Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the 
roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, 
and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere 
with real communication between individuals, nations and even different 
parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are 
able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play 
together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about 
subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariable to lead to dispute, 
division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep 
and pervasive defect in the process of human thought. 

In Dialogue, a group of people can explore the individual and collective 
presuppositions, ideas, beliefs, and feelings that subtly control their 
interactions. It provides an opportunity to participate in a process that 
displays communication successes and failures. It can reveal the often 
puzzling patterns of incoherence that lead the group to avoid certain 
issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing 
and defending opinions about particular issues. 

Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and 
intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences 
can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen 
as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a 
sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise. 

Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods 
continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a 
Dialogue because its essence is learning - not as the result of consuming a 
body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of  examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as 
part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers. 

However, we feel that it is important that its meaning and background be 
understood. 

Our approach to this form of Dialogue arose out of a series of 
conversations begun in 1983 in which we inquired into David Bohm's 
suggestion that a pervasive incoherence in the process of human thought is 
the essential cause of the endless crises affecting mankind. This led us, 
in succeeding years, to initiate a number of larger conversations and 
seminars held in different countries with various groups of people which in 
turn began to take the form of Dialogues. 

As we proceeded it became increasing clear to us that this process of 
Dialogue is a powerful means of understanding how thought functions. We 
became aware that we live in a world produced almost entirely by human 
enterprise and thus, by human thought. The room in which we sit, the 
language in which these words are written, our national boundaries, our 
systems of value, and even that which we take to be our direct perceptions 
of reality are essentially manifestations of the way human beings think and 
have thought. We realize that without a willingness to explore this 
situation and to gain a deep insight into it, the real crises of our time 
cannot be confronted, nor can we find anything more than temporary 
solutions to the vast array of human problems that now confront us. 

We are using the word "thought" here to signify not only the products of 
our conscious intellect but also our feelings, emotions, intentions and 
desires. It also includes such subtle, conditioned manifestations of 
learning as those that allow us to make sense of a succession of separate 
scenes within a cinema film or to translate the abstract symbols on road 
signs along with the tacit, non-verbal processes used in developing basic, 
mechanical skills such as riding a bicycle. In essence thought, in this 
sense of the word, is the active response of memory in every phase of life. 
Virtually all of our knowledge is produced, displayed, communicated, 
transformed and applied in thought.. 

To further clarify this approach, we propose that, with the aid of a little 
close attention, even that which we call rational thinking can be see to 
consist largely of responses conditioned and biased by previous thought. If we look carefully at what we generally take to be reality we begin to see 
that it includes a collection of concepts, memories and reflexes colored by 
our personal needs, fears, and desires, all of which are limited and 
distorted by the boundaries of language and the habits of our history, sex 
and culture. It is extremely difficult to disassemble this mixture or to 
ever be certain whether what we are perceiving - or what we may think about those perceptions - is at all accurate. 

What makes this situation so serious is that thought generally conceals 
this problems from our immediate awareness and succeeds in generating a 
sense that the way each of us interprets the world is the only sensible way 
in which it can be interpreted. What is needed is a means by which we can 
slow down the process of thought in order to be able to observe it while it 
is actually occurring. 

Our physical bodies have this capability but thought seems to lack it. If 
you raise your arm you know that you are willing the act, that somebody 
else is not doing it for or to you. This is called proprioception.. We can 
be aware of our body's actions while they are actually occurring but we 
generally lack this sort of skill in the realm of thought. For example, we 
do not notice that our attitude toward another person may be profoundly 
affected by the way we think and feel about someone else who might share 
certain aspects of his behavior or even of his appearance. Instead, we 
assume that our attitude toward her arises directly from her actual 
conduct. The problem of thought is that the kind of attention required to 
notice this incoherence seems seldom to be available when it is most 
needed. 

