Dialogues

A couple of months ago, Barbara and I attended two sessions of the CHQ Dialogues during our visit to Chautauqua. Chautauqua is best known as a historic center for lifelong learning, thoughtful dialogue, the arts, religion, and civic engagement. If you google it, you’ll find something like this. The institution’s mission emphasizes exploring “the best in human values” through programs in arts, education, religion, and recreation, while fostering an informed and engaged public. The week we attended, the focus was “gatherings”.

Part of the weekly programing includes the CHQ Dialogues. Again, google says CHQ Dialogues are small-group, facilitated conversations based on the lectures and ideas presented during the Chautauqua season. The lectures provide the information, and the Dialogues provide the opportunity to reflect on those ideas with others, gain new perspectives, and practice civil conversation across differences.

According to the promotional materials for the Dialogues, Chautauquans have been facilitating discussions about weekly lectures at Chautauqua for decades. Barbara and I were especially interested in the Dialogues because we facilitate discussion groups in The Villages and are always looking for ways to improve our own approach. Before each session, participants received a set of participation agreements that emphasized values such as active listening, respecting diverse backgrounds and opinions, avoiding sidebar conversations, staying focused on the topic, disagreeing without being disagreeable and making generous assumptions of others’ intent. On paper, it seemed like an excellent foundation for a productive exchange of ideas.

Each participant received a set of guidelines before we began so it should have been easy to cooperate, but some just liked hearing themselves speak. They just did what they wanted in spite of the facilitators efforts to guide the discussion.

During the first session we attended the discussion drifted away from those principles. One participant, a former professor of indigenous history, repeatedly steered the conversation toward the influence of the Iroquois on the formation of American government and Benjamin Franklin’s writings about them. His comments may have been historically valid and interesting, but they had little connection to the week’s theme of “gathering.” More importantly, the same points were repeated several times, leaving less opportunity for others to contribute. As a result, the conversation became less of a dialogue and more of a lecture, despite the facilitators’ efforts to keep the group focused and inclusive.

I didn’t attend any session focused on “indigenous history,” but he rambled on regardless. The week’s theme was “gathering,” yet things went off track from the start. The facilitators tried to keep participants on task, but people like the professor made their job harder than necessary. I don’t care much for freelancers. They tend to see themselves as more important than everyone else, which they’re not. I find them annoying and, at the very least, rude.

The second session provided a striking contrast. The facilitator established the tone from the beginning, and participants generally followed the participation agreements. People listened attentively, shared their perspectives respectfully, and allowed others the same opportunity. While there were differing opinions, the discussion remained focused and constructive. Everyone contributed to the conversation rather than competing to dominate it. To me, that session reflected the true spirit of dialogue: participants learning from one another while exploring a common topic.