Sustained Dialogue, Transformative Experience and PoliticalEfficacy

byNissa Shamsi &

Philip D. Stewart Ph.D.1

September 3, 3014

Abstract: “Transformation” describes deeply rooted, profound,long-lasting change in attitudes, perspectives, worldviews and orperspectives. Enabling such transformations is a key componentof addressing or forestalling conflicts, particularly identitybased conflicts. The first section of this paper analyzes therelevant scientific literature on transformation. (pp. 1-10) Inthe second section we elaborate the ways in which SustainedDialogue creates opportunities for profound attitudinal andbehavioral transformations. (pp. 11-16) Interviews with a widevariety of participants in Sustained Dialogue in a variety ofsettings suggestive of actual transformative experiences arepresented in the third section. (pp. 17-29) For those interestedin greater detail, the full texts of these interviews areincluded in the Appendix. (29-54)

I.Definitions of Transformation

There are myriad definitions of “transformation” and“transformational experiences”. Several that align with theseresearch purposes are below. These definitions addresstransformation on the individual level, which is key in thecontext of Sustained Dialogue and its effects post graduation onthe political actor.

1 The research and writing of this report was undertaken as part of a Joint Learning Agreement between the Kettering Foundation and the Sustained Dialogue Institute. Contact: Philstewart16@hotmail.com. Phil Stewart is Program Director and Secretary ofthe Board, Sustained Dialogue Institute; Associate, The Kettering Foundation, and Professor (Emeritus) The Ohio State University.

1

Transformational experiences can be defined as experiences thatfundamentally challenge a person’s assumptions andpreconceptions, as well as their beliefs and values, affectinghow they understand themselves, others, and the world (Tufts).

[Transformations of consciousness arise] when changes areprofound and life changing, affecting our view of the world andour place in it (Institute of Noetic Sciences).

[Transformation is] the process of becoming critically aware ofhow and why our assumptions have come to constrain the way weperceive, understand, and feel about our world; changing thesestructures of habitual expectations to make possible a moreinclusive, discriminating, and integrative perspective; andfinally making choices or otherwise acting upon these newunderstandings (Mezirow).

Transformation involves change in the way we relate to the Other.This relationship, in turn, changes our understanding ofourselves (Hegel).

A Transformational Experience takes us beyond the average, themundane or the “usual” and creates an impact that somehow affectsus. Beyond that, transformation happens when someone’s actions,perspective, attitudes and even lifestyle are changed by thatexperience (Transperia Group).

While all these touch on the characteristics of transformationthat NIF-Style deliberation and Sustained Dialogue strives toachieve, Mezirow’s definition is particularly relevant because ofits attention to assumptions, as well as the action componentthat, as illustrated earlier, is critical to transformation. Anassumption can be defined as something you accept as true withoutquestion or proof.2 In public deliberation, particularly asparticipants struggle with trade-offs, are often exposed toassumptions sharply at variance with those they brought to the2 Karla Reiss, ““Challenging Assumptions.” In Be a Changemaster: 12 Coaching Strategies for Leading Professional and Personal Change. (Thousand Oaks: Corwin A Sage Company, 2012) 10.

2

deliberation. Powerful personal stories often lead participantsto reflect deeply on their own assumptions. With repeatedexposure, profound transformations in assumptions, beliefs andbehaviors can occur. Sustained Dialogue provides students theopportunities to reflect on their assumptions throughrelationship building with others whose identities andexperiences debunk held assumptions; this hopefully creates atriggering event, which leads to critical reflection. Studentswho choose to participate in Sustained Dialogue already have theunderstanding that the need for change exists, but they may notbe aware of the part they play and how their assumptions, bothconscious and subconscious impact their worldview. According toReiss, assumptions are stagnating; they dictate thought andaction.3 For Mezirow, it is imperative to understand thatassumptions limit our understanding of others and the worldaround us. Through awareness, our assumptions cease to belimiting, and a perspective shift takes place. In the end,transformation necessitates an individual to act upon newfoundunderstandings.

The Science Behind Transformational Learning

For better or worse, however, there is no consensus on howtransformational learning occurs either within or across the manyfields that seek to understand this phenomenon. These fieldsinclude neuroscience, psychology, educational pedagogy anddialogue, among others. The good news, however, is that eachprovides important insights into various aspects of the processesthrough which perspectives can be transformed, as well as theobstacles that inhibit or limit possibilities for deep change.

Jack Mezirow, the father of transformative learning theory (TLT),defines transformation in the context of the adult learningenvironment. According to Mezirow, transformational experiencesoccur through the learning process when reflection, dialogue, andaction are present.4 The key concepts of Mezirow’s theory are:

3 Ibid.,114 John Dirkx, "Transformative Learning Theory in the Practice of Adult Education: An Overview," PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7 (1998): 4

3

(1) a disorienting dilemma/triggering event, (2) criticalreflection, (3) rational discourse, and (4) action.5 Thedisorienting dilemma or triggering event is traditionallydescribed as comprising a crisis that is traumatic and anemotional catalytic response.6 In Mezerov’s originalformulation, “individual experience,” or one’s accumulated life-experiences, including the impact of on-going experience, suchas, in our case, deliberation or Sustained Dialogue, constitute“the primary medium of transformative learning.”7 Our attitudes,perspectives, outlooks, world-views are formed over our life-timeas we internalize and give meaning to our experiences. Theseexperiences, then, become the “starting point” for discussionsabout “value judgments or normative expectations.”8

Here we encounter a challenge: psychologists tell us that changesin attitude sufficiently deep to lead to changes in belief andbehavior are relatively rare and difficult to bring about.Particularly important for us is the finding that learning new“facts” does nothing to change attitudes. In particular, NobelLaureate Daniel Kahneman after reviewing a number of relevantstudies, including varieties of the famous "help" experiment thattests readiness to help someone seeming to be chocking and indanger of dying, concludes that from most of these experiments,students learn nothing that changes their way of thinking,although they may have learned new facts. Kahneman finds, “thereis a deep gap between our thinking about statistics and ourthinking about individual cases.  Statistical results with a

5 Originally three such elements were identified: individual experience, critical reflection, and dialogue (Taylor, 1998). While critical reflection was at one time predominantly seen as a rational approach to learning, research has revealed that it is the affective ways of knowing that prioritize experience and identify for the learner what is personally most significant in the process of reflection.” Jack Mezirow, Edward W. Taylor and Associates, Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Practice and Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 2009, (2011-01-04). (p. 4). Wiley. Kindle Edition.6 Gino Pasquariello, “The Way In and The Way On: A Qualitative Study of the Catalysts and Outcomes of Transformative Learning” (Ph.D diss., Asusa Pacific University, 2009):257 Mezirow, Kindle edition, 2011, 6

8 Ibid.

4

causal interpretation have a stronger effect on our thinking thannon-causal information.  But even compelling causal statisticswill not change long held beliefs or beliefs rooted in personalexperience. 9  Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn demonstrated evenamong those whose professions are based upon facts and “hardevidence” profound changes in scientific world-views occur very,very slowly and often only through generational change.10

Certainly most of the information exchanged in dialogue is “non-causal.” In his classic work on the emergence of complexitytheory, M. Mitchell Waldrop retells in chilling detail how thepioneers in this field, in the 1980’s and early 1990’s foundthemselves harassed, excluded from conferences and deniedpublication for ideas that questioned the foundations ofpositivist science, particularly the concept of linearity.11

Mezirov’s solution to this challenge is to assume that life experience is “socially constructed,” and thus it can be “deconstructed and acted on through a process of dialogue and self-reflection.”12 But, this “deconstruction” is neither simple, nor straightforward. Mezirow correctly identifies some “disorienting dilemma or triggering event” as the essential starting point for change. For Kahneman, the “disorienting dilemma” is an “incongruity that must be resolved.” In 40 years of teaching, he found that these stimuli to rethink and reassess arise “most powerfully” when students “find surprising facts in their OWN [emphasis added] behavior, rather than by hearing surprising facts about people in general.”13 "When the students were surprised by individual cases” (that is through hearing the personal stories of others) - two nice people who had not helped

9 Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, 2012, Kindle Edition, 172-174

10 Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, University of Chicago Press, 2012

11 M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon and Schuster, 199212 Mezirow, 6

13 Kahneman, 174

5

someone in trouble – “they immediately made the generalization and inferred that helping is more difficult than they had thought."14 

Why is it that changing perspectives, adopting new points of view, changing judgments is so difficult? Mezirow argues that rational assessment through dialogue and critical thinking shouldsuffice, once a triggering event is present. Kahneman provides persuasive evidence why these are necessary but often not sufficient. Kahneman posits that our brains are composed of two largely independent, yet related systems. In more than 90% of cases, decisions are made by our emotional brain, what he calls “System I.” This emotional brain works very fast and makes decisions based upon accumulated experience. In fact, fMRI studies show that most of our decisions are “made” before we are even consciously aware of them.

“Paul Slovic eventually developed the notion of an affect heuristic, in which people make judgments and decisions by consulting their emotions: Do I like it? Do I hate it? How strongly do I feel about it? In many domains of life, Slovic said, people form opinions and make choices that directly expresstheir feelings and their basic tendency to approach or avoid, often without knowing that they are doing so. The affect heuristic is aninstance of substitution, in which the answer to an easy question (how do I feel about it?) serves as an answer to a much harder question (What do I think about it.)”15 [emphasis added.]

What this means in everyday life is that the prejudices, misperceptions, stereotypes, attitudes and outlooks that we have accumulated through our life-experiences always will tend to shape our first or immediate responses. The neurological basis for this was identified by Antonio Damasio “who had proposed thatpeople’s emotional evaluations of outcomes, and the bodily statesand the approach and avoidance tendencies associated with them, all play a central role in guiding decision making.”16 14 Ibid.15 P. 13816

Ibid

6

Some examples from our experience in Sustained Dialogue may make clear the obstacles and challenges to transformation created by our accumulated experiences and the evaluations associated with them, all of which reside in our largely sub-conscious somatic system, or emotional brain.

In Tajikistan over many decades of Communist rule, elite positions and opportunities for advancement appeared to systematically benefit those from one particular region of the country. Repeated frustration with consistent denial of opportunity, irrespective of talent among many living in other regions became so strong that when the Communist regime broke up in 1991, many in these groups took up arms to secure what they felt were their rights. The resulting civil war created more than 50,000 casualties in a country of only 6 million. When Sustained Dialogue was invited to attempt to create a basis for negotiation, participants from the various sides held such deep anger that they could not sit in the same room together.

In 2001, Sustained Dialogue was invited to help Azerbaijanis and Armenians, including Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh, to resolve their stalemated conflict. During 9 full days of dialogue over 18 months, none of the participants on either side were either ready or able to “hear” the real concerns of the other. The Azerbaijanis, of Turkish and Persian origin, felt deeply humiliated that Armenia, with Russian assistance, had conquered 20% of Azerbaijani territory by the time of a cease-fire in 1994 and continued to occupy it. The Armenians constantly referred both to their proud, if mythical, 500-year Armenian empire and the Armenian Holocaust of 1915 at the hands of the Turks in which an estimated million Armenians lost their lives. They felt the conflict of the early 1990s was a continuation by the Turkic Azerbaijanis to annihilate the Armenian people and nation.

Sustained Dialogue was invited to a private, Jewish day school inOakland California to help raise and resolve concerns regarding embedded racism among some of the staff. Due to declining enrollment on the part of their base student population, the school for several years had been recruiting African-American

7

students. When complaints of unacceptable racist behavior on thepart of some of the Jewish staff had arisen, neither the director, a South African woman who had dedicated her life there to ending Apartheid, nor the resident Rabbi could even conceive of such a possibility.

During the 16 hours of Sustained Dialogue over 8 months at an Oakland temple, undertaken to address issues of subtle discrimination and alienation, one man in his sixties said not a word. But he always attended and listened carefully to the stories being told. These included many personal stories by the temple school’s lesbian administrator, by an Italian lesbian Catholic convert to Judaism, by an African-American convert, and by a mature couple with multiple sclerosis. When at the end oneof the authors asked him what brought him to the dialogue, he replied that he was a former board member at the Temple and when asked by the young Rabbi who organized the dialogue, he felt obliged. However, he explained, “As a life-long liberal, I did not expect to learn anything new, nor to change my outlook at all. I felt I did not need this.”

A middle-aged African-American who more than ten years ago servedthree-months on a felony charge of possessing marijuana, in telling his story to the Columbus (Indiana) Community Sustained Dialogue, noted, although he’d had no violations since and was gainfully, if under-employed, that he was continually harassed bythe Columbus police department. To address this issue, the localpolice chief was invited to meet with him one-on-one. However, the anger within him, built up over a decade, was so strong that he feared would blow up rather than be able to have a constructive conversation, so he cancelled the meeting. The Sustained Dialogue agreed to invite them both to a future meetingin the hope that in this environment this issue could be productively addressed.

A young, male Princeton student had always defined himself as “white,” and was accepted as such by everyone who did not know isfamily. He recognized the social, academic and career advantagesthat being “white” provided. Yet, of course he knew in his conscious mind that his mother was a Caribbean of African

8

extraction. But, he’d developed his whole identity around his “whiteness,” suppressing his conscious recognition of his full heritage.

The daughter of an Indian woman and American man, a student at a university with a new Sustained Dialogue program, had also built her identity around that of her American father, largely suppressing the cultural tug of her Indian heritage.

