This newsletter article briefly describes PCP’s early work on developing a model for single-session introductory dialogues with small groups of people who self-described as prochoice or prolife on the abortion issue.

Published in Ki Notes, a publication of Aiki Works Inc., edited by Judith Warner, vol. 4, no. 4 (October 1992): 3-4.

It has been clear to us for a long time that the vision of a "conflict resolution" process for a complex issue is not necessarily resolution, but more realistically an increase in understanding and recognition of common ground among parties. When we heard of the Public Conversations Project, we were at once interested. What follows is a brief description by Executive Director Margaret Herzig of what we see as a cutting edge project in the area of abortion.

After watching a noisy televised debate on abortion in December of 1989, Laura Chasin mused that she and many of her family therapy colleagues knew how to facilitate constructive exchanges among related individuals on "hot" family issues, and she wondered whether their approaches could be used to help small groups of unrelated citizens engage in productive conversations on divisive public issues. She gathered a small group of colleagues at the Family Institute of Cambridge who shared her curiosity, and our project was launched.

Polarized Conflicts in Families and Societies

The idea that family therapy skills can be fruitfully applied in the realm of "public conversations" became increasingly compelling to us as we noted many similarities between polarized political conversations and the conversations between family members in chronic conflict. Both are unvarying and predictable; old ideas recirculate, options are seen as limited, and genuine questions are rarely asked. Partisans on each side exalt their own "truth" and develop a demonic image of their adversary. They are rarely mindful of the costs of the battle to the whole system or to the integrity of individuals whose allegiance to one side or the other may require them to ignore experiences and suppress beliefs that do not fit easily with the statements associated with their "side." Passion, energy, compassion, and resources are depleted in fruitless battles. Those who join neither side are devalued as passive, uncaring or muddle-headed.

We knew from our clinical work that, in the right conditions, people in conflict can set aside the certainty that their own perceptions represent the only "truth" and open themselves to listening and learning about the experiences and perceptions of others. We set out to discover what such conditions would be in the context of stalemated political conflicts. We decided to focus our initial efforts on the abortion issue.

To date, we have conducted eighteen dialogue sessions on abortion. Participants in most groups were identified through informal networking and by requesting names from local activist organizations. Most groups involved four to eight people, half of whom identified themselves as pro-life and half as pro-choice, and most involved both men and women. Most participants did not know one another ahead of time.

Our learning process is far from complete, but with the help of our seventy-four participants, who have been co-explorers and teachers, we have developed a replicable model for opening dialogues on abortion. In the coming year, we hope to develop adaptations of the model in consultation with others interested in promoting dialogue on "hot" topics.

An Overview of the Model

We have two pre-meeting contacts with participants, a telephone invitation and a confirming letter, in which we communicate our goals and expectations. We explain that we aim to provide a safe setting in which people with different views on a hotly debated topic can explore the values and concerns that underlie the rhetoric and slogans presented in the public debate. We emphasize our interest in participants’ unique personal views and we invite them to consider their uncertainties as well as their certainties and to ponder what they are genuinely curious to learn from those who do not share their ideas and beliefs.

Before the dialogue session begins, we have an informal buffet dinner with the participants and invite each person to say something about him or herself. At this point, the topic of abortion is off-limits. After dinner, the participants enter the dialogue room with the two members of our team who will serve as facilitators that evening. Participants are seated in an alternating pattern, next to those on the "other side," not opposite them.

We start the session by establishing clear agreements and suggesting guidelines. A "pass" rule is proposed, which encourages participants to decline to respond to any question, no explanation required. This establishes a non-coercive atmosphere and frees questioners to express their curiosity fully. Other agreements pertain to: confidentiality; not interrupting; and using considerate language (e.g. not using "anti" terms to label the views of others).

We then suggest to participants that a "different kind of conversation" is most likely to emerge if participants speak as unique individuals rather than as representatives of a group, if they set aside any urge they may feel to persuade, and if they give free rein to their curiosity.

