In a perceptive column in the Sunday Times on 5th April 2020[1], whilst lamenting what he calls ‘a deluge of recrimination’ about mistakes made by the UK government in its handling of the coronavirus pandemic, Matthew Syeed writes, “We need a rational debate now about charting a wise exit from the lockdown, about how to distinguish between people who have died with, rather than from, coronavirus, and about whether the government would benefit from new expertise, not least from industry, as it confronts unprecedented administrative challenges.”
Far be it from me to take issue with the winner of the Sports Journalist of the Year in 2016, especially when I am completely in agreement with the main point he is making: that to be indulging in a blame game under the present circumstances is “nothing less than a disgrace”.
But I respectfully suggest that what we need is less a ‘debate’, than a process of national and international dialogue. There is a big difference. It is true that both debate and dialogue are forms of structured conversation, but the purpose of a debate is to produce a victory for one point of view over another, and each proponent is encouraged to defend their own opinion whilst identifying weaknesses and flaws in their opponents’. In government and politics, it certainly leads to legitimacy for the winners, but it also creates losers.
Dialogue is very different. It encourages listening without resistance and explores underlying causes, rules and assumptions to get to deeper questions and framing of problems. In 1990, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology initiated the MIT Dialogue Project to allow dialogue to become a tool of practical use for organizations. In 1999 William Isaacs, its first Director, published “Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together”[2] making the impressive results public, and describing a process for transforming the quality of conversation and the thinking that lies beneath it.
The trouble is, the principles of ‘debate’ are woven into the fabric of almost every aspect of our everyday lives in UK: in parliament, in courts of law, in media interviews, in general elections – the list is extensive. “Dialogue,” writes William Isaacs, by way of contrast, “poses a paradox in practice. While it seeks to allow greater coherence among a group of people (note this does not necessarily imply agreement), it does not impose it. Indeed, dialogues surface and explore the very mechanisms by which people try to control and manage the meanings of their interactions.”[3]
Nevertheless, if we are to avoid the inevitable search for ‘winners and losers’ in the current ‘blame game’ around actions to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, shouldn’t we be seeking to transform the quality of our public conversations about it?
Terry Cooke-Davies
5th April 2020
[1] Matthew Syed, ‘I challenge the online ‘experts’ so critical of No 10 on coronavirus: tell us, has Sweden got it right or wrong?’, Sunday Times, 5thApril 2020.
[2] Isaacs, William (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Currency. New York, NY.
[3] Downloaded at https://thesystemsthinker.com/dialogue-the-power-of-collective-thinking/ on 5th April 2020.