The common thread running through each of these examples is how deeply embedded assumptions, attitudes, perceptions, outlooks, and especially world-views become in our very sense of identity, of who we are and what is important to us. Our identity is constituted by our accumulated experiences. The meaning and the importance of each experience is both supplied by and recorded inour emotional brains. While many dismiss “emotion” as “intangible and vaporous qualities,” we are reminded by Antonio Damasio, a distinguished neuroscientist who studies emotion and reason in the human brain, that “their subject matter is concrete, and they can be related to specific systems in body andbrain, no less than vision or speech.”17

In Sustained Dialogue we identify five elements that define how we relate to others: identity, interests, power, perceptions and stereotypes and previous patterns of interaction. Of all of these, the most resistant to change is identity. Recall Paul Slovic’s finding that the emotional brain works hard to relieve us of the need to confront challenges to our identity created by triggering events. “The affect heuristic is an instance of substitution, in which the answer to an easy question (how to I feel about it?) serves as an answer to a much harder question (What do I think about it.)”18 [emphasis added]

The implications of these examples and the neuroscience behind them are:

Powerful experiences impacting the rational but particularlythe emotional brain are essential to stimulating lasting,

17 Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Penguin, 1994, 16418 Kahneman, 138

9

sustained transformations in attitudes, perceptions and outlooks.

The most powerful experiences are often created through the personal stories of others that present a profound challengeto our existing assumptions, attitudes and outlooks.

It may take considerable time and appropriate conditions (described below) for people to feel safe telling such stories, and for others to be ready to “hear” them.

It is only with great effort that we engage our consciousness, orpre-frontal cortex, (Kahneman’s System II) in decision-making. Rational assessment of costs and benefits, or tradeoffs, then, isnot a natural act; rather it requires self-consciously overcomingthe ready-made responses of our emotional brain. Yet, of course,transformations in perspective do occur. What makes this possible is the malleability of the physical brain. Daniel Siegel, in conversation with a broad group of neuroscientists andpsychiatrists identified three key characteristics of the mind/brain as related to change:

“The human mind emerges from patterns in the flow of energy and information within the brain and between brains.

The mind is created within the interaction of internal neurophysiological processes and interpersonal experiences.

The structure and function of the developing brain are determinedby how experiences, especially within interpersonal relationships, shape the genetically programmed maturation of thenervous system.” 19

Badenoch draws out the implications of these principles for understanding how perspectives, attitudes, and prejudices can be transformed. “What is immediately striking about these principles is the view that the mind is no longer contained within the individual brain; instead, its emergence is intimately19 Daniel J. Siegel, The Developing Mind: How relationship and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York: Guilford Press, 1999. Cited in Bonnie Badenoch, (2011-01-03). Being a Brain-Wise Therapist: A Practical Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology) (Kindle Locations 5956-5957). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

10

linked to processes in other brains.”20 In short, the mind is open to change through relationships with others. Our minds become more open to constructive or positive change when we are in particular kinds of relationship with others. NIF Deliberation and Sustained Dialogue are designed to create particularly favorable conditionsfor change because when conducted effectively participants feel safe enough to discuss deeply personal struggles and dilemmas as well as ready and able to take in, to really hear what others, different from them, say. We’ll discuss more below about how each of these processes, NIF deliberation and especially Sustained Dialogue builds on these insights from psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience to enable profound change in perspectives, attitudes and world-view, but first we return to Meziorow’s model.

Mezirow typically refers to the disorienting dilemma/triggeringevent in a more negative sense, as something that disorients anindividual’s core assumptions and beliefs.21 More recent studieshave explored the possibility of positive characteristics such ascuriosity, fascination, and intrigue serving as catalysts forcritical reflection.22 Other potentially less traumatic eventsthat precipitate reflection are personal challenges, professionalopportunities, and social interactions with individuals withdifferent belief systems.23 Individuals who experienced hopefulemotions when presented with the opportunity of change also claimthat a positive event led them toward critical reflection.24

Disorienting dilemmas/triggering events can either be experiencedas one event or a series of dilemmas that cause reflection. Formany students in Sustained Dialogue, the dialogue experienceitself serves as this triggering event.

20 (Kindle Locations 1100-1104)21 Gino Pasquariello, 2622 Ibid., 2723 Ibid.24 Ibid., 28

11

Mezirow’s TransformativeLearning Theory

Critical reflection, then, is the cognitive response whereinindividuals reflect on their assumptions and beliefs. It isimportant to note that individuals must actively choose toutilize these triggering events for reflection in order for theirtransformational process to unfold. It is more than possible, infact common, for several people to undergo the same disorientingevent, but only those that actively and critically reflect uponit will be transformed. This has implications for students on acampus who do not have a space to reflect, versus students whoparticipate in multiple NIF deliberations or Sustained Dialogueas spaces to process potentially triggering events (e.g.,incidents on campus, local/national/global events, and dailyinteractions.) The educational reformer John Dewey definescritical reflection, which he calls reflective thought, as“active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief orsupposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds thatsupport it, and the further conclusions to which it tends”.25

Critical reflection is often coupled with self-examination.Through critical reflection, individuals seek to find the sources

25 Paulette Gabriel. “Personal Transformation: The Relationship ofTransformative Learning Experiences and Transformational Leadership.” (Ph.D diss., The George Washington University, 2008). 16

12

of held assumptions along with their overall examination ofself.26 Critical reflection and self-examination are imperativeto the transformative process because it is at this stage thatindividuals begin to examine the validity of their assumptionsand beliefs within the context of the disorientingdilemma/triggering event.

Once a triggering event has initiated the transformationalprocess and an individual has begun to reflect critically onassumptions and beliefs, the realization that others havedifferent assumptions and beliefs will prompt both rational andsomatic, or emotionally-based discourse about various issuesrelating to the triggering event and others’ beliefs orperspectives. Rational discourse, as defined by Mezirow is theuse of dialogue in search for common understanding. But, asKahneman demonstrated, long-term attitude change requires gettingat the underlying somatic or emotional, experience-based sourcesof belief. Along with the critical assessment of assumptions,understanding comes from drawing upon collective experience.Through critical reflection and self-examination, the individualhas realized that her/his assumptions, role, relationships, andactions must begin to fit her/his newfound understanding.Deliberation, particularly when working through trade-offs in thelight of one’s own and other’s personal experience, and dialogueallows the individual to explore new realities and possibilitieswith others. The insight and experiences shared in such settingsenable and help contextualize the transformative process withinnew relationships; it is a humanizing process.27 NIF Deliberationand Sustained Dialogue programs provide an explicit space forindividuals to harness the experiences of others, as well asthemselves, to explore new possibilities and perspectives.Deliberation as a process for making sound decisions andSustained Dialogue set the stage for action. Throughout thetransformative process, the individual comes to the realizationthat change is needed. In order for change to occur, an old26 Ibid.,19427 Tanya A Brown. “How Do We Make That Change? Analysis of Transformative Dialogue in a Community Initiative”. (PhD diss., Duquesne University, 2008), 2

13

perspective must be negated or integrated with a new perspective.First, an individual must acquire the necessary knowledge andskills needed for implementation and become comfortable withinnew roles and using new perspectives. Second, the individual actsupon these new assumptions and beliefs until a high level ofcompetency is reached.28 Reintegrating these new beliefs intoone’s life is the final step in the transformational process.Mezirow calls it “perspective transformation” when anindividual’s actions are changed because the meaning of theirbeliefs or their habitual way of expressing themselves has beentransformed. He defines this transformation as, “the process ofbecoming critically aware of how and why our assumptions havecome to constrain the way we perceive, understand, and feel aboutour world; changing these structures of habitual expectations tomake possible a more inclusive, discriminating, and integrativeperspective; and finally making choices or otherwise acting uponthese new understandings”.29

The transformational process described by Mezirow involves atransformation of the lenses through which an individualperceives herself/himself, others, and the world. The Instituteof Noetic Sciences (IONS) change model or Consciousness ChangeModel similarly defines transformation as the manner in whichworldviews and an individual’s role in the world changes. Thisprocess, called consciousness transformation, follows steps aliketo those outlined by Mezirow.30 According to the consciousnesschange model, transformation begins long before an individual isaware that change is occurring during moments throughout anindividual’s life called “destabilizers”31 The cumulative effectof these destabilizers produces an “aha moment” that activelychallenges assumptions. This “aha moment”, although sometimestraumatic, is also described as being able to be an “encounter of

28 Jack Mezirow. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 199129 Ibid., 16730 Vieten, Cassandra. “A Research Based Model of Consciousness Transformation.” SHIFT (2009): 3231 Ibid.

14

stunning beauty”.32 Here transformation can begin with a positivetriggering event as long as it challenges an individual’s corebelief.

Individuals will then try and use the new experience orrealization in the old lens and find that it does not work; newpractices must be developed. The model requires individuals tostrive and assimilate new perspectives and practices into theireveryday lives.33 The consciousness change model outlines fouressential elements needed to integrate new insights: attentiontoward greater self-awareness; attention toward healing outcomes;repetition of new behaviors; and guidance from trusted people whoare experienced in the practice. The personal transformation mustnow promote community transformation.34 The consciousness changemodel states that an individual who recognizes the benefits ofchange must strive to change and transform her/his community.Collective community transformation then encourages moreindividual transformation and the cycle continues.

IONS Consciousness Change Model

Both Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory and the IONSConsciousness Transformation change model outline a process oftransformation. Although there are some variations, both32 Ibid.33 Ibid., 3334 Ibid.

15

processes require an individual to experience an event thatinitiates reflection, perspective and/or belief change, andaction. The crucial step in both Transformative Learning Theoryand the IONS Consciousness Transformation change model is thefinal stage. An experience is only transformative if anindividual’s behavior and worldview consistently reflects achange in perspective and/or belief. Thus it is their actions,informed by their thoughts or triggering experiences thatconstitute the highest degree of transformation.

II.Elements of Deliberation and Dialogue That Lead to Transformation

Hal Saunders defines dialogue as “listening deeply enough to theother to be changed by what you hear.” This suggests that thevery essence of dialogue is “change,” within ourselves and amongthose in the group. The purpose of dialogue is not just civiltalk; it is to create opportunities for each of us to be open toinner change and change in our relationships with others.Unfortunately, we are not always ready for deep listening, norare we often open to really “hearing” the other. Building onDavid Bohm’s foundational thoughts about dialogue, a number ofways to structure and conduct dialogue have been tried.35 RonaldFisher chronicled many of the key historical efforts, from JohnBurton’s successful use of dialogue to bring an end to thedecades long struggle against the British in Malaysia, to HerbKelman and Ed Azar’s efforts.36 In 2001, David Schoem and SylviaHurtado at the University of Michigan edited a major volume onmethods for inter-group dialogue, seeing dialogue as acontribution to deliberative democracy.37 But, in terms ofunderstanding the conditions necessary for transformativedialogue, William Issac’s contribution stands out. 38

35 David Bohm, On Dialogue, Routledge, 199636 Ronald J. Fisher, Interactive Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University Press, 199737 David Schoem and Sylvia Hurtado (eds) Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy inSchool, College, Community and Workplace, Michigan University Press, 200138 William Isaacs, Dialogue, and the Art of Thinking Together, Currency, 1999

16

Core Elements of Effective Dialogue:Issacs identifies four qualities as essential for building whathe calls a “dialogue container” capable of encouraging change.39

These are worth a bit of clarification as, in one way or another,it is with the hope of creating these conditions that mostdialogues begin with agreement on group norms. These conditionsare “listening, respecting, suspending, and voicing.”

Listening: As with Saunders, Isaacs sees listening as “the heartof dialogue.” Listening requires not only hearing the words, buta readiness in each to “embrace, accept and gradually let go ofour own inner clamoring.” Listening means not only to others,but also to ourselves. As our exploration of the obstacles totransformation has shown, our inner tendencies are always to“project our opinions and ideas, our prejudices, our background,our inclinations, our impulses.” Under these conditions, ournormal state, “we hardly listen at all.” As Krishnamurticoncludes, “One listens and therefore learns, only in a state ofattention, a state of silence, in which this whole background isin abeyance, is quiet…”40

Respecting: Only when we actively adopt the practice of respectis it possible to see another as “a whole human being.” Forinquiry and exploration of ideas and challenges to have “any realeffect,” participants must bring “a stance of deep respect andinclusion.” This means explicitly recognizing each person as“legitimate,” even when we may not like what they think or do.When respect is present, no one tries to convince others of thecorrectness of their position; there are no accusations nor isthere blaming. Respect makes possible honest and deep inquiryinto others’ experiences and ideas.41

Suspending: When we give in to our normal urges to rush tojudgment, when we are sure we are right, our viewsincontrovertible, we cannot take in new ideas. Energy in thedialogue dissipates. When we suspend judgment, that is simply39 Ibid, chapter 10, Setting the Container, 239-26140 Ibid, quoting Indian philosopher Krishnamurti. 8441 Ibid. 110-113

17

“acknowledge and observe our own thoughts and feelings and thoseof others as they arise,” we strengthen the ability of each toreally hear. Suspending is what makes possible analyticdiscussion of even the most divisive issues. Suspension is notnatural, but it can be learned. Useful questions to ask oneselfinclude: “Why are you so certain?” “What is leading you to holdon to that perspective?” “Might there be positive payoffs forletting go?” “What are the risks?” “What do you fear.” Clearly,learning to suspend our judgments, beliefs and prejudices takestime in dialogue where others are also working to suspend aswell.42

Voicing: Voicing means to “speak your own truth” regardless.But, for each of us, finding that true voice is “perhaps one ofthe most challenging aspects of genuine dialogue.” Voicingrequires us to learn to listen “not only to your internalemotional reactions and impulses…but to yourself.” Finding one’svoice and speaking it begins with “a willingness to be still.”This means to become conscious of when to speak, to learn to “letwhat is in you take shape before giving words to it.” Thisrequires and develops “self-trust.”43

Sustained Dialogue: A Strategy for Transformation

As this brief review of the essential conditions for dialoguemakes evident, meaningful dialogue, let alone transformativedialogue requires time and experience. Of course, when theseconditions are present, personal transformation may occur, but ifso, it is likely to be an unanticipated by-product. This isdoubtless especially true when people with sharply divergentexperiences, backgrounds, viewpoints and expectations are broughtinto dialogue. But, as Siegel and Badenoch developed effectivetherapies to address attachment and other disabilities using thepower of relationship, so Hal Saunders developed a strategy fortransforming relationships among people unable to workconstructively together, or even in deep conflict. In doing so,he built on his 40 years of combined experience in official and42 Ibid. 134-14843 Ibid. 159-162

18

unofficial efforts to help people resolve deeply rootedconflicts.

