Dialogue:
the Path to be happy couples
ADRIAN B SMITH, M.Afr
The most
frequent and at the same time the most superficial I call the neutral
level. It might equally be called the business
level. We relate to people, not because
they are this or that person but because of their roles, because they can
provide us with out needs. Our only
reason for relating to them is to achieve a task, as for instance, any
communication we might have with the girl at the checkout of the Supermarket. This is the hai and bye relationship. Its a natural way of dialogue for the business relationship. It would not help the couples to come closer at any cost.
At the next
level communication is at least between persons as persons, but it is still
superficial. We might describe it as an exterior
exchange. It is the sort of
conversation that takes place at a party. This method wont fit for the couples because its a particular time of conversation. The dinning-room: It is a social
exchange. We chat about the day’s news,
the weather: all very safe topics because we give away nothing of ourselves or
our feelings.
Among close
friends a deeper or interior communication is possible. It is more personal. We are able to share opinions and feelings
because trust has been established. We
are getting to know the person and allowing her/him to get to know us rather
than just to know about us.
Although we are prepared to take some risks in exposing ourselves at
this level, there are still some no-go areas. It is the beginning stage for the couple to have a confident enough to start a dialogue.
The next is the intimate
or deepest level and this is only possible between a few very close
friends. We give and receive as we
are. We feel free to express our joy,
our anger, our sorrow. We can weep with
them and know they will think no less of us.
We feel safe in their company to be our real selves. We do not have to pretend with them that we
are other than we are. This is the most
beneficial context for personal growth.
Between people at this lever there is a deep communication in which few
words are necessary. There is no
embarrassment in long periods of silence. In this method would help the couples to express their feeling this would help them to grow better as the couples.
Finally, of
course, there is the level of our communication with God in which nothing is
hidden. It is the union of the core of
my being with the core of God’s being.
Feeling expressed through dialogue
The most useful
word for understanding human communication is ‘Dialogue’. When speaking on this subject I have often
asked the audience what comes to mind when they hear that word. They come up with: conversation, Two people,
Sharing, Discussion, Listening, Speech, Agreement, Acceptance. Nowhere have I found a better description
that that in the Letter to the Ephesians: ‘Speaking the truth in love’
(Eph.4:15). But this needs a bit of
unpacking.
In order to be
authentic, one must be able to trust one’s interlocutors. This allows one to
put away one’s masks. The one who knows that he / she is allowed to express his
/ her true sentiments, and, even more, is aware that his / her sentiments are
accepted and respected, feels welcomed, understood and consoled.
Authenticity is
the first condition for dialogue; the second is listening. For want of these
conditions, many conversations do not reach beyond the level of parallel
monologues without audience. When the persons in conversations are concerned
with what they have to say rather than listening to the other, mutual
understanding becomes difficult.
In dialogue, one
has to be specific. It means to be concrete and to limit oneself to responding
to what the other says or wants to say. Mixing up issues and dragging in
matters unrelated to the point are illogical, dishonest and unproductive ways
of dialoguing. Discuss directly and frankly all and only what the original
theme of discussion requires.
In good
communication, concrete replies, and not vague and evasive ones, are important.
Since such replies may confront the inconsistencies and contradictions in the
other, one should take care not to hurt the other. The best things said badly
have only a bad effect. Confronting should not be done with a view to defeat,
humiliate or even accuse the other. It should be an exercise of charity, to
help the other to overcome a crisis, to correct a mistake, to have the right
understanding or attitude, and to put him or her on the right track.
It is within our
nature as human beings to seek truth.
But truth (like goodness, love, beauty, life, reality, freedom, etc) is
an absolute value, different from relative values such as civil laws, cultural
traditions, the Highway Code, which change according to needs and
circumstances. Absolute values possess
an element of the divine and therefore they are beyond being fully comprehended
by us. We can only deal with them
partially, one aspect at a time. In the
case of truth, we can handle it only in the form of truths, but even here we
suffer from the limitations of our thought patterns, our way of reasoning, our
past experiences, our education, our beliefs, etc. When we attempt to communicate our
understanding of truths to others we are faced with even more limitations
because we are dependent upon words.
