A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

A Culture of Dialogue

A Reflection on Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together by W. Isaacs.

Karolina Ozadowicz

April 2015

A version for this paper was prepared for Team Academy training in preparation to take a position of a Senior Lecturer, in the department of Team Entrepreneurship, for the University of the West of England.

1

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

“The spirit of Dialogue is one of free play, a sort of collective dance of the mind that,

nevertheless, has immense power and reveals coherent purpose. Once begun it becomes

continuing adventure that can open the way to significant and creative change.”

David Bohm

Setting the scene

I spent the last month or so reading Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together by

William Isaacs (2008). It took a long time to get to the end and perhaps that’s the reason I’m

so looking forward to writing about my experience. This is chance to revisit the most

interesting sentences, concepts and ideas; time to reflect on the ‘why’. Why have I underlined

that sentence and not the other? What was in that particular expression I annotated? What

was the pattern of my thoughts when working with this book? What is it that naturally grabs

my attention? What did I unconsciously ignore? What am I learning about myself through the

way I worked with this text? What is it I remain totally unaware of?

By the end of this essay I hope to find the answers to at least some of these questions. I

realise to get to the answers I will need to use many, many words. Upon reading Isaacs and

then experimenting on my own, I am convinced words are powerful and potentially

dangerous creatures. There is a power of creation enclosed in them, which somehow shapes

our consciousness.  Isaacs (2008) noted: “As you read these words, they will become part of

you - part of what you are aware of. They will influence you, whether you choose to discard

2

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

them or accept them, depending on the degree of emotional connection you have with them”

(p. 58). I am using words too and if Isaacs is right, you will be influenced by what I wrote in

one or another way. However good my intentions are and however great my respect for

words is, I’m unable to predict what happens next. This is because the main rule I am

applying to guide me through writing this essay is to register my stream of thought. I wish for

my words to effortlessly flow. I will be recording them as they come, letting them surprise

me with their shape and sound. I wish for them to freely recreate, co-create and re-born. As

Isaacs (2008) points out: “the roots of the word dialogue come from the Greek words dia and

logos. Dia means “through”; logos translates to “word,” or “meaning.” In essence, a dialogue

is a flow of meaning” (p. 19). I am writing this essay as a form of dialogue with myself.

To fully recreate the environment of dialogue in this essay I have to solve one more puzzle.

Dialogue is based on “thinking together in relationship” (Isaacs, 2008, p. 19). The question I

ask myself is: between whom could I create ‘the relationship’ to ‘think together’ when it’s

only me writing? My first thought was as there were no others, just me, I could write staying

in the relationship with the totality of myself (my wholeness) and this what is beyond me

(everything else which is not me). At the same time I realise this is against my tacit

knowledge supported by the ideas now emerging in quantum physics which propose the

world is not composed of separate and distinct parts that all interact according to a set of

universal laws but, rather, is an “undivided whole” (Isaacs, 2008, p. 118). In others words,

my initial idea to write this essay based on fragmentation between my wholeness and this

beyond it would be to do what David Bohm, paraphrased by Isaacs (2008), described as

dividing “things up that are at a more fundamental level actually connected” (p. 53). “That

wholeness is what is real, and that fragmentation is the response of this whole to man’s

3

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

action, guided by illusory perception, which is shaped by fragmentary thought” (Bohm, 1980,

p. 9).

The further I go in search of the meaning of ‘in relationship,’ the easier and shorter the

answer emerges. For this essay to become a dialogue in its own right I need to create an

environment where relationship can flourish between wholeness being in the relationship

with itself. I am writing this essay from the shared perspective with Isaacs (2008) that “I am

in the world, and the world is in me (p. 58).1

Manufacturing of thoughts

I’m suspecting Isaacs book was borne somewhere beyond his thoughts. This place,

unknown and wholly undiscovered by researchers, utterly fascinates me. Scientists can

capture the look of thoughts. Thoughts are just electro-chemical reactions. As explained by

experts from the MIT’S School Of Engineering Portal: “The human brain is composed of

about 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) interconnected by trillions of connections, called

synapses. On average, each connection transmits about one signal per second. Some

specialized connections send up to 1,000 signals per second. “Somehow… that’s producing

thought,” says Charles Jennings, director of neurotechnology at the MIT McGovern Institute

for Brain Research” (“What are the thoughts made of,” 2011).

