A man hasn't spoken for three days, and a negotiator sits across from him. The room is tense. There's someone prepared with an argument. But the video won't miss a beat, because the experienced negotiator doesn't say a word. He waits. And in that conscious absence, a change occurs. The other man begins to speak. No arguing, but explaining. To be understood, not to beat. This is where exchange is real dialogue. Today we are surrounded by words. Communication is ubiquitous, with political speeches, social media threads, television debates, and meetings in offices all being considerable sources of communication. But, as the conversation goes on, there's a disturbing thought: are we really communicating? Is this just a case of taking turns and broadcasting?
This is a significant difference. The mechanical view of communication is the transfer of information from one place to another. Dialogue — in its full ethicalness — is something more challenging and more transformative. It needs to be between two people who are not only listening, but are willing to be changed by what they hear. It is an insight that has been among the most telling in the history of philosophy, one that the German philosopher Martin Buber made. He said that he described two basic ways that people relate: the I–It mode, where individuals treat the other as an object, or an instrument, or an obstacle; and the I–Thou mode in which they treat the other as a person, a whole person, an irreducible and unique, a truly present person. Most of what we do talk to each other, Buber said, is I–It encounters presented in the guise of dialogue. In the real presence but not real availability.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, a twentieth-century author, added one more crucial element. He said, "Dialogue is a 'fusion of horizons': a time when both my way of seeing the world and your way of seeing the world really meet, and a way of seeing the world neither of us had before. This is not a compromise. It is transformation. Both walk out of the discussion having learned something they were unable to learn without the other. Hence, the ethics of dialogue start with a question of intention rather than a rule of what to say. Why am I speaking? Do I speak to win or to dominate or to be competent or to fill silence? Am I speaking in order to bridge the gap between my experience and yours?
The idea of dialogue in Islam
known as hiwar has a rich intellectual heritage. The Quran is organized as a
dialogic text with arguments, responding to objections, and urging reflection;
it does not ask for uncritical acceptance. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) was known for his ability to listen, then ask and then speak. This is not
just a communication strategy! It is a moral and spiritual exercise.
Education is of course a crucial
lever for developing this practice. The vast majority of formal education
teaches students to give the right answer – to speak the right way, to write
the right way, to argue the right way. However, few learning systems instruct
pupils to speak with intent. The difference is profound. An educated student is
armed. A student who has been trained to have a real conversation is civilized
— that's the real meaning of the word.
The impact is far reaching,
beyond the classroom. The quality of civic life improves measurably when these
public voices speak with purpose; when a politician attempts to dialogue, not
as a means to grandstanding, but as a moral act; when a scholar does so to
further the good of the community; when a journalist does so to serve her
public; when a community leader does so to advance a common good. The
differences which could otherwise lead to confrontation are settled in true
exchange. Honest discussion is what can melt away misunderstandings that could
become prejudice.
On the other hand, an environment where people's discourse is largely characterized by performative language – i.e. a language that aims at humiliating an opponent, motivating a base, and attracting attention rather than providing information – weakens the social trust fabric. This isn't just a cultural note. The political and moral emergency. At the very basic level, the conditions that underlie peaceful coexistence rely on whether the individuals who make up a society can communicate with one another with sincerity. This is very critical in the case of Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Ethnic, linguistic, sectarian, and class diversity is a hallmark of societies and the ability to communicate effectively is essential for peaceful functioning. The other option — dialogue turning into slogan, conversation into declaration — is to the very same sorts of divisions that weaken national unity.
Intentioned speech is no luxury. It's not a philosophical or diplomatic nicety. It's an ethical practice that can be done every day by any person in any conversation. It just takes the sincerity to be present, to be open, and to say what is meant. Over the next 25 articles in this series, we'll explore dialogue from all perspectives — its good and bad qualities, its formal and personal expressions, its ancient origins and its future in digital times. But it all starts here: The act of speaking on purpose, the act of speaking on demand, the act of speaking on revolution.
In your last major conversation,
did you actually converse with the individual before you? Or did you talk to
the version of them that you already believed that they were?
_6784.jpg)