Among the barriers to pure communication are the changing value of
words, the cultural experience and formal education of each person, their
psychology, their loves, hates and fears as well as the level of relationship
that exists between the communicators.
Word are symbols of symbols and therefore twice removed from reality.
Speaking the
truth ‘in love’ implies wishing for each other’s growth. This concerns the attitude, the willingness
with which we enter into dialogue. We
have to be prepared to accept others without any conditions, allowing them the
freedom to be themselves. Accepting
their gifts, their prejudices, their way of relating and communicating, their
wounds, their failures and their masks, but always believing in their
sincerity, their honesty, their desire for truth, their goodness. It means listening respectfully, leaving them
the freedom and space ‘not to say’, avoiding interpreting, solving, judging, prying. A loving attitude to dialogue also means
accepting myself and asking the other to accept me as someone different. It demands that I share who I am, not just at
the level of ideas. It means sharing
without any attempt to change the other or to win the other over to my point of
view. It requires that I choose the
appropriate language, gesture and moment.
In this exchange I take a risk.
It is a risk to be my real self, to lower my mask, to lose my feeling of
superiority or inferiority. I risk
feeling rejected, misunderstood. Above
all, I risk hearing God speak to me through the other and allowing God to speak
to the other through me.
GOD’S DIALOGUE OF SALVATION
Our mode must be
the manner of God’s dialogue with us.
Pope Paul VI wrote beautifully about this in his first encyclical letter,
Ecclesiam suam, in 1964. The
third part is all about dialogue, but numbers 70-77 are devoted to what he
calls ‘The dialogue of Salvation’. He
writes: ’The whole history of the salvation of humanity is one long varied
dialogue, which marvelously begins with God and which he prolongs with men and
women in so many different ways.’ Pope
Paul then goes on to propose that God’s dialogue with us is the model for our
dialogue with each other. It is not
measured by results or by whether the other party deserves it; the dialogue of
salvation is never imposed on us, nor are we forced to accept it. We are offered it with great delicacy. No one is excluded from it. As God takes the initiative, and indeed risk,
in dialoguing with us, so we have to take the initiative and risk in opening
dialogue with others.
FIVE FORMS OF DIALOGUES
In order to
enter into Dialogue as a tool for community building we need some form in which
to practice it. Here are five exercises
that can be used in community. Each
takes the group to a deeper lever so it is important that we only journey on to
the next when we all feel comfortable with the present level.
SHARED PRAYER: This is something, which most religious have
experienced, at least occasionally if it is not a regular community
practice. Through it we enter into a new
dimension of relationship with others because we reveal something of our inner
selves. We do not gather to recite
prayers but to pray from our hearts as we feel inspired. We share in this prayer as much by accepting
the prayers of another as by praying aloud ourselves. We are allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to
us through another person. It is active
listening. The best example we have is
in the way Jesus opened his heart to his Father in prayer during the Last
Supper in the presence of his closest friends.
In these sessions we can feel comfortable with periods of silence.
COMMUNICATION OF
LIFE: There is so much around us that communicate
death and negativity that this is an exercise in which we can be life-giving to
one another. We share how each is
experiencing life at this point in time: our joys, worries, sadnesses,
encouragements. What we are sharing is
the common fund of human experience that the community experiences right
now. Our listening to each other is
respectful, not judgmental. We do not
enter into discussion, still less do we express a contrary view. It calls for trust in each other’s good
will. And of course it presumes the
confidentiality of the group: what is said goes not further than the
group. In receiving this communication
we are receiving these persons --- through their body language as well as
through their words. The communication
will become deeper as trust deepens and the community matures.
It is often good
to launch this sharing around a particular theme or question. It might be as simple as: ‘How do you feel
as a member of this community at this moment? (Note that any response that
begins ‘I feel that……..’ is not the expression of a feeling but of a thought!) We receive people as they are: this is not a
time for offering consolation or advice.