One of Saunders’ key insights was the centrality of relationshipto transformation and sustainable change. Perspectives,attitudes, world-views are can be modified, even transformed bybringing together in dialogue those with diverse experience,views and outlooks. Note the congruence of this insight withSiegel, quoted above: “The structure and function of thedeveloping brain are determined by how experiences, especiallywithin interpersonal relationships, shape the geneticallyprogrammed maturation of the nervous system.”44 Transformingrelationships can physically alter the brain, for example,thinning out the nerves associated with distrust, or prejudice,while thickening those related to trust and acceptance.

Assessing the reasons for the failure of peace to ensue from theefforts of the US diplomatic teams, of which he was a key member,that negotiated 6 Arab-Israeli agreements between 1974 and 1979,Hal recognized that while governments can make treaties, onlywhen the relationships among the actual peoples in conflict aretransformed will peace be possible. Governments can makeagreements, but only people can make peace.45 Building on hissubsequent experience as a private citizen moderating dialogueswith Soviets, Tajiki, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Iraqis, andothers, Hal was able to identify the key elements of relationshipthat make it possible not only to get to the underlyingrelational sources of differences, but actively to intervene toencourage their transformation. These five elements are:Identity, Interests, Power, Stereotypes and misperceptions, andPatterns of Interaction.46

Hal also recognized that neither change nor transformation occurquickly. Moreover, some things have to happen before others are44 Daniel J. Siegel. Op cit.45 Harold H. Saunders, The Other Walls: The Arab-Israeli Peace Process in a Global Perspective, American Enterprise Institute, 198546 Contrast this with Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin, 1991, where the authors argue that conflicts canbe resolved by focusing solely on interests.

19

possible. This led to the identification of specific stagesthrough which dialogue moves from a decision to talk throughclarification of the issues – which creates the first opportunityfor transformations in relationships to occur – to deciding aspecific substantive agenda and approaches to the issues, todeveloping a strategy to resolve the issues and finally toacting. This process, of which these two components – fiveelements of relationship and five stages – are the heart, hecalled Sustained Dialogue.

In Sustained Dialogue, the concept of relationship is both aconceptual and an operational tool. Conceptually, it providesthe moderator powerful tools to identify and understand thenature of the differences among those in the dialogue.Operationally, the five elements provide a framework formoderator questions that can lead to stories that become triggersfor transformation. Hal’s three recent books substantiate andelaborate these ideas and report on its application in a widevariety of circumstances in many parts of the world, from Iraq toRussia; from South Africa to the U.S., as well as on 40 collegecampuses here and around the world.47 Here we provide a verybrief summary to make clear the foundations of SustainedDialogue’s strategy for transforming relationships to enableproductive change.

Identity: Identity consists of the entirety of the lifeexperience of each person. Identity is first formed in family,and then through culture and social structure. Embedded in andconstituting much of the emotional or somatic brain,48 everyexperience is valenced as positive or good/negative or bad.Critically, the crucible in which identity is formed isrelationship – with parents, friends, associates and those “notlike us.” As Saunders states, “From the combination of physical

47 Harold H. Saunders, A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialopgue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts, Palgrave, 1999; Politics is About Relationship: A Blueprint for the Citizen’s Century, Palgrave, 2005; H. H. Saunders, with Teddy Nemeroff, Priya Narayan parker, Randa Slim and Philip D. Stewart, Sustained Dialogue in Conflicts: Transformation and Change, Palgrave/Macmillan, 201148 Joseph LeDoux, The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, Simon & Schuster, 1996

20

circumstances and unfolding experience and growth, individualsand groups come to a sense of who they are – a sense ofidentity.”49 Most easily visible in the Middle East, but thereality everywhere, most conflicts are clashes of identity.People will fight and die to protect their identity. Implications for transformative change:

As identity is deeply embedded in the somatic brain, it ishighly resistant to change or transformation.

Because identity is formed through relationship, thenthrough dialogue with those very different from me, identitycan be modified and broadened to encompass new perspectives,ideas and peoples.50

In Sustained Dialogue, as seen in the examples above and below,when differences or conflict are seen as identity-based,participants are encouraged to relate their personal stories.Often these involve various kinds of traumatic experiences withpeople like others in the dialogue. These stories often invokecognitive (I understand where you are coming from) and thenemotional (I feel what you are feeling) empathy for the storyteller, resulting, over time, in a broadened sense of identitycapable of accepting, at one end of response, and of embracing atthe other.51 Saunders captures one of the key reasons why thisprocess works: “Interactions form dependencies and rediscoveredinterdependence.”52

Interests: “Interests are defined on different levels. Some areessential to survival; some reflect what groups value forhistoric, political, ideological, or religious reasons; othersare defined as a function of the relationship – what we need fromothers to achieve what we want or what we want to deny others.”53

49 Saunders, Politics is about Relationship, 6750 This insight also constitutes the basis for a whole strategy of psychotherapy, but while building on these insights, Sustained Dialogue is not psychotherapy. See Daniel J. Siegel. Op cit.51 Daniel Goleman, The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights, More Than Sound LLC, Kindle Edition, 201152 Saunders, Politics…, 6853 Ibid.

21

Interests become clarified and contextualized, in large part, aspeople relate their personal stories to specific issues.

Implications for transformative change:

Possibilities for change emerge as we come to understand whyand how each person or party defines its interests.

As people come to understand others’ deeply felt interestsand hurts – real or imagined – relationships begin tochange.

Sustained Dialogue creates the environment and frames thequestions that make possible the kind of deep, open andhonest exchange around interests that can lead totransformation of perspectives and relationships.

Power: Sustained Dialogue’s notion of power as a component ofrelationship begins by recognizing how small, committednationalist groups have so often overthrown far more “powerful”empires. Think of Al-Qaida, of Tahrir Square, of the Maidan. Inthese cases power lay not in physical or military might. Powerderived from shared ideas, from relationship. Power in thesecases was generated through an interactive process. We act onthe proposition proposed by Saunders: “The creative conduct ofthe process of continuous interaction between parties may initself generate more effective power in this sense than economicor military resources.”54

Implications for transformative change:

The power to change relationships may emerge as peopleinteract in different ways.

Transformed relationships can become a source of powerenabling citizens to realize the solutions to challengesthey have defined.

As relationships transform through Sustained Dialogue,participants often both feel greater personal capacity tocreate change (political efficacy), but even moreimportantly, recognize that together, working across lines

54 Ibid 72

22

of difference, what was not possible yesterday may becomepossible today.

People usually enter a Sustained Dialogue with the hope that itcan create change. Yet, in the early stages, when the airing ofdifferences necessarily dominates, a feeling of powerlessnessoften arises. Yet, as relationships become transformed, issuesbecome not “mine” or “yours” but “ours.” Once a problem is re-defined as “ours” strategies for solutions become possible andoften emerge. There is overwhelming evidence that power to actis created by these interactions. Examples include: criticallyimportant contributions to both a peace settlement and rebuildingof Tajik society;55 across 6 years and 12 meetings, the design ofa common framework for peace between Armenia, Azerbaijan andNagorno-Karabakh;56 a 19 point plan for national reconciliationin Iraq; a new public transportation plan enabling many lowincome, unemployed people now to acquire and hold good-payingsteady jobs in Columbus, Indiana;57 profound change in theclimate in a Temple, a day-school, and family and children’sservices organization in Oakland, California;58 and multipleaction plans on college campuses to address racial, religious andother campus issues.59

Perceptions, Misperceptions, Stereotypes: As part of a child’slearning who she is and who she is not, stereotypes of others arepassed on and take root. These may be accurate or not. Nearlyalways they are incomplete. But, they determine who we are andhow we interact with others. Stereotypes are relatively easy tochange as people interact in a safe environment with othersdifferent from them. Addressing stereotypes is critical totransformation, however, since our somatic system willautomatically urge a response consistent with learnedmisperceptions, permanent change can take considerable time.55 Ibid. 123-144 and Sustained Dialogue, 103-13456 Sustained Dialogue, 135-16257 Philip D. Stewart, Report from the 8th and 9th Sessions, Columbus Area Community Sustained Dialogue, (unpublished) May, 2014.58 Philip D. Stewart, Oakland Dialogues Report, (pdf) November 14, 2011.59 Sustained Dialogue, 225-248

23

When stereotypes are addressed, often the newly emergingrelationships will become highly valued, particularly when theyenable the solution of problems not otherwise seen as solvable.This then becomes a force for permanent change in perceptions andattitudes.

Implications for transformative change:

As people interact in safe spaces, such as SustainedDialogue, misperceptions and stereotypes are replaced by“pictures of others as human beings with legitimateinterests, fears, and legitimate reasons for suspicion andeven hatred.”60

Learning how one’s own acts have appeared to others cancause one to rethink attitudes and actions.

Patterns of Interaction: Sustained Dialogue defines patterns ofinteraction as “a continuous and reciprocal multilevel processamong whole human beings” through which a shared body ofexperience and even norms of behavior emerge.61 Focusing on theprocess and patterns of interactions provides insights into theways these encourage change or reinforce unproductive attitudesand behaviors. A simple formula for analyzing such patterns isto ask the following two questions: Do the observed patternsencourage empathy, compassion, understanding, friendship, love?Or, do they pattern encourage distance, indifference, distrust,enmity?

Implications for transformative change:

As relationships are probed in Sustained Dialogue newpractices, a new sense of limits may emerge.

As participants, through dialogue, become aware of theconsequences of the existing pattern of interactions forthings, objectives, aims they hold in common, thenmotivation to develop new patterns may emerge.

60 Ibid. 7361 Ibid. 75

24

Changing limits in practical and meaningful ways can buildtrust and transform relationships.62

Together, analytical and operational use of these five elementsof relationship allows participants in Sustained Dialogue torecognize their new capacity to accomplish things together thatneither could accomplish alone. This recognition and subsequentjoint actions provide powerful stimuli that help to deepen andsustain over time the transformations that occurred during thedialogue. Now that we have demonstrated why and how SustainedDialogue makes possible transformative change, it is time toprovide concrete evidence of such changes. We draw examples fromthree dimensions of our work: international, community andcampus.

III.Outcomes of Transformational Experiences

International:

Tajikistan: As this story of the role of Sustained Dialogue in ending the civil war in Tajikistan has been published several times,63 here we focus on evidence of transformed relationships. From the first meeting in March 1993, through March 1994, “participants moved from being barely able to look at each other to playing a significant role” in creating conditions for UN mediated peace negotiations. From tense discussions that were little more than the exchange of accusations in an atmosphere of deep suspicion and even fear, just prior to the onset of officialnegotiations in March 1994, the dialogue participants produced the first of many joint memorandums. Titled, “Memorandum on the Negotiating Process of Tajikistan” it outlined key issues to be addressed and proposed approaches to their resolution. That the Sustained Dialogue was able, in the course of 6 three-day

62 Ibid. 7863 A Public Peace Process, 147-170; Politics is about Relationship, 123-144; and Sustained Dialogue in Conflicts, 103-134.

25

meetings to overcome the very deep divisions among the oppositionover religious, regional and ethnic issues, as well as between the opposition and the government marks this effort as one of themost powerful demonstrations of the capacity of Sustained Dialogue to transform relationships. Among the keys to this achievement was a deliberate focus on encouraging participants toidentify larger interests shared by most participants, as well asproviding time and opportunity for reflection and private discussion. That these transformations were lasting is reflectedin the fact that three dialogue participants – one from the government, a second a leader of the opposition and the third an “independent democrat” professor – joined together formed a new NGO to promote democracy in Tajikistan, and that the dialogue wascontinued for more than 10 years and 33 sessions. Nagorno Karabakh:64 During the first three, three-day sessions of the Sustained Dialogue, beginning in October 2001, as in Tajikistan earlier, participants from Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan were able to talk only in the language of accusation. Each spoke of the terrible suffering the war had caused its people, for which the other side was fully to blame. Each reiterated multiple times the stories of their people’s historical sufferings as well as victories. What broke this seeming unbreakable impasse was a deliberate effort by the moderators to generate empathy. Each side was asked first to talk about how the ethnic pogroms preceding the conflict and the conflict itself had impacted them, their family and relatives personally. Each was then asked to repeat back the story of thesufferings of the other as they heard it. This began the transformation in relationships around the dialogue table. By lunch, leaders from each region were huddling to exchange ideas for moving ahead. Over the next five rounds spread over two and one-half years, the participants themselves developed an agreed “Framework for a Peace Process,” subsequently presented to each government and the public in each region.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence of relationship transformationtook place in the final session on the document. Having been 64 This story is told in detail in Sustained Dialogue, pp. 135-162

26

approved at the 9th session, at the 10th, the Azerbaijani delegation sought to re-open the document, in effect, to scuttle it. There was one Armenian from Karabakh who through the 6 yearsof this dialogue had insisted there was only one solution to thisconflict: to submit all of the “legitimate” juridical documents to an impartial mediator who, he insisted, would then fully support the Armenian position. Yet, at the last minute, when thefate of the entire effort hung in the balance, he threw his full support behind “our document, our work,” and saved the day.

Community:

Private Day School: Sustained Dialogue was invited to a private, Jewish day school in Oakland California to help raise and resolveconcerns regarding embedded racism among some of the staff. Due to declining enrollment on the part of their base student population, the school for several years had been recruiting African-American students. When complaints of unacceptable racist behavior on the part of some of the Jewish staff had arisen, neither the director, a South African woman who had dedicated her life there to ending apartheid, nor the resident Rabbi could even conceive of such a possibility.

