Much dialogue consists
of presentations of competing perspectives which are in effect
complementary and need to be understood together in a broader and more subtle framework
that they together sustain. But when the focus is on any one such perspective, the existence and
nature of that broader framework can only be brought into the dialogue by opposing some
other perspective. Other than for the discussion of particulars which invite ready consensus, this
does not make for an especially satisfactory dialogue process.
The following guidelines
endeavour to clarify a pattern of constraints through which more
meaningful and fruitful dialogue may prove possible.
Beyond unimaginative
tinkering, paradigm hops and risk aversion
Unless the imagination
is stretched, it is questionable whether the matter is worth consideration
at this time.
Beyond single-factor
dependency
It is less than
helpful to reduce complex challenges and opportunities to a single problem
requiring a single solution following from a single theory based on a single set of values to be
acted upon by a single set of organizations -- possibly orchestrated by a single leader claiming
special insight.
Beyond the one-plan
strategy
Beyond ?if only they would...?
Beyond follow-me leadership
Beyond personality cults and star performances
Beyond awaiting the Messiah, Armageddon or extraterrestrials
Beyond dogma and proselytism
Whilst there is a place for articulation
of patterns of truth, their coherence should not be used to
disguise the existence of alternative patterns deriving from other perspectives or cultures.
Efforts to disseminate any one pattern should take account of the learnings from earlier
initiatives and their reception. Without doubt concerning the limitations of any position or
initiative, there is no opening for dialogue and learning.
Beyond promulgation
of sets of principles and values for universal acceptance
Beyond wisdom keeping and wisdom pandering
Beyond self-righteousness and competition for the moral high ground
Beyond definitional game-playing
Misinformation and disinformation are increasingly used to disguise the degree of inaction or the
inappropriateness of any action. There is a tendency to legitimate this by token consultation or
spurious research, as well as to block criticism by various forms of denial.
Beyond tokenism
Beyond hypocrisy
Beyond denial
Beyond representation of the unconsulted
Beyond spurious monitoring and explanation
Beyond creative non-decision-making in crisis situations
Beyond duality and polarity
Extreme arguments are advanced to
counterbalance other extreme positions when the way
forward is likely to be associated with some pattern of relationship between both -- whose
comprehension is hindered by the dynamics of polarized dialogue
Beyond individual
vs. collective development
Beyond technology vs. culture
Beyond headless hearts vs. heartless heads
Beyond gender politics
Beyond positivism vs. negativism
There is a case for and against optimistic
enthusiasm, just as there is a case for and against
concern for constraints and obstacles; both have their place and both need to be challenged in
any given context. The appreciation of ?what is? needs to be contrasted with an appreciation of
?what is not?. There is a place for the via negativa as much as for the via positiva.
Beyond hope-mongering
vs. doom-mongering
Beyond havingness vs. neediness
Beyond global vs. local
Whilst universals can be usefully
striven for, local perspectives should not be demeaned through
that process. But equally the local needs to relate to a global framework of appropriate
richness. How both are to be reconciled structurally and operationally is a challenge of a higher
order which naive approaches to ?unity in diversity? cannot effectively encompass through
expressions like ?holism?.
Beyond global articulation
vs local concreteness
Beyond universalism vs. heterogeneity
Beyond global ethics vs. situational ethics
Beyond agreement vs. disagreement
Agreement should not be sought at
any price. Nor should the possibility of working with the
structural features of disagreement be delayed by naive anticipation of consensus -- especially
when lives are at stake.
Beyond consensus
vs. difference
Beyond tolerance vs. discrimination
Beyond conflict vs. peace, reconciliation and appeasement
Beyond present vs. future
Commitments to future action should
not be used as a means of avoiding immediate action; but
equally action in the present should be undertaken in response to a richer future pattern.
Underlying the increasing gap between the ?haves? and the ?have nots? lies a more
fundamental gap. Of a more insidious nature, it is that between the ease of making commitments
(personal security, food, health, etc) and the challenges to their fulfilment -- before it is too late
for the person or group to whom the promise was made.
Beyond time games
Beyond short-termism vs. long-termism
Beyond promises and pledges
Beyond declarations, manifestos and resolutions
But beyond the
above constraints, taken separately or together, lies one which is even more
fundamental. Each of the constraints can be usefully seen like keys on a musical instrument --
suggesting that each could be used separately or together. It is how they are taken into account
(through acceptance or in the breach) that is of greatest importance. It is how they are played
off against each other in some dialogic melody that provides the carrier for subtler meaning.
Beyond seriousness vs humour, there is a playful sense in which none of them should be taken
"seriously" -- as "rules" they are there to be broken, but doing so should be fun.
It is only
through the most partial polarized positions that the music can be made. But the music of
dialogue only flows if this is done with a light and fleeting touch. Persistent use of any single
polar position is essentially monotonous.
1. Constraints