Needless to say, plenty of time should be allowed for such sessions. Nothing is more cramping than pressure to
finish before the clock strikes.
REVISION OF OUR
WORK: Since we are people with a common apostolate
this form of dialogue should not be infrequent.
But nor is it to be confused with the regular house council at which the
practicalities of the community are discussed.
It matters not whether the whole group has the same apostolate or
whether each member’s is different.
There is a constant need to evaluate what we are doing: to take a fresh
look at what we are achieving—or are not achieving! ---and ask why. Besides being an occasion for replanning it
allows a clarification of and sharing upon the different visions that the group
might hold. It makes room for the gifts
and charisms of each. We have to ensure
that the common good is our yard-stick for decisions. This demands that we each have the courage to
give up personal whims and hobby-horses.
A useful way of proceeding is to use the See Judge, Act method of the
YCW.
REVISION OF OUR
COMMUNITY LIFE: This is similar to the above except that it
concerns the internal life of the group.
How easy it is for each one and the whole group to get into a rut,
despite the frequent changes of circumstances and personnel. But it is almost impossible for a community
to exercise this level of dialogue unless members feel at home with the
previous exercises. It calls for great
delicacy and sensitivity. It provides a
chance to deal with some of those hidden agendas.
MUTUAL SUPPORT
AND ENCOURAGEMENT: This is the
most difficult but the most fruitful lever of dialogue. It is not to be confused with fraternal or
sororal correction which some of us were introduced to in the novitiate. That was given one-to-one and was usually
negative. Here it is the community
helping each individual to grow so that the community can become richer and
more effective. The group challenges the
individual members to recognize the gifts they do not realize or acknowledge
they possess. Gifts and talents are
given to each one for everyone’s benefit.
This form of dialogue is undertaken only if each individual in the
community is open to it. Otherwise it
might wound and hurt, whereas it is meant to be healing and loving. We mostly only come to know ourselves through
the eyes of others and only when the others have loving eyes and hearts.
A WAY OF
LIFE
We have to face
the fact that there are very few communities, which will achieve the deeper
levels of dialogue, however desirable that may be. There are practical difficulties to be
faced. There is the good will needed to
agree on a time and rhythm for meetings: to give them a priority. There is the fact that religious communities
are not composed of like-minded people who have chosen to live with each
other. Few communities exist in the same
composition for very long: there are comings and goings and each new arrival
means a step back to pick up the new-comer.
There can often be the one or two members who simply do not feel
comfortable in taking part—for whatever reason.
Their feelings too have to be respected.
The presence of a reluctant participant can hold back the process and
suppress true openness and trust. But not
should we allow one person to block the way forward for the others by
preventing their meeting for dialogue.
We have always to decide: What is best for the common good? It is in the spirit of dialogue that we have
to face these difficulties.
What I have
offered here are techniques, particular ways forward. But in reality dialogue is not simply a
technique or an exercise. It is an
attitude of mind, a way of life. Without
it, can we truthfully call our apostolic groups ‘communities’” in the Gospel sense of the word?
This could be applied to the couples to have a dialogue for their happy family living.
EXAMINING OUR
PERFORMANCE
At the end of a
dialogue session in community it is helpful for each participant to reflect
upon the event with questions such as these:
Have I helped to create a climate in which
dialogue can happen?
Have I listened
to each person (not just to their words) with heart as well as ears
Can I
distinguish between sharing knowledge, ideas, and sharing the truth of who I
am?
Have I carried
on a monologue or dominated the group?
If others
dominate, do I love them enough to tell them? in the group? Alone? Speaking the
truth in love).
Have I heard but
not listened---been preparing what I wanted to say while others spoke?
Have I singled
out anyone in the group, forcing that person to speak or to feel uncomfortable
for not wanting to speak?
Am I aware that
I can contribute positively to a group by active listening?
Have I
deliberately not contributed when I could have?
Why?
What other
difficulties am I experiencing that could help the group?