After listening quietly for the first two, four-hour sessions of the Sustained Dialogue, but barely able to contain her frustration and anger at the continuing denials of any racial issues in the school, the African-American secretary burst forth:“Given the atmosphere of denial here, I am quite certain that what I have to say will get me fired, but I just cannot keep silent any longer. Let me give you just one example of the blatant racism I have experienced here. Last month, when parentswere gathering to support their children in a soccer match, an African-American man with long dreadlocks approached the locked gate and rang the buzzer to be let in, as did everyone else. Suddenly, before I could buzz the gate open, one of the teachers ran up to the gate and shouted at the man, ‘You can’t use this entrance – go around to the back like all service deliveries.’ The man was so outraged that he left in tears and took his son with him.” A long silence followed. Finally, the director spoke. “How could I have been so blind! Of course such behavior

27

is totally unacceptable and of course you will not be fired. In fact, I am deeply grateful to you for having the courage to speakthe truth.” The Director then urged the group to form a committee to devise operational plans for addressing racist attitudes and behavior at the school, which it did and which werethen adopted and implemented.

Oakland Temple: During the 16 hours of Sustained Dialogue over 8 months at an Oakland temple, undertaken to address issues of subtle discrimination and alienation, one man in his sixties saidnot a word. But he always attended and listened carefully to thestories being told. These included many personal stories by the temple school’s lesbian administrator, by an Italian lesbian Catholic convert to Judaism, by an African-American convert, and by a mature couple with multiple sclerosis. When at the end oneof the authors asked him what brought him to the dialogue, he replied that he was a former board member at the Temple and when asked by the young Rabbi who organized the dialogue, he felt obliged. However, he explained, “As a life-long liberal, I did not expect to learn anything new, nor to change my outlook at all. I just did not need this.”

“But,” continued the gentleman, “what this dialogue taught me washow blind I really have been. As I listened to each story the scales gradually fell from my eyes, and now for the first time inmy life discrimination is not just an abstract concept for me. It is real living tragedies for which I must bear some responsibility. I know that I will never see the world or peoplethe same way again. My eyes have been opened.”

Columbus, Indiana: In March, 2014, the Columbus Area Community Sustained Dialogue held its 8th monthly session, at which everyone experienced a powerful demonstration of Sustained Dialogue's designed-in capacity to transform individuals and relationships.  The intention of the moderating team was simply to create conditions in which those who'd experienced ill-treatment by the local police could share their concerns directlywith the police chief, himself a man deeply committed to fairnessand justice.  The focus was on one person in particular; a personwho'd served his time long ago but continued to experience

28

harassment.  The dialogue began by inviting the police chief to share whatever he'd like to say.  He focused on evidence of crimereduction and the development of a community-policing program in the lowest-income neighborhoods.  When others asked about programs to reintegrate ex-felons into the community, the chief and the former sheriff focused on success stories of those who'd turned their lives around.  All good, but the moderators began tofeel that this was not creating a safe opening for those with deeper concerns.  So, they asked, what about those who don't makeit, or who need lots of support? 

This encouraged one person who'd gone through similar problems totell his story.  Essentially, he said, “I simply got to the pointwhere I decided I had to change and I had positive incentives to do so, such as my new wife being pregnant.”  The moderator then gently pushed him asking, "Beyond these factors, was there anything else that was critical to your turnaround?"  "Yes," he replied with deep emotion, "I forgave myself for my past and thispermitted me both to forgive others and to take full responsibility for my own life."  One of his younger "mentees" who'd attended three previous sessions without uttering more thanhis name, then spoke up and told a similar story of self-forgiveness, adding that having a mentor who was always there forhim, even when by his actions he deeply hurt and disappointed that mentor, was also crucial.  By now, time was running out for the dialogue.  The moderators worried that our friend, a middle-aged Black dishwasher with long dreadlocks, might not feel ready to speak.  However, at the last minute, he burst forth. 

Here is the essence of what he said: "For the past several weeks,since I was informed that the police chief would be here, I have worked on what I would say here.  I even tried writing it out.  Ispent whole nights worrying through my ideas.  Then I came here and I was angry.  I was ready to blame everyone.  Then, I heard these stories about forgiving oneself, and you know what?  They transformed me.  I am now a different person.  I am no longer angry.  I have forgiven myself and all of those who've harassed me."  He then calmly reported the details of that harassment, adding, "However, that was before Jason became police chief and Iknow things are now getting better." 

29

But, it was not just our friend who was transformed.  The thoughtful silence in the room made clear that everyone there nowsaw not only our friend, but by analogy all those who struggle, not as "clients" or "perps," but rather as whole human beings, people walking paths that, but for the grace of God and good luckcould be our own.65

On Campuses:

The undergraduate experience marks a pivotal time in anindividual’s growth. As a student, an individual goes through amyriad of learning and cognitive changes, psychosocial changes,attitudinal and value changes, and develops her/his moralidentity.66 Studies show that the outcomes of transformativelearning and the transformational experiences that make up theoverall learning include perspective change, the acquisition ofnew knowledge and skills, confidence, self-awareness, emotionaldevelopment, autonomy, values, and a framework for leadership.67

These all add to a student’s ability to interact and perform inthe workplace, community, and political environment postundergraduate life.

As Bernie Ronan demonstrates in The Civic Spectrum, dealing with difference is a significant attribute of a political actor. Educational institutions aim to provide a diverse environment forstudents to develop the knowledge and skills needed to become effective citizens/political actors. Students are presented with social issues as well as the myriad realities that interact with these issues. A student’s undergraduate experience is an opportune time to learn how to interact with difference. Political actors should be reflective. Transformative experiences

65 Philip D. Stewart, Exploring the roots and dynamics of conflict over deep-rooted values in the civic arena: Experience with a response through dialogue (pdf), March 21, 2014. This memo also outlines two ways in which the local Sustained Dialogue has transformed the civic life of the community.66 Andrea N Diaz. “Composing A Civic Life: Influences of Sustained Dialogue on Post-Graduate Civic Engagement and Civic Life.” (Ph.D diss., Fielding Graduate University, 2009), 167 Gabriel, “Personal Transformation”, 200 and Diaz, “Composing A Civic Life”, 5

30

lead to internal and external reflection on the part of the student. The new knowledge and way of being that the transformative experience creates aids a student in becoming a political actor in the wider society.68 Political actors should also interact with others with the aim of searching for what is good for all - the common good.69 This does not suggest that the effects of long-term institutional injustice can be solved through the finding of an overarching common good; rather it raises awareness within an individual to the importance of cooperative

Sustained Dialogue on Campus and Transformational Experiences

Zack: Zack graduated from Denison University three years ago. During college, he took part in the NIF forum on Race in America,in Sustained Dialogue over several years, becoming a moderator, but also participated for more than a year in two other dialogue experiences, “community conversations,” and “perspectives of religion.” Somewhat surprisingly he was not conscious of a specific “transformative moment.” In fact, it was only as he began teaching in a very challenging 7th grade environment that he recognized how these deliberative and dialogic experiences hadimpacted him.

“Seeing others’ perspectives and realizing I don’t understand them, this has influenced other experiences. When I taught 7th grade, I had many triggering experiences, but the SD experiences prepared me to react empathically in a way that I could not without SD. The mindsets that I developed in SD prepared me to reflect upon and process triggering moments later on working in school.

“It was a very high needs school and I was a TSA. The environment was very stressful, with lots of chaos all the time. It was interesting to see how I reacted in these conditions. SD helped me to understand their environments because of the similarity to my situation. SD enabled me to talk through situations and empathize their situations in a different way.

68 Bernie Ronan, manuscript. p.1069 Ibid. p.13

31

Triggering was reflecting on my own stress in this environment enabling me to understand and work with students better.

“For the past two years I’ve worked for a non-profit that does tutoring and mentoring for students in high need schools. SD experience enables me to relate to them better. Instead of judging what they are doing, I understand my students better.”70

Jessica: Jessica is a currently a second year medical student who took part in Sustained Dialogue and other efforts during college.

“I’m not sure how forums work everywhere, but our groups consisted of people I knew, though I hadn’t heard their views andopinions on Race and the American Dream, so what I found most transformative was the awareness of being with people I’ve had conversations with, but not knowing what they would say, I was surprised. This made clear the necessity of having spaces to talk about these issues and we really don’t understand other’s views and opinions.

“In the group, there were me and two others I’d had extensive conversations with. One from inner city Chicago and one from Lawrence Mass. One was from the Posse, the one from Lawrence. I’deven been in an SD dialogue with the person from Chicago, but we’d not shared the historical significance of the civil rights movements and its impact today. We talked about whether we thought the American Dream was achievable any more. It was interesting to hear how their background impacts their views of the American dream. Most of us felt this was a kind of twisted concept – that people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Onesaid that it’s now the same as it was, but if you work really hard you can still achieve things, and being at Denison was an example of that. I had assumed they would be very negative toward the idea of the American dream. This made me reassess my assumptions and place new viewpoints upon them. So, it was reallyhelpful to be reminded of that and delve deeper into the reasons for their beliefs and how our paths crossed.

70 Phone interview by Phil Stewart, July 2, 2014.

32

I come from a privileged background. Where my viewpoints differed was interesting. They assumed that I’d be all about the American dream and they wouldn’t be. I had made this blanket assumption about others. A black person from Lawrence whose family was not wealthy and he’d gone through many difficulties. So, I assumed that he would not believe in the meritocracy and itbeing something that can truly raise you.

“His parents pushed him to work hard and get a good education andhe was very diligent about that and that his classmates who did the same were able to do positive things and succeed and move forward to good jobs. Those who slacked, he observed, did not achieve the same. It is not that everyone can do that, but beingable to improve yourself through hard work still existed in his background and beliefs. As he compared himself with his peers who did not work so hard, this reinforced his belief in the American Dream. I had felt this was just a myth that didn’t exist. It was interesting to see the nuances in what exists in society and how people approach this.”

As with many others who are deeply impacts, Jessica was exposed to deliberation and dialogue regularly throughout her college career: “What got me into SD were the activities there. I have always really enjoyed talking with people about their background and hearing other sides of issues. This is how it was described to me. Freshman year I was a participant and in my sophomore I was asked to become a moderator. I really liked participating butbeing able to provide space for transformative dialogue was very powerful. I became moderator coordinator from spring of my sophomore year until graduation.”

Jessica recognized a clear distinction between “intellectual” or “academic” learning and what she calls the “personal mind,” or what we’d call, following Kahneman, the emotional mind. She recognizes that engagement at the personal, emotional level is essential to transformation, just as Yankelovich sees emotional working through of trade-offs essential to stable opinion. “I found that SD provides a powerful outlet for individuals to come as equals and have important conversations about things on a personal, as contrasted with the academic level. There is a

33

separation between your academic and personal mind. SD allows for true transformation to happen. I enjoyed helping those experiences to occur and to equip others help make that happen.”

Following is one example of the impact when dialogue or deliberation moves from the intellectual to the emotional level: “When I was a moderator, my school had a big conversation, as well as on many campuses, on the idea of a “rape culture,” and what it means for students. One of our participants came forward and this blew me away as she told about having been sexually assaulted. This led to everyone getting involved emotionally. Prior to this, this was only an intellectual conversation. As a moderator, you try to encourage individuals to open up on a more personal level. We’d tried to do this, but when people have not had much personal interaction with the issue it is very difficult. But, when she opened up it brought the group to a totally different level. As a moderator it was challenging to allow that emotional space to open up and to get people comfortable sharing these emotional experiences. At the end, a couple of people had thought that the idea of a “rape culture” gets too much airtime. After she opened up and told her story, beginning with ‘I just have to say this’, this led to one other who had been skeptical to really sympathize and readdress his assumptions and this led to his transformation. He was very thankful that she had shared her story and led him to think about‘what if it had been me.’ That is the sort of thing, the movement from intellectual to the emotion allows such change and it is very important.

Jessica provides a further instructive example of a Mezirov “triggering moment,” or experience that transforms one’s outlook profoundly. “There are a couple of key factors that lead to transformation. As a freshman we had intense disagreements aboutthe role of the Black Student Union on campus and whether or not it was necessary at a small liberal arts school. What was fascinating for me was that one of the students most opposed to this was black and had not had good experiences with the BSU. As a freshman, having grown up in a predominantly white environment,this forced me to question my assumptions of what race meant. I didn’t agree with all whites. But, I had assumed that every

34

Black would be ok with the BSU. So, having this very vocal individual created an abrupt crisis in acknowledging my own prejudices about race and this was very transformative for me andfor many in the group. Many people often noted, “I had assumed,”but this was a major experience within our group.

Jessica, now entering her third year of medical school, describeshow her deliberative and dialogic experiences continue to influence her thinking and work. “One of the things it teaches that I didn’t appreciate earlier is the ability to listen while being non-judgmental. As a clinician it is powerful. I’ve had conversations where I’ve talked with teenage patients. Being able to listen to teens talk about how they view sexuality and what they are doing and being able to listen in a non-judgmental way is something many of my peers struggle with. Without SD I would not feel as good about my level to do that.”

One way to assess the impact of deliberative and dialogic experiences on sense of political efficacy is to ask whether these have changed the sense of how to go about solving work, community or other issues. Jessica provides a powerful example suggesting how her approach to problem solving in her hospital environment has been influenced.

“One last bit in terms of the conflict within hospitals. My parents are in health care and I’ve seen them deal with the changes and conflict in medicine. A part of me has always wishedthere was a form of SD for medical people to have within their practice – a safe space to deal with these issues and conflicts.