Why Dialogue

Dialogue is concerned with providing a space within which such attention 
can be given. It allows a display of thought and meaning that makes 
possible a kind of collective proprioception or immediate mirroring back of both the content of thought and the less apparent, dynamic structures that 
govern it. In Dialogue this can be experienced both individually and 
collectively. Each listener is able to reflect back to each speaker, and to 
the rest of the group, a view of some of the assumptions and unspoken 
implications of what is being expressed along with that which is being 
avoided. It creates the opportunity for each participant to examine the 
preconceptions, prejudices and the characteristic patterns that lie behind 
his or her thoughts, opinions, beliefs and feelings, along with the roles 
he or she tends habitually to play. And it offers an opportunity to share 
these insights. 

The word "dialogue" derives from two roots: "dia" which means "through" and "logos" which means "the word", or more particularly, "the meaning of the word." The image it gives is of a river of meaning flowing around and 
through the participants. Any number of people can engage in Dialogue - one can even have a Dialogue with oneself - but the sort of Dialogue that we are suggesting involves a group of between twenty and forty people seated in a circle talking together. 

Some notion of the significance of such a Dialogue can be found in reports of hunter-gather bands of about this size, who, when they met to talk together, had no apparent agenda nor any predetermined purpose. 
Nevertheless, such gatherings seemed to provide and reinforce a kind of 
cohesive bond or fellowship that allowed its participants to know what was required of them without the need for instruction or much further verbal 
interchange. In other words, what might be called a coherent culture of
shared meaning emerged within the group. It is possible that this coherence existed in the past for human communities before technology began to mediate our experience of the living world. 

Dr. Patrick de Mare, a psychiatrist working in London, has conducted 
pioneering work along similar lines under modern conditions. He set up 
groups of about the same size, the purpose of which he described in terms 
of "sociotherapy". His view is that the primary cause of the deep and 
pervasive sickness in our society can be found at the socio-cultural level 
and that such groups can serve as micro-cultures from which the source of 
the infirmity of our large civilization can be exposed. Our experience has 
led us to extend this notion of Dialogue by emphasizing and giving special 
attention to the fundamental role of the activity of thought in the 
origination and maintenance of this condition. 

As a microcosm of the large culture, Dialogue allows a wide spectrum of 
possible relationships to be revealed. It can disclose the impact of 
society on the individual and the individual's impact on society. It can 
display how power is assumed or given away and how pervasive are the 
generally unnoticed rules of the system that constitutes our culture. But 
it is most deeply concerned with understanding the dynamics of how thought conceives such connections. 

It is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behavior
nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal. Any such attempt would distort and obscure the processes that the Dialogue has set out to explore. Nevertheless, changes do occur because observed thought behaves differently from unobserved thought. Dialogue can thus become an opportunity for thought and feeling to play freely in a continuously engaging movement. Topics of a specific or personal nature will become entwined with areas of deeper or more general meaning. Any subject can be included and no content is excluded. Such an activity is very rare in our culture. 
 

Purpose and Meaning

Usually people gather either to accomplish a task or to be entertained, 
both of which can be categorized as predetermined purposes. But by its very nature Dialogue is not consistent with any such purposes beyond the 
interest of its participants in the unfoldment and revelation of the deeper 
collective meanings that may be revealed. These may on occasion be 
entertaining, enlightening, lead to new insights or address existing 
problems. But surprisingly, in its early stages, the dialogue will often 
lead to the experience of frustration. 

A group of people invited to give their time and serious attention to a 
task that has no apparent goal and is not being led in any detectable 
direction may quickly find itself experiencing a great deal of anxiety or 
annoyance. This can lead to the desire on the part of some, either to break 
up the group or to attempt to take control and give it a direction. 
Previously unacknowledged purposes will reveal themselves. Strong feelings will be exposed, along with the thoughts that underlie them. Fixed
positions may be taken and polarization will often result. This is all part
of the process. It is what sustains the Dialogue and keeps it constantly
extending creatively into new domains.

In an assembly of between twenty and forty people, extremes of frustration, anger, conflict or other difficulties may occur, but in a group of this size such problems can be contained with relative ease. In fact, they can become the central focus of the exploration in what might be understood as a kind of "meta-dialogue", aimed at clarifying the process of Dialogue itself. 