We begin and end the session using a highly structured format in which the facilitators pose questions and the participants answer in turn. Having experimented with various opening questions, we have settled on a sequence of three questions that usually stimulate candid self-expression and evoke the interest of other participants. The first question aims to elicit personal stories that ground the conversation in the richness and complexity of subjective experience. We ask participants to "say something about your own life experience in relation to the issue of abortion, for example, something about your personal history with the issue, how you got interested in it, or what your involvement has been." The second question, "What is at the heart of the matter for you, as an individual?" permits participants to speak openly about their most fundamental beliefs and concerns without fear of rebuttal.

After answering questions one and two, participants usually feel well enough understood to risk answering question three, which invites expression of uncertainties, gray areas, dilemmas and value conflicts. These are usually points of silence within participants’ general approach to the issue. Participants often express an appreciation of the complexity of the issue of abortion and an awareness that their dominant view does not embody all of their values.

In the middle segment of the session, which usually lasts about 45 minutes, the facilitators pull back from their central role as questioners and invite the participants to ask questions of each other -- genuine questions, not rhetorical questions. They suggest that participants ask questions that others can answer for themselves, rather than speaking for people or groups not present. Participants are encouraged to leave "they" and "them" out of the conversation.

The tone and the pace of the exchanges are strikingly different from what we are accustomed to in debates. The interpersonal drama of heated debate is missing. The drama takes place, for the most part, within the participants as they work their way to new speaking and listening.

Some participants are surprised and encouraged by the shared concerns and values that regularly emerge in their conversation regarding, for example, promoting responsible sexual behavior, increasing access to reliable contraception, providing prenatal care, enhancing the self-esteem of teenagers, and improving options for women who have babies. Some participants have expressed a strong desire to move beyond polarization toward collaborative work on such issues. Others worry that, in spite of common concerns, fundamental differences will undermine such collaboration.

In the last 20 minutes of each session, the facilitators pose two questions designed to help participants bring their experience to a satisfying close. First, they ask participants to reflect on what they "have done or not done to make this conversation go as it has?" Then they ask participants if there is any final comment or question they would like to bring into the room, knowing there will not be time for discussion.

In their reflections and closing comments, and in follow-up calls with us, many participants contrast their experience in the session with the public debate. A few have said that they missed the "passion" of debate and some report that they had difficulty "biting their tongues." But many report a paradoxical experience with the constraints of the agreements. Released from the duty to "tow the line" they feel liberated to share their own unique set of beliefs, experiences, and perspectives, including their contradictions, and their complexities. One man said, "Restraint allowed us to go further.... With rhetoric you don't have to think... You don't have to deal with things that hurt, things that stretch." Another said that he was braver than he thought he would be: he risked sharing his "unpolished" ideas because he trusted that he would be listened to and that the others would not turn his lack of "polish" to their own advantage. Several participants have made similar comments about holding less tightly to their positions and allowing themselves to show the "chinks in their armor." One woman commented on her sense of authenticity in the group. She said that she usually leaves groups wondering how she "bought in" to the prevailing view in the room. She said, "I don’t feel that way about this process... The fact is that I felt everything that I said."

Some participants comment on various elements of our model that helped them to have a "different kind of conversation." For example, some have said that the recruiting call and the letter helped them to bring their more thoughtful selves into the session. Others reported that they had tried to guess during the dinner who would be on which "side" and when their guesses were wrong, they had to confront stereotypes they didn’t realize they held. One man told us that he learned an important lesson from one of his "adversaries."

The other man had a strong point of view, but most of all he had an understanding that building communication superseded his own conviction. He was willing to let down the boundaries of his own convictions which displayed real personal strength.... He trusts that a good process will create a consensual perspective that will sufficiently encompass his own perspective. I'm struggling with this issue of how strongly I hold onto a point of view and how that can impede communication and intimacy. I value a strong point of view, but I see the value of openness. Openness doesn't have to mean sappy political views.

We believe that this man and many of our participants would agree with Thomas Crum's assertion: "The more we move away from our position, the closer we will get to what our bigger vision and interests are."

This report was written by the research team of The Public Conversations Project which consists of Laura Chasin (Director), Margaret Herzig (Executive Director), Carol Becker, Richard Chasin, and Sallyann Roth

As published in Ki Notes (a publication of Aiki Works, Inc.) October 1992, Vol. 4, No. 4: pp. 1, 3-4. The editor of Ki Notes is Judith Warner.