Dialogue and Social Justice

This is a reflection I just drafted for my current graduate class. I thought I would go ahead and post it here (it's still a little rough)

Reflections on “The Dialogue Process in Action”

In reading about dialogue I am consistently struck by one simple observation. Dialogue creates an environment that almost everyone enjoys, that almost everyone yearns for, both in their personal and professional lives.

I enjoy having an opportunity to share insights and ideas in a safe environment. I enjoy the chance to hear others share their stories and perspectives. It’s nice to communicate in an atmosphere that is nurturing and thoughtful, that offers the possibility of reaching goals while deepening relationships. I feel confident that, if asked, the majority of individuals would share an appreciation for the values dialogue represents.

Which leads me to the obvious question. Why have we created personal, professional and societal settings that are so often antithetical to dialogue? If most of us, on some level, yearn for the atmosphere created by dialogue, why doesn't our society reflect that yearning?

Dialogue, by its very nature, promotes mutual respect and the equitable treatment of everyone involved in the conversation. In a dialogue circle everyone has an equal voice, whatever their role in the broader society. Within the circle, if nowhere else, status and power are, at least in theory, leveled out. Which, unfortunately, probably explains why dialogue is not more widespread.

The dialogic concept of equity runs directly contrary to many of our most fundamental social structures. Human history is largely built on discrimination and social injustice, the idea that there are haves and have-nots. Whether it is based on race, ethnicity, religion, ability, gender, sexuality, or some other manufactured identity, human society consistently tends to stratify, to privilege some members over others.

From that point of view dialogue is threatening, even subversive. In the United States women have had the vote for less than 100 years. “Separate but equal” was struck down less than 60 years ago. The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed less than 20 years ago. Discrimination against gays and lesbians is still legal in states across the country, and immigrant populations face exploitation on a daily basis.

I tend to take a very pragmatic view on these kinds of injustices. Discrimination happens because it benefits those in the privileged position. Through intention or neglect, some of us profit off the suffering of others. Sometimes those profits are concrete (cheap labor, control over the social and political system) sometimes they are abstract (a feeling of superiority and power).

As a leveling force, dialogue undermines systems of discrimination and inequity. It’s all but impossible to respect an individual’s voice and perspective while also considering them inferior. Once I recognize and value your voice, and embrace the validity of your life experience, how can I rationalize social or legal structures that treat you as unworthy of the rights and privileges that I enjoy?

Seen from this point of view, it makes sense that we tend to shun away from dialogue. Embracing dialogue would force us to face our personal biases, and confront many of the injustices on which we’ve built our society. Most of us are simply not prepared for the turmoil such frank self-assessment would require. It is easier to simply accept the status quo, even if it feels, on some fundamental basis, deeply unsatisfying.

However, if we can embrace dialogic values, if we can use dialogue to address the aspects of ourselves that contribute to discrimination, there is the real possibility of building a more just world. Fundamentally, dialogue has the potential to be a tremendous tool for promoting social justice, and offers a powerful way to build a more equitable society.