As sensitivity and experience increase, a perception of shared meaning
emerges in which people find that they are neither opposing one another, nor are they simply interacting. Increasing trust between members of the
group - and trust in the process itself - leads to the expression of the
sorts of thoughts and feelings that are usually kept hidden. There is no
imposed consensus, nor is there any attempt to avoid conflict. No single
individual or sub-group is able to achieve dominance because every single subject, including domination and submission, is always available to be considered. 

Participants find that they are involved in an ever changing and developing pool of common meaning. A shared content of consciousness emerges which allows a level of creativity and insight that is not generally available to individuals or to groups that interact in more familiar ways. This reveals an aspect of Dialogue that Patrick de Mare has called koinonia, a word meaning "impersonal fellowship", which was originally used to describe the early form of Athenian democracy in which all the free men of the city gathered to govern themselves. 

As this fellowship is experience it begins to take precedence over the more 
overt content of the conversation (sic). It is an important stage in the 
Dialogue, a moment of increased coherence, where the group is able to move beyond its perceived blocks or limitations and into new territory, But it is also a point at which a group may begin to relax and bask in the "high" 
that accompanies the experience. This is the point that sometimes causes
confusion between Dialogue and some forms of psychotherapy. Participants may want to hold the group together in order to preserve the pleasurable feeling of security and belonging that accompanies the state. This is similar to that sense of community often reached in therapy groups or in team building workshops where it is taken to be the evidence of the success of the method used. Beyond such a point, however, lie even more significant and subtle realms of creativity, intelligence and understanding that can be approached only by persisting in the process of inquiry and risking re-entry into areas of potentially chaotic or frustrating uncertainty. 

What Dialogue is Not

Dialogue is not discussion, a word that shares its root meaning with 
"percussion" and "concussion," both of which involve breaking things up. 
Nor is it debate. These forms of conversation contain an implicit tendency 
to point toward a goal, to hammer out an agreement, to try to solve a 
problem or have one's opinion prevail. It is also not a "salon", which is a 
kind of gathering that is both informal and most often characterized by an 
intention to entertain, exchange friendship, gossip and other information. 
Although the word "dialogue" has often been used in similar ways, its 
deeper, root meaning implies that it is not primarily interested in any of 
this. 

Dialogue is not a new name for T-groups or sensitivity training, although 
it is superficially similar to these and other related forms of group work. 
Its consequences may be psychotherapeutic but it does not attempt to focus in removing the emotional blocks of any one participant nor to teach, train or analyze. Nevertheless, it is an arena in which learning and the 
dissolution of blocks can and often do take place. It is not a technique 
for problem solving or conflict resolution, although problems may well be 
resolved during the course of a Dialogue, or perhaps later, as a result of 
increased understanding and fellowship that occurs among the participants. 

It is, as we have emphasized, primarily a means of exploring the field of 
thought. 

Dialogue resembles a number of other forms of group activity and may at 
times include aspects of them but in fact it is something new to our 
culture. We believe that it is an activity that might well prove vital to 
the future health of our civilization. 

How to Start a Dialogue

Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc., lies at the very heart 
of Dialogue. It is one of its most important new aspects. It is not easily 
grasped because the activity is both unfamiliar and subtle. Suspension 
involves attention, listening and looking and is essential to exploration. 
Speaking is necessary, of course, for without it there would be little in 
the Dialogue to explore, but the actual process of exploration takes place 
during listening -- not only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves 
exposing your reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also be reflected back by others in the group. It does not mean repressing or suppressing or, even, postponing them. It means, simply, giving them your serious attention so that their structures can be noticed while they are actually taking 
place. 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 anothers -- 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. Similarly, if a group is able to suspend such feelings and 
give its attention to them then the overall process that flows from 
thought, to feeling, to acting-out within the group, can also slow down and 
reveal its deeper, more subtle meanings along with any of its implicit 
distortions, leading to what might be described as a new kind of coherent, 
collective intelligence. 

To suspend thought, impulse, judgment, etc., requires serious attention to 
the overall process we have been considering -- both on one's own and 
within a group. This involves what may at first appear to be an arduous 
kind of work. But if this work is sustained, one's ability to give such 
attention constantly develops so that less and less effort is required. 