“As to time for such space – we talk about it anyway, but not in a productive fashion. Everybody finds time to gossip about the problems, but we don’t deal with our problems in a productive fashion. SD allows for change and for action plans to come out on small ways to address issues. The way I address complaints about lack of time is, if you don’t make the time for it, nothinghappens, and the issues just get worse. Of course there is so much happening, but there is a lot of ways to make time. There are ways to have good dialogues and to build a good time frame, such as meeting every other week. I always tell people that the

35

gains of positive change will outweigh the occasional inconvenience of time.”71

Bre: For Bre, Sustained Dialogue on her college campus was transformational. “Yes, I did have a transformational experience, mainly in that with every Sustained Dialogue group that I participated in, I was constantly surprised when people revealed things about themselves that negated my assumptions. As social beings, we must infer some information about others so that we might know what to do or what to expect, but participating in Sustained Dialogue completely removes this necessity. When you let someone define themselves based on their experiences alone, it is life-changing for both the speakerand listener.” When asked what enabled this transformative experience, Bre noted that the key for her was her effort to be faithful to the premise of Sustained Dialogue to “always give credence others' valid human claims.” While intellectually not achallenge, emotionally, she noted, “this is the most difficult element.” 

For Bre, this transformational experience continues to shape “whoshe is.”  “Yes, I would say that it affects even my daily conversation. I find myself asking other people what experiences have informed their opinions or what have they encountered that makes them believe a certain thing. I am also more conscious of waiting for them to self-identify before I assume how they desireto be addressed.”

Speaking more specifically to the on-going impact of her Sustained Dialogue experience, Bre reports that after college, “Iactually went to Botswana as a Sustained Dialogue moderator with a group of high schoolers from New York. They were extremely wealthy, and before I even met them, I was afraid that they mightbe rude or stuck-up. However, I was proven wrong, and I was so glad I was because they were some the kindest and most caring individuals I had ever met. I thought of the Sustained Dialogue process when I would talk to them, and because there were things that we did disagree on and we were from vastly different

71 Phone interview by Phil Stewart, June 24, 2014.

36

regions, I really tried to understand where they were coming from.”

When asked questions to get at how Sustained Dialogue has impacted her political efficacy, Bre made several responses: First, “I accepted a job as a graduate assistant at my universitybecause part of my main responsibility would be to carry out Sustained Dialogue activities on our campus. That's how much I believe in the process.” Moreover, “since college, I have traveled to Africa to do Sustained Dialogue work, helped plan interfaith community service initiatives in Tuscaloosa, and participated in a program called "Dinner with Strangers," in which students and community members get together to collaborate on how to solve town/gown relations.”

On political efficacy, Bre notes further: “Sustained Dialogue affects the way that I think about what is possible on the civic, community, professional, and public life level. Oftentimes, trying to overcome obstacles or solve large-scale issues can be so intimidating it makes people not even want to try, but with Sustained Dialogue, problem-solving becomes much more attainable, enjoyable, and fruitful.”72 

Calvin: Calvin was the lead co-founder of Sustained Dialogue on the campus of a major southern state university and continued in moderator and leadership roles from 2006 through 2009. Calvin reports that Sustained Dialogue was transformative for him: “I believe Sustained Dialogue laid the groundwork and was the catalyst that transformed and continues to transform me. Introducing Sustained Dialogue to Alabama’s campus was a relatively bold and progressive idea, especially given the university’s history relating to race and segregation. Having theopportunity to rally a team of like-minded leaders and launching the program on Alabama’s campus was a bold step forward for a student organization and the university.”

“As I grow and learn everyday, I often draw back on my experiences from Sustained Dialogue to apply in everyday personaland professional life. For example, when I’ve observed conflict

72 Interview by email, April 24, 2014.

37

at work between two functional groups, I often found myself drawing on my moderator skills to act as a neutral agent to ensure the opposing sides were heard, the root cause of the conflict identified, and put forth options to resolve or compromise for both groups.” In short, Calvin’s leadership skills and style were profoundly changed by his Sustained Dialogue experience. In particular, he has fully internalized the Sustained Dialogue principle of assuming the legitimacy of each person’s perspective. “Sustained Dialogue really showed me how two points of view can be very different but both considered ‘right’. It has pushed me to be more open-minded in my response to people’s comments, beliefs, and behaviors. Rather than ‘gut reacting’ to what I don’t agree with, I’ve learned to pause, process, and shift my paradigm.”

Calvin’s college leadership already shows a well-developed sense of political efficacy, and this is confirmed by his post-college actions. At work, “More often than not, I often leverage the skillsets I learned as a moderator in the work environment. Healthy conflict is always present, and acting as a moderator in these situations often helps move the business forward while remaining professional and civil.” And in his civic life, “I invested over a year volunteering at the local Ronald McDonald House in Cincinnati, bringing together my work within P&G’s household care division and the mission of Ronald McDonald House – specifically, I established an ongoing donation program where P&G donated household care products to the House and their guests, while also establishing a co-marketing campaign called ‘Just Like Home’ where P&G had the opportunity to leverage great testimonials from the House’s guests and how P&G’s products made guests feel at home.”

Cody: When asked whether he had had a transformational experience through Sustained Dialogue, at first Cody deflected the question by reporting how Sustained Dialogue transformed another participant. “I absolutely did see transformation. In the last group I moderated there were 6 participants. One was ofAsian descent. Once they chose LGBT as a focus and action item. One person in the group, a mature Asian woman, could not wrap herhead around the terminology. At first, she was willing to accept

38

that it was all right for people to be that way if they wish, though she was hesitant to talk about it. Nevertheless, she keptcoming to the dialogue and listened, not actively participating. What I saw over the semester, and I think it was due to the structure of Sustained Dialogue and the comfortable environment it creates, was that the other five participants tried hard to get her to open her mind more. One premise of Sustained Dialogueis to not try to change someone else’s point of view, but to listen deeply to understand each other. However, if the dialogueleads someone to change, then that is all right. I was awed by the willingness of the others to open her worldview, which was closed. She was older and set in her ways. By the end of the semester, however, she was open and willing to talk about the issues around LGBT, she became more inquisitive, respecting and no longer felt it was ok for others but not something to talk about.”

Only toward the end of the interview did Cody make a statementthat revealed the ways in which his Sustained Dialogue experiencehad transformed him. “I grew up very afraid of speaking in publicand have a huge anxiety for which I take medication. I’ve had topush past that and the experiences I’ve had with SustainedDialogue have helped me push past that because I get so excitedby the process, the model and the institute. I’ll now be goingthrough the PULSE training and become a PULSE facilitator. Thatexcitement builds passion that enables me to address questionsthat need to be addressed. I went from an extreme introvert toone who cannot stop asking questions as I get so engaged inconversations and dialogue and how others interact with eachother that I have to hold back so as not to seem pushy.”

More specifically on political efficacy, Cody stated that prior to his Sustained Dialogue experience, “In an argument with anyonein the past, I’d refuse to argue and just accept what others said. Now I know there are values and needs behind positions so now I can ask about those and then go from having a conversation about a position to talk about what that value is at the root of the problem and then move some to a viable solution.”

39

“The premise of listening deeply to understand each other is now so embedded in my mind that I listen deeply enough as if this is the most important conversation in my life. Particular skills I’ve learned are asking open-ended questions, being aware of yoursurroundings at all times, being sensitive to the concerns of others on certain topics, but reading their body language and tone of voice, and observing how everyone is interacting while still being able to frame open-ended questions, and summarizing by paraphrasing and reflecting back so that others can understand, creating comfortable space.”73

Sharon When interviewed in 2004, Sharon, recently returned to theStates after many years with her family living in Europe, was a senior at the Lawrenceville School in New Jersey. What led her toparticipate in the new Sustained Dialogue program at her school was, “I had heard of racial issues in America but coming to America I could really see how they needed to be talked about. In the cafeteria, for example, people of color were not acknowledged and sat at separate tables. I felt we really neededto talk to each other and understand each other and become friends even. Sustained Dialogue presented a real solution and I’ve just run with it and been inspired by the people I’ve met.”74

Justin: Justin was a participant in the first campus Sustained Dialogue program, at Princeton University. After graduation, as a teacher at the Lawrenceville School, he founded the first high school Sustained Dialogue program. His transformative experiencemay be more typical of Sustained Dialogue participants. While hecertainly internalized the norms of Sustained Dialogue, its majorimpact seems to have been to provide a productive environment forworking through his own life experiences in the light of radically different experiences of others.

“Being involved in Sustained Dialogue gave me a vehicle for many of the thoughts I’ve had about race. Growing up in a predominantly white community I usually was the only black kid in73 Phone interview transcript, May 30, 201474 Video-taped interview, University of Virginia, 2004

40

my classes all the way through high school. So, I’ve always seenrace from the perspective of a black male in America, but also experiencing it partially through the eyes of the white communityin which I grew up. I knew that was a unique experience because as I talked about my experiences in the Sustained Dialogue group,most of the other black students I’d met were from large cities from predominantly black neighborhoods and Princeton for many wasthe first time they’d come into contact with white people. So, for me, it really helped shape some of those ideas and thoughts I’ve had through the interactions with others in the group and getting a better understand of the racial situation in America; where we’ve come from and where we are going and how to get there.”75

Priya: Priya was the founder of Sustained Dialogue at the University of Virginia, the second university to adopt this program.

“As a first year bi-racial student, my mother is Indian and my father is white, I’d never been asked so many times in my life “what are you?” I didn’t understand the question when I first heard it, and I was also part of a number of groups, my white sorority and a black gospel group and just random teams. There was no place in my life where I felt different people came together. I thought even there was tension, almost antagonistic relationships among different groups. I wanted a space where people could come together not only around common interest, but also around difficult topics to fulfill the point of diversity ata university.

As for Justin, Priya found Sustained Dialogue a safe place to work through and come to terms with “who I am.” “Talking more about my experiences with Sustained Dialogue in terms of moderating and exploring issues for myself, college was the firsttime that I had thought of myself through a racial lens. I go toIndia every summer and I speak Hindi with my mother and my fatheris white, but I never really thought about what that made me or how people viewed me because of that. I realized through talkingwith others that I perceived others in a certain way, but it 75 Ibid.

41

never clicked that others perceived me in a certain way as well. I think forming relationships and seeing people through their racial and cultural identity but also as individuals was criticalfor me.”76

Summer: “I similarly had friends in different groups but no bridge among them. But, for me Sustained Dialogue was also very personal. This was right after 9/11 and I am a Middle Eastern Arab woman. After September 11, though I had always been a Middle Eastern woman, eaten Arabic food, spoken Arabic things began to change for me. I had embraced my culture but never realized how it had affected how people identified and treated me. After September 11 that was really hard to deal with.

“I found also that Sustained Dialogue was also a place where you could explore yourself and how others viewed your identity and who you think you are and how you fit into society and that really helped me come to an understanding of myself as well.”

Sustained Dialogue not only helped Summer come to terms with her identity, it also transformed how she related to others and dealtwith conflict. “Learning how to listen to people, to talk to people who don’t agree with you or you don’t understand has been critical. I used to be a firecracker with very strong opinions about which I was adamant. I felt that others just had to agree with me or I’d make them. The skills I’ve learned as a moderatorand as a participant to really listen and really not just being stubborn in your ideas but being open, to take what others are providing you to enhance who you are and what you think and really changing how you view situations in general. This has impacted every aspect of my life, from how I interact with friends, my students as a teacher, at conferences and with everyone I meet. Every aspect of my life is changed. I feel I am always having mini-dialogues with others and with myself. Thisis what happens once you really understand what Sustained Dialogue is about.”

Jackie: Jackie discovered in Sustained Dialogue a way to come to terms with her bi-racial heritage, but also as an instrument to

76 Ibid

42

build bridges across racial identities. “My personal experience is similar to that of Priya and Summer. I also come from a bi-racial background. My mother is Mexican and my father is of German-Irish descent. At the same time, I grew up abroad with a lot of exposure to multi-racial and multi-cultural settings. UVAwas really the first time I began to engage myself at a high level with the Latino community and really start to explore that side of my culture. I lived in a predominantly white dormitory. I was disturbed that at UVA I had to separate the two worlds between my Latino identity and, I guess, my whiteness. At the same time I was very interested in other cultural organizations, but everything was divided and this deeply bothered me. I attended a few forums where a lot of issues were discussed but never acted upon. Sustained Dialogue gets something sustained and this question of “sustained” was really important to me.

“This question of identity and self-segregation was a huge thing for me. I felt inside that self-segregation was a bad thing but for many it seemed natural, so I wanted to explore this issue, these invisible lines where we had courses together yet socially people segregated into their own groups. Nobody was saying you couldn’t be part of their group but there were definite invisiblelines and a silence that really struck me and I wanted to explorethat through dialogue.”

Although she did not express it directly, the following makes clear to what degree her Sustained Dialogue experience had transformed her: “Sustained Dialogue has given me a life-long tool-box that I carry with me everywhere. I feel like now I havea much stronger approach to problem-solving in general. I graduated from UVA and am working at a consulting firm with government clients. I feel that the moderating skills of Sustained Dialogue have really helped me to deal much more effectively with clients. So, beyond just racial issues, which opened the door to me to study racial issues, conflict and issuesin our country, but also cultural differences that we encounter on a daily basis. So, the communication, the moderating, the problem solving have really been instrumental for me on a daily basis.”77

77 Ibid.

43

Conclusions:

This paper has examined two fundamental questions:

● What is the role of transformational experiences after undergraduate life?

● What is the role of transformational experiences in creating political actors?

To address these questions we have examined a range of literatures to understand what transformation is and the neurological, psychological and structural factors that inhibit as well as make transformation possible. We then explored in detail the elements in Sustained Dialogue designed to encourage deep-seated transformations in relationships, perspectives and outlooks. Finally, we have examined evidence from Sustained Dialogue activities around the world, including interviews with graduates of its campus programs, to illustratively answer our two core questions. These reports and interviews do suggest thatfor a number of participants, the transformational experiences appear deeply embedded enough to have lasting effects. Moreover,statements by nearly every interviewee did suggest that these transformative experiences at least contributed to a strong senseof political efficacy. Many interviewees and participants in other Sustained Dialogues reported not only greater readiness forpolitical activity, but activity strongly shaped by the relational paradigm that lies at the foundation of Sustained Dialogue.