1 For more details see “holographic paradigm” in David Bohm, Science, Order and Creativity (New York: Bantam Books, 1987).

4

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

 

What a fish’s thought looks like [Image]. (2013). Retrieved March 31, 2015, from: http://www.livescience.com/26731-what-a-fish-thought-

looks-like-video.html

Isaacs (2008) realises thoughts are in a sense, very real, (p. 147) and have a particular shape,

size, depth, and density (p.147). He mentions Krishnamurti and repeats him: “Be aware of

thought” (p. 93). Isaacs claims our thoughts are magnetic; they attract ideas that are similar

and repel ones that are different (p. 304).  He also shares the idea, first voiced by David

Bohm, of an interlinking network of thoughts among humanity. Bohm claims we have a

“system of thought” that connects us all (as cited in Isaacs, 2008, p. 305). Isaacs cites from

Bohm: “If somebody asks you your name, you have an immediate answer. It’s a reflex. With

a more difficult question, there’s a way the mind searches in the memory for answers; there’s

a searching reflex set up… I’m proposing that this whole system works by a set of reflexes—

that thought is a very subtle set of reflexes which is potentially unlimited; you can add more

and more and you can modify your reflexes (as cited in Isaacs, p. 305). Isaacs (2008) picks up

on at least one more of Bohm’s proposals and builds on another claim that “we see the world

through our memory” (p. 307).  

5

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

Does this mean memory dictates how we think, act, and make decisions? Does memory

define our identity creating a kind of mental autobiography – a private book of who we are?

3D image of author Kader Abdolah designed as a part of the campaign for the Dutch Book Week 2011by the agency Van Wanter Etcetera. Retrieved March, 31, 2015, from: http://www.feelguide.com/2011/03/26/ad-agency-creates-brilliant-3d-portraits-of-anne-frank-and-vincent-van-gogh-for-dutch-book-festival/#!prettyPhoto/0/)

There is a problem with this visualisation. There are pages we can’t access and lines missing.

Some chapters are glued together and others seem to be totally fictional.  The book seems to

6

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

be hiding a secret of some sorts, as if our understanding of ‘memory’ would be limiting and

missing a crucial element in a way. Endel Tulving, the experimental psychologist and

cognitive neuroscientist, suggested that human memory didn’t evolve so that we could

remember but to allow us to imagine what might be (Robson, 2015, p. 105). Our memories

enable us to write new chapters in our lives. We tear up the pages of our autobiographies and

glue together the fragments into a montage of our future. However, if our future chapters are

based on, and limited by, the pages that already exist, how we can create the future we want?

Isaacs writes: “The only way out of this system is to live in the present moment (…). When

we come into the present moment, all what is unnecessary, dissolves, and we have a more

direct sense of the unfolding nature of our voice and presence. We know who we are and

what we need to say for ourselves” (p. 307). In the present, we go beyond memory and

thoughts. In the present, nouns change to verbs and we are existing (‘-ing’). In those instances

we are, fully and truly aware of our own ‘being,’ the core of who we are. We notice

ourselves. We become the observer to self and the relationships we have with others. From

this ‘core’ of self we notice with precision the manufacturing process of thoughts creation

and their fleeting existence. As Isaacs (2008) underlines this “ability to observe the thought

processes is one of the central transformational vehicles of dialogue” (p. 144).

Abstraction wars

I hadn’t seen my sister for six months and was pleased knowing she was coming to

visit. We sat in my room, on the bed, as we used to when we were children. It was Easter

time. She popped in to share her reflections she recently wrote. I realised it was important for

her and I to set up an intention to listen carefully to what she planned to communicate. Two

minutes in and she suddenly stopped and became silent. Our mum, who was in a room with

7

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

us, asked, “What happened?”  My sister looked at me and snapped, “You laughed. How dare

you!?”