Numbers: A Dialogue works best with between twenty and forty people seated facing one another in a single circle. A group of this size allows for the emergence and observation of different subgroups or subcultures that can help to reveal some off the ways in which thought operatives collectively. 

This is important because the differences between such subcultures are 
often an unrecognized cause of failed communication and conflict. Smaller 
groups, on the other hand, lack the requisite diversity needed to reveal 
these tendencies and will generally emphasize more familiar personal and 
family roles and relationships. 

With a few groups we have had as many as sixty participants, but with that 
large a number the process becomes unwieldy. Two concentric circles are 
required to seat everybody so that they can see and hear one another. This 
places those in the back row at a disadvantage, and fewer participants have 
an opportunity to speak. 

We might mention here that some participants tend to talk a great deal 
while others find difficulty in speaking up in groups. It is worth 
remembering, though, that the word "participation" has two meanings: "to 
partake of", and "to take part in". Listening is at least as important as 
speaking. Often the quieter participants will begin to speak up more as 
they become familiar with the Dialogue experience while the more dominant individuals will find themselves tending to speak less and listen more. 

Duration: A Dialogue needs some time to get going. It is an unusual way of participating with others and some sort of introduction is required in which the meaning of the whole activity can be communicated. But even with a clear introduction, when the group begins to talk together it will often experience confusion, frustration, and a self-conscious concern as to 
whether or not it is actually engaging in Dialogue. It would be very 
optimistic to assume that a Dialogue would begin to flow or move toward any great depth during its first meeting. It is important to point out that 
perseverance is required. 

In setting up Dialogues it is useful at the start to agree the length of 
the session and for someone to take responsibility for calling time at the 
end. We have found that about two hours is optimum. Longer sessions risk a fatigue factor which tends to diminish the quality of participation. Many 
T-groups use extended "marathon" sessions which use this fatigue factor to break down some of the inhibitions of the participants. Dialogue on the 
other hand, is more concerned with exploring the social constructs and 
inhibitions that affect our communications rather than attempting to bypass 
them. 

The more regularly the group can meet, the deeper and more meaningful will be the territory explored. Weekends have often been used to allow a 
sequence of sessions, but if the Dialogue is to continue for an extended 
period of time we suggest that there be at least a one week interval 
between each succeeding session to allow time for individual reflection and 
further thinking. There is no limit to how long a Dialogue group may 
continue its exploration. But it would be contrary to the spirit of 
Dialogue for it to become fixed or institutionalized. This suggests openess 
to constantly shifting membership, changing schedules, or other 
manifestations of a serious attention to an implicit rigidity which might 
take hold. Or merely, the dissolving of a group after some period. 

Leadership: A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals. Any controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will tend to hinder and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate 
and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared. Dialogue is vulnerable 
to being manipulated, but its spirit is not consistent with this. Hierarchy 
has no place in Dialogue. 

Nevertheless, in the early stages some guidance is required to help the 
participants realize the subtle differences between Dialogue and other 
forms of group process. At least one or, preferably two, experienced 
facilitators are essential. Their role should be to occasionally point out 
situations that might seem to be presenting sticking points for the group, 
in other words, to aid the process of collective proprioception, but these 
interventions should never be manipulative nor obtrusive. Leaders are 
participants just like everybody else. Guidance, when it is felt to be 
necessary, should take the form of "leading from behind" and preserve the 
intention of making itself redundant as quickly as possible. 

However, this proposal is not intended as a substitute for experienced 
facilitators. We suggest, though, that its contents be reviewed with the 
group during its initial meeting so that all the participants can be 
satisfied that they are embarking upon the same experiment. 

Subject Matter:  The Dialogue can begin with any topic of interest to the participants. if some members of the group feel that certain exchanges or subjects are disturbing or not fitting, it is important that they express 
these thoughts within the Dialogue. No content should be excluded. 

Often participants will gossip or express their dissatisfactions or 
frustration after a session but it is exactly this sort of material that 
offers the most fertile ground for moving the Dialogue into deeper realms 
of meaning and coherence beyond the superficiality of "group think", good  manners or dinner party conversation. 