Now, we need to emphasize that the available data do not provide a full picture. In reality, both the occurrence of transformational experiences and their impact on creating political actors need to be thought of as continuums. We suspectthat for some participants in our campus program, probably a clear minority, the dialogue experience has little or no impact on outlook or attitudes. For the majority, we suspect that Sustained Dialogue has a modest to very substantial transformative impact. The greater that transformative impact, we believe, the greater the likelihood that this translated into greater political efficacy. Having said this, however, we need

44

to recognize that it may well be that those most highly impacted by Sustained Dialogue come to it with a strong sense of themselves as political actors. This seems particularly true forfounders and leaders in Sustained Dialogue.

_______________________________________________________

APPENDIX

Interviews cited in the report – Full Text

Interview with Zack GoldmanGraduate of Denison University

By Phil StewartFor Research on Transformational Experiences

7.2.14

When a senior at Denison I got involved. Last summer I participated in a 3-day training in DC on Sustained Dialogue.

A very diverse group on many dimensions – grade, ethnicities, interests, focus, majors. We discussed many issues, sometimes related to those differences, sometimes on other pertinent campusissues, news, current events.

It is hard for me to identify the extent to which SD was responsible for my transformative experiences, but through all the different dialogues, it is hard to have dialogue without being curious about other people and their perspectives. This emerged from my SD experience.

I was always curious but held my own beliefs more strongly, feeling I understood things well and there wasn’t much to understand. Dialogue taught me there is always room to learn and I can learn that from others and others have a lot to teach me.

When a student, 3 years ago, nothing comes to mind from the dialogues regarding a triggering experience, but seeing others’ perspectives and realizing I don’t understand them, this has

45

influenced other experiences. When I taught 7th grade, I had many triggering experiences, but the SD experiences prepared me to react empathically in a way that I could not without SD. Themindsets that I developed in SD prepared me to reflect upon and process triggering moments later on working in school.

It was a very high needs school and I was a TSA. The environmentwas very stressful, with lots of chaos all the time. It was interesting to see how I reacted in these conditions. SD helped me to understand their environments because of the similarity to my situation. SD enabled me to talk through situations and empathize their situations in a different way. Triggering was reflecting on my own stress in this environment enabling me to understand and work with students better.

One time, I’d lost my temper in class and threw my clipboard intothe wall. I realized I was responding to this stress in a non-productive response, just as students were. This helped me understand what the students were going through.

Impact on my teaching. In the first year, my experiences in SD didn’t have much impact. But, for the past two years I’ve worked for a non-profit that does tutoring and mentoring for students inhigh need schools. SD experience enables me to relate to them better. Instead of judging what they are doing, I understand my students better.

In college, I did SD my senior year. I also participated in Dennison Religious Understanding, a weekly dialogue, once per week for an hour, focused on issues related to religion but others as well, and lots of diversity across many dimensions. I enjoyed that a lot. What was cool was structure around the dialogue in addition to the dialogue, including a group meal prepared by members of the group, weekly announcements that enabled us to share what was happening in the coming week, check-ins and reflections on the previous week – all this during the week.

46

At Dennison food was brought in but in the religious dialogue members prepared it so it had a deeper meaning.

I also participated in another group. During my junior or senioryear, called Campus Conversations, or Community conversations involving students and staff, and faculty, and town members. Theuniversity assigned moderators. They framed the conversations andtried to eliminate any perceived hierarchy – we all have valid perspectives and are members of the community. In my group nobodydominated the conversation. It was cool to hear from staff and professors, and they reported it was valuable to hear from students directly as they got a deeper sense of their thinking. This applied to janitors and others as well.

The year I taught, I didn’t get involved in any formal dialogue, though in hindsight, this would have been valuable.

I work for City-Year, an Americorps program with young adults 18-24, doing tutoring and mentoring. This has biweekly dialogues moderated by second year participants. They work through a booklet, meeting every two weeks. Topics are listed for each week. Someone brings a trigger statement, written by one participant who is assigned. It is about something in their personal life that may help others grow.

Instead of just being a dialogue, this has a year-long structure,both in terms of personal growth, or The Idealists Journey – growing as an individual through the year, at the end reflecting on how your thinking has changed. It is framed in terms of yourown personal mission statement, who you and who you want to be inthe world.

The person to talk to on City Year is Dr, Max Klau. Mklau@cityyear.org. He designed the structure of City-Year.

SD has better moderator training. The role of diversity is common to each as a learning environment. City year does a better job with moving to action. SD does better at dialoguing.

47

Phone Interview with Jessica WilsonBy Phil StewartJune 24, 2014

Jessica: On the forum. I’m not sure how forums work everywhere,but our groups consisted of people I knew, though I hadn’t heard their views and opinions on Race and the American Dream, so what I found most transformative was the awareness of being with people I’ve had conversations with, but not knowing what they would say, I was surprised. This made clear the necessity of having spaces to talk about these issues and we really don’t understand other’s views and opinions.

In the group, there were me and two others I’d had extensive conversations with. One from inner city Chicago and one from Lawrence Mass. One was from the Posse, the one from Lawrence. I’deven been in an SD dialogue with the person from Chicago, but we’d not shared the historical significance of the civil rights movements and its impact today. We talked about whether we thought the American Dream was achievable any more. It was interesting to hear how their background impacts their views of the American dream. Most of us felt this was a kind of twisted concept – that people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Onesaid that it’s now the same as it was, but if you work really hard you can still achieve things, and being at Denison was an example of that. I had assumed they would be very negative toward the idea of the American dream. This made me reassess my assumptions and place new viewpoints upon them. So, it was reallyhelpful to be reminded of that and delve deeper into the reasons for their beliefs and how our paths crossed.

I come from a privileged background. Where my viewpoints differed was interesting. They assumed that I’d be all about the American dream and they wouldn’t be.

I had made this blanket assumption about others. A black person from Lawrence whose family was not wealthy and he’d gone through many difficulties. So, I assumed that he would not believe in

48

the meritocracy and it being something that can truly raise you. His parents pushed him to work hard and get a good education and he was very diligent about that and that his classmates who did the same were able to do positive things and succeed and move forward to good jobs. Those who slacked, he observed, did not achieve the same. It is not that everyone can do that, but beingable to improve yourself through hard work still existed in his background and beliefs. As he compared himself with his peers who did not work so hard, this reinforced his belief in the American Dream. I had felt this was just a myth that didn’t exist. It was interesting to see the nuances in what exists in society and how people approach this.

That was at the Denison Campus and then I did the follow-up in DC. The Campus group was very small. Everyone at the DC group was part of a class that we had taken on issues of race and powerand the current status of minorities, meeting a couple of times per semester. The DC trip was part of the class. These individuals had already had significant conversations before so this trip was less surprising. At Denison, these were people we had not had these conversations with before.

What got me into SD were the activities there. I have always really enjoyed talking with people about their background and hearing other sides of issues. This is how it was described to me. Freshman year I was a participant and in my sophomore I was asked to become a moderator. I really liked participating but being able to provide space for transformative dialogue was very powerful. I became moderator coordinator from spring of my sophomore year until graduation. I found that SD provides a powerful outlet for individuals to come as equals and have important conversations about things on a personal, as contrastedwith the academic level. There is a separation between your academic and personal mind. SD allows for true transformation tohappen. I enjoyed helping those experiences to occur and to equipothers help make that happen.

There are couple of key factors that lead to transformation. As a freshman we had intense disagreements about the role of the

49

Black Student Union on campus and whether or not it was necessaryat a small liberal arts school. What was fascinating for me was that one of the students most opposed to this was black and had not had good experiences with the BSU. As a freshman, having grown up in a predominantly white environment, this forced me to question my assumptions of what race meant. I didn’t agree with all whites. But, I had assumed that every Black would be ok withthe BSU. So, having this very vocal individual created an abrupt crisis in acknowledging my own prejudices about race and this wasvery transformative for me and for many in the group. Many people often noted, “I had assumed,” but this was a major experience within our group.

When I was a moderator, my school had a big conversation, as wellas on many campuses, on the idea of a “rape culture,” and what itmeans for students. One of our participants came forward and thisblew me away as she told about having been sexually assaulted. This led to everyone getting involved emotionally. Prior to this, this was only an intellectual conversation. As a moderator, you try to encourage individuals to open up on a more personal level. We’d tried to do this, but when people have not had much personal interaction with the issue. But, when she opened up it brought the group to a totally different level. As amoderator it was challenging to allow that emotional space to open up and to get people comfortable sharing these emotional experiences. At the end, a couple of people had thought that theidea of a “rape culture” gets too much airtime. After she openedup and told her story, beginning with I just have to say this, this led to others who had been skeptical really sympathize and readdress his assumptions and this led to his transformation. He was very thankful that she had shared her story and think about what if it had been me. That is the sort of thing, the movement from intellectual to the emotion allows such change and is very important.

Not all groups get to that point. In order for groups to get to that point of emotion, you begin with a very intellectual environment, but it is very hard for people to really become vulnerable. In all my experience, there is always a point where

50

someone opens up about something really personal, and how the groups react to that opening up is critical. For example people speak about their personal experience with homophobia, with rape,with violence really determines whether people can move from the intellectual to the emotion. I saw this shift in the group on rape culture. They first showed empathy and then moved to their own emotional engagement.

In another group someone opened up about growing up in an abusivefamily but the group reported statistics but didn’t respond with equal vulnerability. That is the moment of whether an SD group really becomes fully transformative. You can have intellectual transformation but it is smaller, shallower, not addressing your own emotional prejudices and emotional responses to things. When I address my emotional responses, my change is much more lasting than after an intellectual discussion.

Time is a key factor in opening up and becoming vulnerable. Another factor is good ground rules and maintaining those in a positive way. Those SD groups that got to that level really developed strong ground rules and worked as a group to maintain those, not just the moderators but every participant. Not attacking the person, but the idea, being confidential. When thegroup internalized these, these groups became able to move to deep emotional vulnerability.

There are different levels of vulnerability. Before the moment of deep vulnerability, there are lesser moments of vulnerability.If the group validates these small moments, this enables people to feel okay with greater openness and vulnerability.

It also depends upon who is in the group. I helped to build the dialogue group and this is a very important process. The group needs to have different opinions, some who are talkative, some quiet, some able to be very empathetic, some more set in their ways; all this really allows for a group that can really have change happen.

51

Impact on medical practice. SD is something I brought into the way I approach medicine. We have this class in Medical School about how to communicate with patients. Many things that come upI’ve already learned from SD, like ground-rules, to accept differences of culture and be empathetic. I’ve had classmates tell me I have a unique perspective on this because of SD. Others have a lot of difficulty communicating with patients different from them, as they’ve never addressed differences. In every dialogue group you are leaning how to interact with differences, to listen and to communicate well. I’m able to bringthis into my learning and interactions with patients.

One of the things it teaches that I didn’t appreciate earlier is the ability to listen while being non-judgmental. As a clinician it is powerful. I’ve had conversations where I’ve talked with teenage patients. Being able to listen to teens talk about how they view sexuality and what they are doing and being able to listen in a non-judgmental way is something many of my peers struggle with. Without SD I would not feel as good about my level to do that.

One last bit in terms of the conflict within hospitals. My parents are in health care and I’ve seen them deal with the changes and conflict in medicine. A part of me has always wishedthere was a form of SD for medical people to have within their practice – a safe space to deal with these issues and conflicts.

As to time for such space – we talk about it anyway, but not in aproductive fashion. Everybody finds time to gossip about the problems, but we don’t deal with our problems in a productive fashion. SD allows for change and for action plans to come out on small ways to address issues. The way I address complaints about lack of time is, if you don’t make the time for it, nothinghappens, and the issues just get worse. Of course there is so much happening, but there is a lot of ways to make time. There are ways to have good dialogues and to build a good time frame, such as meeting every other week. I always tell people that the gains of positive change will outweigh the occasional inconvenience of time.

52

E-mail Interview responses by Bre 4.24.14

1.     How many years has it been since the conclusion of yourSustained Dialogue?

Two years.

2.     What (if anything), would you say that you learned fromyour Sustained Dialogue experience?

I learned that the key to understanding another person'sperspective is to find out more about their life experience. 

3.     Since then, would you say that the Sustained Dialogueexperience affects who you are now?

Yes, I would say that it affects even my daily conversation. Ifind myself asking other people what experiences have informedtheir opinions or what have they encountered that makesthem believe a certain thing. I am also more conscious of waitingfor them to self-identify before I assume how they desire to beaddressed.

4.     How does having had that dialogue experience affect howyou think about things, or how you feel about things, or anythingyou do in your life today?

My dialogue experience affects me now mainly regarding how Iinteract with other people. Whether the situation is work-relatedor a casual social interaction, I am always remembering to listenharder when I disagree. 

5.     Another way to think about this is to imagine you had nothad that dialogue experience. Do you think you would be differentin any way at all? [If yes], In what ways would you be different?

My life would certainly be different if I had not had a dialogueexperience. First of all, I wouldn't have met such a wonderful,diverse group of people early on in my college experience.Learning more about them and participating with them in SD helpedme to branch out more in my later years of college. Secondly, I

53

think that if I had not had an SD experience, I wouldn't be asconscious of social issues as I am now.

6.     Sustained Dialogue often leads to transformations inrelationships, in one’s sense of self, in one’s behavior.  Do youthink you had a transformational experience?

Yes, I did have a transformational experience, mainly in thatwith every SD group that I participated in, I was constantlysurprised when people revealed things about them that negated myassumptions. As social beings, we must infer some informationabout others so that we might know what to do or what to expect,but participating in SD completely removes this necessity, andwhen you let someone define themselves based on their experiencesalone, it is life-changing for both the speaker and listener.