“What?” I responded, “I did not! What are you talking about?”

Isaacs describes how we can perceive our worlds through interpretive frames (p. 304). In

Kurosawa’s famous Rashomon, a man is robbed and the story is told several times over from

the perspectives of the different characters and as we hear later in the film they are all “lies”

(Jingo, Kurosawa, 1950). I wonder if the existence of different views of reality means truth

cannot exist. Or is it rather truth cannot exist in a view but is placed somewhere in between

views?

In the conversation with my sister we were blindly fighting each other with our views. Each

convinced it was “I” who was right, totally unaware that there are many versions of the

reality. We were like two people who saw the same movie but sat in different chairs when

watching it and then discussed what we saw forgetting there are as many version of the

“truth” as there are chairs in the cinema. Isaacs calls these sorts of discussions the

“abstraction wars” (p. 43).

Every day I participate in a number of abstraction wars: with my sister, mother, partner,

daughter, and even our dog.  Isaacs (2008) explains the differences between discussion vs.

dialogue and indicates they both are useful: “Discussion is about making a decision. The

word decide means “to resolve difficulties by cutting through them.” Its roots literally mean

to “murder the alternative”. Unlike dialogue, which seeks to open possibilities and see new

options, discussion seeks closure and completion” (p. 45). The question I am asking myself is

what system we use to make a choice between dialogue and discussion? How do we know

8

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

which is needed most?

As soon I entered into the abstraction war snapping back at my sister, I noticed a number of

new, internal processes taking shape in my mind. I was aware of anger, shock, judgment, and

disappointment even. A number of voices were shouting in my mind:

- She is so angry and mistrusts everyone.

- If I can see it, this, too, is in me.2

- So what are you going to do? Where will you look? Are you going to say anything?

- Somebody help! Help!

Bohm explains: “If you are able to give attention to, say the strong feelings that might

accompany the expression of a particular thought – either your own or another’s – and to

sustain that attention, the activity of the thought process will tend to slow you down. This

may permit you to begin to see the deeper meanings underlying your thought process and to

sense the often incoherent structure of any action that you might otherwise carry out

automatically” (1991, p. 5).

My internal processes were taking place on so many levels and with such a complexity I had

the impression I was making the situation worse by being, for what it seemed like, silent for

ages. In silence I was having a discussion with the enemies of my own.

2 I suspect this particular voice was the echo of what I learnt from Isaacs (2008) “Whatever the behaviour we hear in another, whatever struggle we see in them, we can choose to look for how these same dynamics operate in ourselves. The courage to accept it as not only “out there,” but also “in here,” enables us to engage in the world in a very different way (p. 124).

9

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

Walt Kelly (1971) Pogo [comic strip] Retrieved March, 31, 2015, from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comic_strip%29#/media/File:Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg

 

Bullets points

I have always liked bullets points. There is something of an ‘order’ and ‘disciplined’

quality to them. They bring clarity, visibility and arrangement to otherwise scattered

elements. Below is the list of separate and personally powerful thoughts, ideas, concepts and

questions I found in Isaacs’ book.  Some may find them too bare when removed from their

context and, too difficult to be understood or, as it happened in my case, strong enough to

shine in simplicity and shortness of their own.

-          “One can’t “outthink” the crises – one has to go through it” (Isaacs, 2008, p. 263).

-          “Unfold your genuine self. The principle of unfolding implies the gradual process of

learning to tell the truth about what we feel and know”(p. 63).

-          “What do you want to be known for?” (p. 171).

-          Reflection in action is the ability to see what is happening as it is happening (p. 141).

10

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

-          “Seeing one’s own thought (…) is a little like opening the mind’s factory door and

looking at the processes inside” (p. 141).

-          “Human beings experience the world through the structures of their consciousness” (p.

144).

-          “Who will play your music if you don’t do it yourself?”(p. 169).

-          “Were you understood as you intended?” (p. 251).