Dialogue in Existing Organizations

So far we have been primarily discussing Dialogues that bring together 
individuals from a variety of backgrounds rather than from existing 
organizations. But its value may also be perceived by members of an 
organization as a way of increasing and enriching their own corporate 
creativity. 

In this case the process of Dialogue will change considerably. Members of 
an existing organization will have already developed a number of different 
sorts of relationship between one another and with their organization as a 
whole. here may be a pre-existing hierarchy or a felt need to protect one's 
colleagues, team or department. There may be a fear of expressing thoughts that might be seen as critical of those who are higher in the organization or of norms within the organizational culture. Careers or the social acceptance of individual members might appear to be threatened by 
participation in a process that emphasizes transparency, openness, honesty, spontaneity, and the sort of deep interest in others that can draw out 
areas of vulnerability that may long have been kept hidden. 

In an existing organization the Dialogue will very probably have to begin 
with an exploration of all the doubts and fears that participation will 
certainly raise. Members may have to begin with a fairly specific agenda 
from which they eventually can be encouraged to diverge. This differs from the approach taken with one-time or self-selected groupings in which 
participants are free to begin with any subject matter. But as we have 
mentioned no content should be excluded because the impulse to exclude a subject is itself rich material for the inquiry. 

Most organizations have inherent, predetermined purposes and goals that are seldom questioned. At first this might also seem to be inconsistent with 
the free and open play of thought that is so intrinsic to the Dialogue 
process. However, this too can be overcome if the participants are helped 
from the very beginning to realize that considerations of such subjects can 
prove essential to the well-being of the organization and can in turn help 
to increase the participants self-esteem along with the regard in which he 
or she may be held by others. 

The creative potential of Dialogue is great enough to allow a temporary 
suspension of any of the structures and relationships that go to make up an 
organization. 

Finally, we would like to make clear that we are not proposing Dialogue as 
a panacea nor as a method or technique designed to succeed all other forms of social interaction. Not everyone will find it useful nor, certainly, 
will it be useful in all contexts. There is great value to be found in many 
group psychotherapeutic methods and there are many tasks that require firm leadership and a well-formed organizational structure. 

Much of the sort of work we have described here can be accomplished 
independently, and we would encourage this.   Many of the ideas suggested in this proposal are still the subjects of our own continuing exploration. We do not advise that they be taken as fixed but rather that they be inquired 
into as a part of your own 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. 

copyright information 

I have received permission to distribute the transcribed copy of "Dialogue: 
A Proposal", Copyright 1991, David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett. If you do redistribute this please notify Donald Factor 
<70373.3230@compuserve.com>. 
[Lois Shawver notified Donald Factor as this notification was confirmed 11/28/98. Factor was invited to participate in our discussons at PMTH but as of this date he has not responded to this invitation.] 

Here is his permission: 
If you will read the copyright notice on Dialogue - A Proposal (reproduced 
below) you will see that we are keen to get its message as widely
distributed as possible. So if there are any listservers or FTP or WWW sites that it would be useful on, please put it out. I would like to know where it ends up  if that's possible. We do want to keep the copyright notice intact because it makes the point that it not to be used without express permission for any commercial purposes. 

Copyright 1991. 

C. David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett. 

>>The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to distribute it to others for non-commercial purposes including discussion, inquiry, criticism and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups so long as the material is not altered and this notice is included. All other rights are 
reserved.<< 
 

DIALOGUE - A PROPOSAL 

Copyright 1991. 

c. David Bohm. Donald Factor and Peter Garrett 

The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to 
distribute it to others for non-commercial purposes including discussion, 
inquiry, criticism and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups. All other 
rights are reserved. 

Revision History: 

March 9, 1992 (DB, DF, PG) 
November 26, 1992 (Transcribed - RB) 

Please address any correspondence to: 

Dialogue 
Hawthorn Cottage 
Broad Marston Lane 
Mickleton Lane 
Mickleton 
Glos GL55 6SF 
England