125. MICHELLE MAIESE

When she was a graduate student and a member of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Michelle Maiese wrote about challenges dealing with public conflicts. This post includes excerpts from her paper about dialogue.

She said that those involved in public conflicts often “tend to cling to their own positions and denigrate views of the opposing side, rarely ask each other questions or genuinely listen to what the other side is saying, tend to stereotype each other and misunderstand each other’s positions, causing each participant to become increasingly polarized, block effective communication because of competition, prejudice, and fear.”

“Dialogue,” said Maiese, “surfaces assumptions so deeply embedded in our worldviews that we might not recognize them. These assumptions include those rooted in culture, race, religion, and economic background. … Participants in dialogue wish to see what can be discovered in their encounters with others. Rather than reacting in a hostile way to each other’s opinions, parties must examine the meaning of these opposing opinions and assumptions. … Suspending assumptions makes people aware of their thought processes and brings about an enhanced level of consciousness.”

Maiese listed these benefits of dialogue in public conflict experience:

“Participants may question derogatory attributions made about their opponents and may work to combat stereotypes in their larger society. They may also be less likely to accept extremist leaders. Dialogue can help parties to develop new understanding that leads to formal negotiations. Disputants learn to articulate their own voices clearly and to recognize each other’s viewpoints as valid. Disputants honestly express uncertainties about their own position and explore the complexities of the issues being discussed, which can help them to let go of stereotypes, distrust, and patterns of polarization. People begin to realize that they have important things in common, which allows for collective learning, creativity, and an increased sense of fellowship.”

“Dialogue can help to create a community-based culture of cooperation, collaboration, partnership, and inclusion. Because participants do not know beforehand what they will say, they must listen not only to one another, but also to themselves. Participants may bring back to their organizations, friends, families, or citizen groups their new ways of thinking and relating.”

Maiese acknowledged that dialogue in the public arena will not always be possible:
• There must be willingness to participate in the process.
• Dialogue might not work when there are significant power differences.
• It is not likely to work when parties cling to their hatred and anger and refuse to listen.
• It is difficult to accomplish dialogue between the oppressed and their oppressors.
• Cultural factors such as extreme individualism (“conversational narcissism”) impede constructive dialogue.

Q: Where and in what circumstances do you think these findings might apply?