7.     [If yes], please describe briefly that nature of thatexperience(s).

See above.

8.      [If yes], What elements of dialogue enabled you to have atransformational experience?

The main elements utilized in the aforementioned scenario wouldbe to always give credence others' valid human claims. I alsobelieve this is the most difficult element. 

11.  Can you recall any interactions or relationships with otherssince college that you think may have been affected by yourSustained Dialogue experience? Tell me more.

Yes! I actually went to Botswana as an SD mod with a group ofhigh schoolers from New York. They were extremely wealthy, andbefore I even met them, I was afraid that they might be rude orstuck-up. However, I was proven wrong, and I was so glad Iwas because they were some the kindest and most caringindividuals I had ever met. I thought of the SD process when Iwould talk to them, and because there were things that we diddisagree on and we were from vastly different regions, I reallytried to understand where they were coming from. 

54

12.  Can you recall any choices or decisions you have made sincecollege that you think may have been affected by your SustainedDialogue experience?

Certainly. I accepted a job as a graduate assistant at myuniversity because part of my main responsibility would be tocarry out SD activities on our campus. That's how much I believein the process.

13.  Defining community or communities any way you want, how haveyou been involved in community activities or public life sincecollege?

Since college, I have traveled to Africa to do SD work, helpedplan interfaith community service initiatives in Tuscaloosa, andparticipated in a program called "Dinner with Strangers," inwhich students and community members get together to collaborateon how to solve town/gown relations. 

14.  Do you think your Sustained Dialogue experience affects howyou think in any way or make choices?

Yes, especially in the way that I interact with others

15.  How do you think your experience with Sustained Dialogueaffects what you think or do about your civic, community,professional or public life?

Sustained Dialogue affects the way that I think about what ispossible on the civic, community, professional, and public lifelevel. Oftentimes, trying to overcome obstacles or solve large-scale issues can be so intimidating it makes people not even wantto try, but with Sustained Dialogue, problem-solving becomes muchmore attainable, enjoyable, and fruitful. 

Phone Interview with Cody KnottsBy Phil StewartMay 30, 2014

Cody: The first exposure to SD was in 2011 in spring. That wasthe last semester I attended Cayohoga Community College prior to

55

moving to Cleveland State. This was the first semester of anytrainings for SD. We went through a lot of the dialogues and hada pretty successful group. However, people tended to leave theconversation and take it out side the room, leading to someissues being misconstrued. This led to one professor coming tobelieve we sought tyo create a white supremacist group. Wehandled that, but by the time we had our written action planfinalized, the semester was over.

Then I went to Cleveland State and came back to Tri-C workingunder an Americorps program. Since I has a moderator previously,in fall 2013 I was able to become an SD co-moderator. The groupwas small and turnover high, due to lack of student engagement.However we did come up with an action plan and the spring of thisyear we were able to follow-through with the plan and implementit. We had about 75 attendees, panelists and speakers. The ideafor the event came from the SD group. The office of diversityand inclusion decided to make this a yearly event to addressissues of the LGBT community on campus and in the localcommunity. This is pretty exciting.

1. Sustained Dialogue often leads to transformations inrelationships, in one’s sense of self, in one’s behavior.Do you think you had a transformational experience?

2. [If yes], please describe briefly that nature of thatexperience(s).

I absolutely did see transformation. IN the last group were 6participants. One was of Asian descent. Once they chose LGBT asa focus and action, one person in the group, this Asian woman,could not wrap her head around the terminology. At first, ok forpeople to be that way if they wish, and was hesitant to talk, butkept coming to the dialogue and listened, not activelyparticipating. What I saw over the semester and I think it wasdue to the structure of SD and the comfortable environment, wasthat the other five participants tried hard to get her to open

56

her mind more. One premise of SD is to not try to change someoneelse’s point of view, but to listen deeply to understand eachother. However, if the dialogue leads someone to change, thenthat is ok. I was awed by the willingness of the others to openher world view which was closed. She was older and set in herways. By the end of the semester she was open and willing totalk about those issues around the LGBT, more inquisitive,respecting and no longer felt it was ok for others but not totalk about.

She would resist even talking about LGBT. The others were very,very patient, so often the conversation would start to shift inher direction as she misunderstood a lot of the language we wereusing. Most people would get annoyed by one person monopolizingthe time together. But, they made sure she fully understood theconcepts we were talking about. They would bring in some oftheir stories and ideals and opinions to help her understand whatwas going on. Often, I didn’t have to pose any questions as theparticipants.

None of the participants identified as LGBTQ nor did many knowothers in that population. But, one of the participants by thefollowing semester was actively engaged in a student club, theGSA club, but he never identified as straight or gay.

3. [If yes], How have your actions changed since thetransformational experience?

Just through the process of SD, it’s experiences I’ve had and theexposure to others’ thoughts and how they process them led me tochange my major. Originally, I was in finance, but then went toaccounting and now math. I went to CS for one year and then thisposition here and in the end I changed my major tocommunications. I get passionate about people being able to talkabout topics we normally find too controversial to speak about inan open forum. I think that’s so important, to be able to talkabout those.

When you have a participant going through the SD process, youbegin to uncover some of the issues in the “underbelly of thebeast,” so to speak. I presented to one of the Presidents of aTriC camps about bringing in SD. Most of the deans say they

57

don’t see the need, no hate crimes or tensions between differentpopulations. I told them they are not living the everyday lifeof students. There may be lots of tensions that an SD wouldreveal and thus make it a better environment, leading toincreased enrollment overall. They gave me a few leads. One ofthe challenges we have on that particular campus is lack of full-time faculty who are stretched to the limit, so it is difficultto find an advisor for the whole semester. So, I tried to reachout to those suggested but could not convince them to take on asemester as faculty advisor.

Then, several students went to the George Mason Universityconference and I hoped that one of the students would become amoderator but she got a scholarship which made that not possible.I’ve tried to get students and faculty to participate, but wedon't have the man-hours or students.

The SD will continue at the college, but not in that college. Ihave only one month left on my AmeriCorps support.

Many in the CS administration want SD, but those who might befaculty or staff advisors are against it.

4. What are some skills/concepts learned through yourparticipation in SD that you feel will translate to yourlife post-graduation?

The premise of listening deeply to understand each other is soembedded in my mind that I listen deeply enough as if this is themost important conversation in my life. Particular skills areasking open-ended questions, being aware of your surroundings atall times, being sensitive to the concerns of others on certaintopics, but reading their body language and tone of voice, andobserve how everyone is interacting while still being able toframe open-ended questions, and summarizing by paraphrasing andreflecting back so that others can understand, creatingcomfortable space.

I grew up very afraid of speaking in public and have a hugeanxiety for which I take medication. I’ve had to push past thatand the experiences I’ve had with SD have helped me push pastthat because I get so excited by the process, the model and the

58

institute. I’ll now be going through the PULSE training andbecome a PULSE facilitator. That excitement builds passion thatenables me to address questions that need to be addressed. Iwent from an extreme introvert to one who cannot stop askingquestions as I get so engaged in conversations and dialogue andhow others interact with each other that I have to hold back soas not to seem pushy.

5. Do you think your Sustained Dialogue experience affects howyou think in any way or make choices?

I think I’ve always kind of been an individuals without a firmstance on most subjects, though I am concrete about some things.So, I’ve seldom held solid opinions without doing research. Butwith my SD experience, I make sure I see all points of view onany subject of conversation and seek to understand where eachside is coming from, then taking a mediation approach to findcommon themes across differences. The most important part isfinding that common thread, as opposed to finding someone rightor wrong. Most important is that people

About changing my majors three times, SD enabled me to becomemore exposed to conflict resolution styles, key studies, throughwe don’t have such programs here, thought there are inter-racialand inter-cultural communications courses. So, I chosecommunications as a major as it is the closest thing to conflictresolution. I want my Masters to focus on peace studies andconflict resolution

6. I would like you to think for a moment about the future. Howmight your Sustained Dialogue experience influence how youwill live your life in the next year or two?

In an argument with anyone in the past, I’d refuse to argue andjust accept what others said. Now I know there are values andneeds behind positions so now I can ask about those and then gofrom having a conversation about a position to talk about whatthat value is at the root of the problem and then some to aviable solution.

59

I was introduced to the five elements of relationship during myfirst training but haven’t consciously used them since.

I’ve been extremely impressed with the staff of SDCN, Rhonda,Amy, Chris for whom I have huge respect. They are role modelsfor me. I’d love to be able to be a facilitator at some pointand take SD everywhere I go, incorporating it in business andschools and communities. There are always ways to take theprogram I’ve been exposed to into other environments. I know youhave different ways to develop and tailor the model, but thosethree people, and in particular Rhonda and Amy are huge rolemodels and glad I can reach out to them, and they are supportiveof my efforts.

Interview responses by Calvin, May 25, 2014

Responses only.

I served as the lead co-founder on the University of Alabama’scampus from 2006-2009. My last active role in Sustained Dialoguewas as a participant in the Alumni Ambassador’s Group in 2013.

Sustained Dialogue really provided me the opportunity to developmy leadership skills both at the ‘envision - leadership’ and‘execution - leadership levels. Introducing Sustained Dialogue toAlabama’s campus was a relatively bold and progressive idea,especially given the university’s history relating to race andsegregation. Having the opportunity to rally a team of like-minded leaders and launching the program on Alabama’s campus wasa bold step forward for a student organization and theuniversity.

The opportunity to work on Sustained Dialogue has builtinvaluable skillsets for me professionally, notably in dealing

60

with conflicts within the professional setting wheredisagreements and strong opinions are always prevalent.

SD really showed me how two POVs can be very different but bothconsidered ‘right’. It has pushed me to be more open-minded inpeople’s comments, beliefs, and behaviors. Rather than ‘gutreacting’ to what I don’t agree with, I’ve learned to pause,process, and shift my paradigm.

I do not think I would have developed the skill to shift myparadigm if I hadn’t had the experience with SD.

I believe SD laid the groundwork and was a catalyst thattransformed/transforming me. As I grow and learn everyday, Ioften draw back on my experiences from SD to apply in everydaypersonal and professional life. For example, when I’ve observedconflict at work between two functional groups, I often foundmyself drawing on my moderator skills to act as a neutral agentto ensure the opposing sides were heard, the root cause of theconflict identified, and put forth options to resolve orcompromise for both groups.

More often than not, I leverage the skillsets I learned as amoderator in the work environment. Healthy conflict is alwayspresent, and acting as a moderator in these situations oftenhelps move the business forward while remaining professional andcivil.

I invested over a year volunteering at the local Ronald McDonaldHouse in Cincinnati, bringing together my work within P&G’shousehold care division and the mission of Ronald McDonald House– specifically, I established an ongoing donation program whereP&G donated household care products to the House and theirguests, while also establishing a co-marketing campaign called‘Just Like Home’ where P&G had the opportunity to leverage great

61

testimonials from the House’s guests and how P&G’s products madeguests feel at home.

Interviews video-taped at the 2004 Sustained Dialogue Conference,University of Virginia.

Student at Lawrenceville School, Lawrenceville NJ. “I came fromEurope where students met and discussed many social and politicalissues and even made proposals to their parliaments. … When Icame to Lawrenceville, I was attracted to SD because it seemed tome to be realistic. Its premise of getting people together whoare different and who hold fundamentally different core valuesreally attracted me because I love to meet different people andto understand how different peoples’ minds work. I had heard ofracial issues in America but coming to America I could really seehow they needed to be talked about. In the cafeteria, forexample, people of color were not acknowledged and sat atseparate tables. I felt we really needed to talk to each otherand understand each other and become friends even. SustainedDialogue presented a real solution and I’ve just run with it andbeen inspired by the people I’ve met.

Justin – teacher at Lawrenceville School

My junior year at Princeton I was involved in a raciallymotivated incident. I was accosted by two white, male studentswho were drunk and who told me that I didn’t belong at theuniversity, so why was I there. I filed a report with campuspolice, doing all the right things. But, nothing happened tothose students, one of which was a candidate for commission as asecond lieutenant in the Army.

It was an interesting moment. I could have spoken directly tohis superior officer and had him removed from the army. Instead,I wrote an article in the local paper describing how things like

62

this happen on Princeton campus. I thought the article mighthave been dismissed by most people, but David Tukey, a goodfriend of mine, approached me and told me about SustainedDialogue, noting that what you wrote about are the things we talkabout. He expressed the wish that I come and share my story, andthat’s how I got involved.

Being involved in Sustained Dialogue gave me a vehicle for manyof the thoughts I’ve had about race. Growing up in apredominantly white community I usually was the only Black kid inmy classes all the way through high school. So, I’ve always seenrace from the perspective of a Black male in America, but alsoexperiencing it partially through the eyes of the white communityin which I grew up. I knew that was a unique experience becauseas I talked about my experiences in the Sustained Dialogue group,most of the other Black students I’d met were from large citiesfrom predominantly Black neighborhoods and Princeton for many wasthe first time they’d come into contact with White people.

So, for me, it really helped shape some of those ideas andthoughts I’ve had through the interactions with others in thegroup and getting a better understand of the racial situation inAmerican, where we’ve come from and where we are going and how toget there.

Priya Parker: As a first year bi-racial student, my mother isIndian and I was white, I’d never been asked so many times in mylife “what are you?” so many times in my life. I didn’tunderstand the question when I first heard it, and I was alsopart of a number of groups, my White sorority and a Black gospelgroup and just random teams. There was no place in my life whereI felt different people came together. I thought even there wastension, almost antagonistic relationships among differentgroups. I wanted a space where people could come together notonly around common interest, but also around difficult topics tofulfill the point of diversity at a university.

Summer: I similarly had friends in different groups but nobridge among them. But, for me Sustained Dialogue was also verypersonal. This was right after 9/11 and I am a Middle EasternArab woman. After September 11, though I had always been a

63

Middle Eastern woman, eaten Arabic food, spoken Arabic. I hadembraced my culture but never realized how it had affected howpeople identified and treated me. After September 11 that wasreally hard to deal with.