Coming full circle

Peter M. Senge in the forward to Isaacs Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together

writes: “You talk, you talk and talk until the talk starts”. When reviewing the content of my

essay so far it feels as though I wrote, wrote and wrote and no writing started. I recognise I

have many starting sentences and not enough “talking” for the real “talking” to start. The

reason I didn’t touch on the model of dialogue3 or Isaacs’ Four Fields of Conversation4 is that

I have known about them for some time and when reading Isaac’s book the concepts that

were new grabbed my attention instead.

In today’s world, where the pressure is to have everything researched and proved, supported

with models and theories, basing my writing on my own subjective experience equals failure.

I broke all possible rules and instead created my own, approved by no one. For most of the

time I was attempting to grasp relatively abstract ideas5 too subtle to be precisely defined.

Another perspective which is emerging at the moment is that words are not sufficient,

especially the written one. Using them to capture what is known to be impossible to capture

was destined to disappoint.

3 This, in the most abbreviated form, is: listening, respecting, suspending, voicing.4 Based on Kantor’s Four Player System Isaacs describes four fields of conversation, essentially politeness, breakdown, inquiry and flow.5 Take for example “wholeness” p. 1-2.

11

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

If words are insufficient to grasp dialogue could image be more precise?

Fligstein, in his paper “Social Skill and the Theory of Fields”, describes the field theory and

examines how individuals construct social fields, and how they are affected by such fields

(2001). Isaacs explains “the idea that social “fields” are an important determinant in the

quality of our thinking, acting, and conversation represents an important evolutionary step in

how human beings think about society and organizations” (p. 263).  Our world does not

revolve around ourselves as individuals. Research tells us that what we are like as individuals

depends on how we are linked socially and emotionally with others in relational networks

(Terrell, Shafie, Golitko, 2014). People exist through “thinking together” in a relationship.

Interconnected with each other we are constantly being re-shaped by interactions we have

with others and ourselves. Humans exist in generated by themselves, social networks,

networks of communications6, with thoughts and meaning being a product of these

interactions. This gives raise to further communications, enabling the network to generate

itself with its own characteristics: the networks’ culture. Networks exist because we are and

in the same time we exist because networks create who we are. This is an interconnected and

interdependent process.

What happens when network uses dialogue as a form of communication?

A culture of dialogue is created. Members of such “networks of dialogue” are constantly

seeking new possibilities and options, constantly reaching out to others and themselves.

These networks are characterised by movement and change. They are relentlessly looking for

creating understanding and meaning. They base their existence on learning and evolving.

6 I have heard of ‘networks of communications’, as described by Niklas Luhmann, in talk delivered by Fritjof Capra based on his and Pier Luigi Luisi’s  book System View of Life. A talk was given at Schumacher College (UK), Dartington on May 7th 2014 and can be accessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If2Fw0z6uxY

12

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

They inquire into the meaning of its wholeness in the relationship with itself. They are the

world, and the world is in them.

Connected companies, complex systems, and social intranets [image]. Retrieved March 31, 2015, from: https://www.thoughtfarmer.com/blog/connected-companies-complex-systems-and-social-intranets/)

13

A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE

References

Bohm, D. (1980).Whole and the implicate order, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bohm, D., Factor, D., Garrett, P.,(1991). Dialogue – A proposal. Retrieved from

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html

Corrigan, C.,(2006). Language and leadership practice for convening dialogue. Retrieved

from http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/language-and-leadership-practice-for-

convening-dialogue/

Fligstein, Neil., (2001). Social Skill and the Theory of Fields. Sociological Theory, vol. 19:2

Isaacs, W., (2008). Dialog and the art of thinking together, New York: Random House.

Kurosawa, A., (Director). (1950). Rashomon [Motion picture]. Japan: Daiei Film Co., Ltd.

Robson, D., (2015). Memory The Ultimate Guide. The Human Brain, p. 105.

Terrell, J. E., Shafie, T., Golitko, M., (2014). How Networks Are Revolutionizing Scientific

(and Maybe Thought). Retrieved

from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/12/12/how-networks-are-

revolutionizing-scientific-and-maybe-human-thought/

What are the thoughts made of? (2011) Retrieved from http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-

are-thoughts-made

14