makes it challenging to find a collaborative way forward -
and my main interest (and belief) is that if we are to create a better
world, it will be through evolving ideas and ways of understanding the
world through collaboration, not through the 'winning through' of one grand
narrative over another.



I prefer a form of dialogue – and a closer relationship between action,
reflection and theorising (as in forms of action inquiry) – and I think
more women gravitate to that.  A colleague of mine, a female professor in
the USA who works in that kind of way, and whom I have recently
interviewed, states that her experience is that the balance is 70% women,
30% men in her action inquiry initiatives (which are about making a
positive difference in the world, and theorising what is going on so that
it makes an original contribution to knowledge).


In relation to dialogue, I recently wrote a paper to form the basis of a
number of working groups (as part of the Scientific and Medical Network's
Galileo Commission, which at least some of you may know about) who are
interested in exploring understandings of consciousness.   I don’t think it
is appropriate to include it all here (the original paper talks about
ontology and epistemology), but I am going to include just the section on
the method used, and the rationale for that, based on David Bohm’s ideas on
Dialogue.  I hope you find it of value.

Best wishes

Joan

*Learning and Researching through Dialogue*

For the purpose of the working groups, I would propose that what has
commonly been called ‘Bohm Dialogue’ would provide a good basis.  The
method was created by David Bohm, and was explained in his book *On
Dialogue* (1996).  William Isaacs developed it further in *Dialogue and the
Art of Thinking Together *(1999).   These two books explain clearly and in
detail the theory informing this approach to dialogue, including how it
creates a method for evolving knowledge and wisdom, and reveals an
effective way for ‘humanity to discover meaning and to achieve harmony’[i]
<#_edn1>



Bohm, using the ontological view of the world that he had gained through
quantum physics, and with an awareness of the Greek origins of the term,
devised dialogue as a means of ‘collective participation’ which allows for
the ‘harmony of the individual and the collective, in which the whole
constantly moves toward coherence’[ii] <#_edn2>



Dialogue as a method supports a more open culture, in which thoughts and
experiences can be shared with mutual respect.  Groups of people learn to
think together;  the outcome is that there is a generation of ideas and
ways of perceiving reality that no one person would have had on their
own.



Isaacs identifies four key dialogical skills:



*Listening*

The effectiveness of dialogue depends on the quality of the listening that
takes place.  There needs to be a commitment to subdue own thoughts,
theories and feelings, and listen at a deep level to what others are
saying.  There is also the aim of listening to the whole – the practice of
collective listening to that which lies beyond individual contribution
makes it possible to access new levels of insight.



*Respecting*

The need to value the right of another person to have their point of view,
and to take it into consideration, even if it does not relate to one’s own
way of seeing things.   Difference in views will be inevitable, but the
process of challenging a point of view, and giving an alternative, should
be done without diminishing or critiquing the other person for holding that
view.



*Suspending*

A critical aspect of dialogue is about being prepared to become aware of,
and suspend, deeply held assumptions, theories and certainties, in order to
be able to go deeper into any area being spoken about.   This is essential
if the ‘wisdom in – and beyond – the room’ is to be accessed.  If we can
suspend our views, and truly listen to, and reflect on, what others are
saying, then a deeper order can become visible that allows us to think in
new and different ways.  It creates space for the previously unseen.



*Voicing*

Voicing is the ability to speak in response to what is engaging you in the
present moment; involving you as a whole person, and not feeling that you
have to censor your own truth.  Rather than repeat well versed arguments
and theories, there is a need to ‘tune it’ to what is going on in the
groups, through the silences as well as the contributions, and to be able
to express what is going on deeply within you, whatever that may be.   We
learn to improvise, and by this means, create something new in the group,
thus experiencing the freedom of open communication in creative dialogue.





*Groundrules*

The SMN has, in the past, used Bohm Dialogue to the great benefit of
participants.   It is sometimes difficult to get into a very different mode
of conversing, so it is useful to agree a set of Groundrules at the outset,
in order for the ethos of dialogue to become embedded in the process.
Everyone takes responsibility for maintaining the Groundrules, and
suggestions for amendment can happen at any time.   The following are
proposed as a base-line, but can be added to or changed by any group.   The
main aim, though, is to establish a way of communicating that enables the
essential principles of Dialogue to be integrated and enhanced throughout
the conversational process.  This allows for the full benefit of the
‘synergy’, learning and wisdom, which comes from accessing deeper aspects
of ourselves in the company of others, to be realised to its fullest
extent.


   1.  Demonstrate respect and non-judgementality at all times.
   2. One person speak at a time; avoid side conversations.
   3. No one person should speak for very long at any one time (a ‘normal’
   limit of 2 minutes may be agreed).  Avoid ‘soap box’ presentations.
   4. What takes place in the silence is as important as the content of the
   speaking.  Aim for a silence between each contribution (perhaps a minimum
   of 20 seconds?), to allow for true listening and reflection to take place.


------------------------------

[i] <#_ednref1> David Bohm *On Dialogue*, back cover.

[ii] <#_ednref2> *On Dialogue*, p. 32.

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1