THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOGUE
Cornelius Afebu Omonokhua
“Dialogue” has become one of the most used
words in our world today. First let us look at what dialogue really and truly
is: The Wikipedia web site gives a beautiful exposé of dialogue in
philosophical and historical categories according to which in philosophy and
literary genre, dialogue was simply called dialog. The Greeks and Indians used
dialogue for purposes of rhetorical entertainment and instruction. In its
technical sense, the word ‘dialogue’ describes what the Greek philosophers
invented, and what the noblest of them lifted to the extreme refinement of an
art. In this context we can identify dialogue by “ordinary minds” that discuss
people, simple minds that discuss events and great minds that discuss ideas
that transform the world.
In the east, the genre dates back
to the Sumerian dialogues and disputations (preserved in copies from the early
second millennium B.C.E.), as well as Rigvedic dialogue hymns and the Indian
epic Mahabharata, while in the west,
literary historians commonly suppose that Plato (c. 427 BC – c. 347 BC)
introduced the systematic use of dialogue as an independent literary form. The
Platonic dialogue had its foundations in the mime, which the Sicilian poets
Sophron and Epicharmus had cultivated half a century earlier. The works of
these writers, which Plato admired and imitated, have not survived, but
scholars imagine them as little plays usually presented with only two
performers. Plato simplified the form of dialogue to pure argumentative
conversation about the year 405-406 BC, and by 399 he had brought the dialogue
to its highest perfection, especially in the cycle directly inspired by the
death of Socrates. All his philosophical writings, except the Apology, use this
form. As the greatest of all masters of Greek prose style, Plato lifted the
dialogue, to its highest splendour.[1]
Paulo Freire believes that
dialogued communication allowed students and teachers to learn from one another
in an environment characterized by respect and equality. He was a great
advocate for oppressed peoples who was concerned with praxis-action that is
informed and linked to people’s values. Dialogued pedagogy was not only about
deepening understanding; it was also about making positive changes in the
world. [2]
This focus was on making the world a better place.
Today, dialogue is used to help
people resolve long-standing conflicts and to build deeper understanding of
contentious issues. Dialogue is no longer about judging, weighing, or making
decisions, but about understanding and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes,
builds trust, and enables people to be open to perspectives that are very
different from their own. Dialogue as a “conversation between two or more
persons” is an exchange of views in the hope of ultimately reaching agreement.
This should not be an argument to win or to prove who is right and who is
wrong. In dialogue, a person exercises the right to hold on to an opinion which
the person is convinced of.
Does the word “dialogue” mean the
same thing to the people who invoke it in conversations and negotiations today?
Sometimes some people turn dialogue to monologue and an assertion of one’s
rightness and ego. Some people just want to be listened to as if they have a
monopoly of knowledge and wisdom. Some people never allow a partner in dialogue
to complete a sentence before they break in or “jump in their throat” whereas
dialogue is a project that creates a sacred space for an encounter with one
another about concerns of human persons in their relationship with God, with
the world, and with one another. Dialogue creates a space where fear,
insecurity and pain could give way to trust and love. This calls for openness
and politeness in our methods of communication.
In dialogue, we must learn when,
how and where to talk and when, how and where to be silent. Silence is still an
active and valid form of dialogue. This does not exclude the right of everyone
involved in it to be attentive in listening and to be heard in responding with
mutual respect. Dialogue ought to take cognisance of our various heritages from
birth, environment and physical trauma one must have suffered in life because these
influence the behavioural pattern of the human person. There are some actions
that even the actor has no explanation for. This is where patience is very
vital in dialogue. There are times you find yourself doing exactly the
things you condemn in other people. At other times you are shocked at some
people doing things you think should not be done especially things that
contradict human reason. Even St. Paul had this feeling when he encountered
himself at the depth of his being in the quiet of his life. This inward
struggle made him say: “I do not understand my own behaviour; I do not act as I
mean to, but I do things that I hate….Though the will to do what is good is in
me, the power to do it is not: the good thing I want to do, I never do;
the evil thing which I do not want, that is what I do (Romans 7, 14-25). This
means that a fruitful dialogue should seek a proper debriefing and healing of
memories to eradicate prejudice and preconceptions.
The dynamics of dialogue should
take into cognizance the dignity of a partner in dialogue. We should be clear
of the subject of dialogue and what we hope to achieve. The ultimate goal of
dialogue is to facilitate friendship and equity. We need to be ready to agree
to disagree and celebrate the views we have in common. We should be prepared to
subdue our ego by not insisting on our demands and conditions for peace and
reconciliation. Obedience as in listening and acting with good will and
conscience is an essential heart of dialogue. The fathers of the Second Vatican
Council in Ad Gentes admonished us to be profoundly pervaded by the Spirit
of Christ to converse with those among whom we live so that through sincere and
patient dialogue they themselves might learn of the riches which a generous God
has distributed among the nations. [3]
We should acknowledge the role of
prayer in the dynamics of dialogue. Addressing the representatives of the World
Council of Churches in Rome on April 11, 1986, Saint Pope John Paul II said:
“In the final analysis, prayer is the best means by which all humanity can be
united. It disposes people to accept God’s will for them. It also affects the
relationship of those who pray together, for coming together before God in
prayer; people can no longer ignore or hate others. Those who pray together
discover that they are pilgrims and seekers of the same goal, brothers and
sisters who share responsibility for the same human family, children of the
same God and Father. Dialogue must show how much we need each other; therefore,
we need to love each other for our own sake”.
Fr. Prof. Cornelius Afebu
Omonokhua is the Director of Mission and Dialogue of the Catholic Secretariat
of Nigeria, Abuja; and Consultor of the Commission for Religious Relations with
Muslims (C.R.R.M), Vatican City (comonokhua@hotmail.com).
No comments:
Post a Comment