I found also that Sustained Dialogue was also a place where youcould explore yourself and how others viewed your identity andwho you think you are and how you fit into society and thatreally helped me come to an understanding of myself as well.

Jackie Switzer: My personal experience is similar to that ofPriya and Summer. I also come from a bi-racial background. Mymother is Mexican and my father is German-Irish descent. AT thesame time, I grew up abroad with a lot of exposure to multi-racial and multi-cultural settings. UVA was really the firsttime I began to engage myself at a high level with the Latinocommunity and really start to explore that side of my culture. Ilived in a predominantly white dormitory. I was disturbed thatat UVA I had to separate the two worlds between my Latinoidentity and, I guess, my whiteness. At the same time I was veryinterested in other cultural organizations, but everything wasdivided and this deeply bothered me. I attended a few forumswhere a lot of issues were discussed but nothing ever changed.Sustained Dialogue gets something sustained and this question of“sustained” was really important to me.

This question of identity and self-segregation was a huge thingfor me. I felt inside that self-segregation was a bad thing butfor many it seemed natural, so I wanted to explore this issue,these invisible lines where we had courses together yet sociallypeople segregated into their own groups. Nobody was saying youcouldn’t be part of their group but there were definite invisiblelines and a silence that really struck me and I wanted to explorethat through dialogue.

Priya: Talking more about my experiences with Sustained Dialoguein terms of moderating and exploring issues for myself, collegewas the first time that I had thought of myself through a raciallens. I go to India every summer and I speak Hindi with mymother and my father is white, but I never really thought aboutwhat that made me or how people viewed me because of that. I

64

realized that I sort of through talking with others that Iperceived others in a certain way, but it never clicked thatothers perceived me in a certain way as well. I think formingrelationships and seeing people through their racial and culturalidentity but also as individuals was critical for me.

Summer: Also learning how to listen to people, to talk to peoplewho don’t agree with you or you don’t understand has beencritical. I used to be a firecracker with very strong opinionsabout which I was adamant. I felt that others just had to agreewith me or I’d make them. The skills I’ve learned as a moderatorand as a participant to really listen and really not just beingstubborn in your ideas but being open, to take what others areproviding you to enhance who you are and what you think andreally changing how you view situations in general. This hasimpacted every aspect of my life, from how I interact withfriends, my students as a teacher, at conferences and witheveryone I meet. Every aspect of your life is changed. I feelyou are always having mini-dialogues with others and withyourself, once you really understand what Sustained Dialogue isabout.

Recently, in a social setting with one of my friends who wereplaying Texas Hold-Em. One of the rules is that if you flip overone card everyone is supposed to see them. One person saw thecard and another didn’t and he started yelling about hisintegrity and got angry and was about to leave. I asked what areyou really upset about. He said I was raised never to lie orcheat. I said, what I hear is that your integrity is beingchallenged and you are being called a liar. He said, “Yes.” So,I said, all you other guys care about is the rules of the gameand it has nothing to do with other things, like bills. You guysdon’t realize that you made him feel that his integrity was beingchallenged? Did you mean to make him feel like that? Theyresponded that no then did not intend to. Then I asked the onewho felt impugned whether he would like to return to the game andhe said, yes. I felt that this was a situation that happens totons of people and I used moderating skills that I would neverhave known before.

65

Priya: What about the changes we see on campuses as a result ofSustained Dialogue?

Jackie Switzer: Sustained Dialogue has given me a life-longtool-box that I carry with me everywhere. I feel like now I havea much stronger approach to problem-solving in general. Igraduated from UVA and am working at a consulting firm withgovernment clients. I feel that the moderating skills of SD havereally helped me to deal much more effectively with clients. So,beyond just racial issues, which opened the door to me to studyracial issues, conflict and issues in our country, but alsocultural differences that we encounter on a daily basis. So, thecommunication, the moderating, the problem solving have reallybeen instrumental for me on a daily basis.

In terms of the greater movement, I comment Hal, Priya and theleaders who have made SD an international program, especially theCampus Network. My vision for SD is that it becomes a nationalphenomenon across the country. We’ve all seen its impact at UVAand its effect on people with up to 300 students participating inone year. I can change the fabric of our country.

Tessa: SD has been critical for me in understanding where otherpeople come from. I brought it to Notre Dame and since then wehave become a student organization and are working to get ouradministrators involved. I am graduating now and taking theassociate program director position. I’ve come so far and am soexcited with the potential growth of this.

Seeing this conference is inspiring as when hyou see othersimpacted by one cause, you know it works. You know this is notsome “race” program. It is so far beyond that. It is somethingeveryone can connect on. This is something for everyone, thateveryone can learn from as everyone needs these skills for theirwhole life time.

Shandra Johnson, assistant to the President at Notre Dame.

I have helped Tessa in her leadership of SD at ND. She has beenan inspiration to me as race in homogeneous environments like ND

66

is a difficult topic to embrace. Her enthusiasm has been mystimulus.

One interesting thing about my desire to be part of SD wasmeeting Tessa’s parents. Her mother revealed to me that as ayoung girl Tessa was very shy because her leadership of SD, anissue that touched her heart because many students didn’t feelcomfortable at Notre Dame, has been so powerful and influential.This is inspiring.

Being on a college campus can be a very isolating experience. Welive in our own particular worlds. Being exposed to the samechallenges and progress that others are encountering here helpedme realize we are part of a movement. This generation, throughtheir enterprise and desire to talk about very difficult issues.This is the most gratifying aspect of SD for me.

I’d like to see SD augment the current curriculum bringing SDinto the classroom. I am intrigued by the opportunity forincoming freshmen to be exposed to SD as this would help theinstitution put forward the idea that part of one’s professionaldevelopment is bring comfortable with those different from youand to engage in productive collaboration with them.

Joe McDonald. I am s sophomore of SD at Notre Dame.

Chris Wagner, a sophomore at ND, doing SD for the last 18months.

Matt. I am a sophomore at ND and have been involved for 18months.

White people don’t have to worry about race relations. What gotyou guys involved?

Joe: There as an experience in high school when we’d just movedinto the neighborhood and someone asked us whether those behindus were “negroes.” If so, they didn’t want to move in. In ourhomogenous environments we are detached from racial issues andthis is especially true at ND where most come from all girls orall boys Catholic schools. Nearly all come from one culture andbackground. It would be nice at ND if there were awareness, abridge for people to meet and speak with each other as people.

67

This is what I got out of those who came to our house. Theydidn’t see the Black’s behind us, who were very successful, werenot seen by the visitors as people. That experience changed me.I’d like to give people positive experiences that trigger thiskind of reaction in others.

I knew at this point in our program with all four foundersgraduating that they needed new leadership. I’ve been excited bySD over the last two years so was ready to join.

Joe: At Notre Dame those who participate tend to have similaroutlooks. I’m going to try to bring in people you’d not normallysee. Though race is the primary goal, I’d like it if thedialogue became a conversation among friends to an end, somethingstudents can enjoy. When you become friends with people you’venever met before and who are different from you, not justdialoguers, but friends, it makes a real difference.

Dickinson College:

Erin: There are some racial issues, but fewer because we aresmaller. The school was looking to do things along the lines ofrace. Bringing in more minorities creates a different atmospherebut sometimes people feel they are there but nobody talks withthem and the problem is ignored. So, what do you do with thisdiversity? This is primarily why SD was brought there. Ourpurpose is to get people talking across differences and break upthe segregation you see, for example in the cafeteria. We wantto work toward making diversity more relevant in everyone’slives.

The administration really supports the group but respect that itshould be student run. They do support us financially. But, toattract a really diverse group has been very difficult. Wehaven’t been funded yet by student senate. With more funding theeasier it will be to get our name out there. We hope this yearwill be a pivot point for growing the program across time.

Man: They did a flyer campaign and mostly white liberals showedup. I am a conservative and wanted to get that voice hear.

68

Woman: We have POSSE on campus that brings students on almostfull scholarship. But they tend to stay in their group. We aretrying to create dialogue across groups to integrate them intothe rest of campus life.

69

_______________________________________________________Addendum II: Interviews with Experts on CreatingTransformational Experience

Colleges are aspiring to create an undergraduate experience thathas a deep, profound, and lasting impact on students. Laying thefoundation for transformation is a practice that others are alsocontributing to outside the college space. In addition to thereview of literature, we conducted interviews with experts knownfor creating transformational experiences. The findings fromthese case studies are summarized and aggregated below in aformat that has clear programmatic implications andopportunities.

Who: Audrey Buchanan78

Title: Partner and Curator, Summit Organization: Summit is “an organization that unitesentrepreneurs and multi-disciplinary thought leaders throughconferences, salon dinners, and retreats in order to catalyzepositive disruptive change for businesses and the world.”79

Context: In a profile in GOOD magazine, Summit is described as“part entrepreneurs’ conference, part rock festival.” Known forhosting everyone from Bill Clinton to Richard Branson, in 2013Summit bought Powder Mountain in Eden, Utah, with part of themountain serving as a residential community “built around theethos of the organization: entrepreneurship, altruism, creativeexpression, wellness, science and conservation.” “We hope tocreate a place that serves as an epicenter of innovation andculture for our generation for decades to come,” Buchanan says.“We're looking to build a specific place and a broader communityaround people who are leaders and disruptors in their fields.”

Upon attending the Summit experience, Amy Lazarus reflected: Thissense of space and place – an intentional removal from the daily

78 Audrey Buchanan, Amy Lazarus, Washington, DC, January 16, 2014. 79 GOOD 100: Meet Audrey Buchanan, Innovator Impressariohttp://www.good.is/posts/good-100-meet-audrey-buchanan-innovator-impressario Accessed 12 January 2014

70

distractions, patterns, habits, and cues – can be critical fortransformation. The triggers can come in the form of being“unplugged” and what flows in when there is an absence of screentime and an abundance of intentional relating with inspiringpeople. The old adage “it’s good to get away” is true, and Summithas built a reputation for providing a unique space – at oncerespite and incubator – for cross-sector leaders to learn,challenge, and reflect. Sessions range from Ben Jealous, formerhead of the NAACP, speaking about the Trayvon Martin verdict; toreal estate prices in Aspen; to heart-opening yoga. There arealso signature, fun events with elements of surprise.

When asked how she and her team go about planning and envisioningprogramming, Audrey describes:

“I am in charge of and passionate about programming. The term‘transformational’ comes up as we hope the sessions fall into thefollowing:

1. Creating breathtaking experience or a session that leavespeople breathless

2. Whatever industry the session is in has the potential to besuper transformational

3. Disrupting and innovating are terms that are out there alot, especially when it comes to education, technology, etc.Disruption is one piece of the puzzle -- blowing out andcreating new space for something to happen. Innovating -you’re doing that as a whole to a system. Then, there’stransforming. Transforming education is different thandisrupting it. Transforming is more tangible, somethingreally real that you’re holding onto and making better withyour hands around it, doing something positive with it.”

Summit’s research is two parts gut, one part hearing the smartestpeople say things that overlap. Audrey agreed it was almost likecontinuously crowdsourcing. “When you hear the top folks in thefield reference transformation in a way that other entrepreneurswho strive for but haven’t yet had the same success referencedisruptive and innovative, you notice the difference.”

71

Many examples from participants indicate that the experiencesSummit curates provide a space for transformation. Audrey shared:

“There have been so many. Life’s new experiences are about egoand vulnerability and what we open ourselves up to. Someone losta parent and came to Summit the day after and so valued thestrength and community. This person was able to forgeteverything outside of the experience in a helpful way. There arecountless examples of people making decisions at or after Summit.People need an event [what the research calls a trigger] to makea decision they already knew they wanted to make, like leaving orstarting a job, or leaving or starting a relationship. Beingaround positive people helps others make fewer excuses, giveseach other permission to seek more, succeed more.

We had a process of evolution for our speakers at our events. Wewent from keynotes to no keynotes to now keynotes only at theopening and closing ceremony. The intended outcome of thesekeynotes is that when you hear how someone’s story played out,its gives me permission to try that in my own life. Whether it islearning from failure, taking a risk, or charting a new path,attendees can apply their lessons to their lives.

We construct the ecosystem of content for the events.Participants are so much more engaged when eye level with eachother in a circle. We want as much as possible to let theaudience/participants be the moderators of this session.

We are also still learning. For example, some of our sessionsonly attract certain demographics or people with certaininterests. How do we get everyone?

It is important to have really intentional outcomes centeredaround your strength as a convener. For example, we don’t wantdebates and people competing for the answer. It’s about people sitting inthe round, contributing energy to the circle. The solution canerupt from the fireball in that circle. This is a peace-keepingmetaphor from a UCLA-based professor.”

72

Programmatic implications: What are ways to structure reflectionas part of a dialogue or retreat experience?

Summit set up the chairs in concentric circles that keptgetting smaller in the center and radiated out. This enabled200 people to fit in a room while still creating an intimatesetting and being able to hear each other withoutmicrophones. You could easily turn to the people next toyou, in front of, or behind you for deeper conversation.

Dialogue in small groups create a space for meaning-making.This can be especially true for those who externalize theirthoughts and benefit from a space to articulate theirexperiences. For those who prefer to write before sharing,dialogue also provides a space for them to share theirreflections, and for the group to benefit.

At Summit Series, instead of distributing journals, theycurated the Gamelatron. This remarkable clearing in thewoods, demarcated by Himalayan prayer flags, was a system of20+ hammocks between a gathering of trees, with solar-powered gongs that elicit the calming, spiritual, groundingof monks chanting. There were no dialogue questions engravedin trees. No dialogue circles. Yet the space unequivocallysaid, “Come. Join me. Reflect here. Alone or in a doublehammock.” 80

Am I suggesting we send a hammock and gong to every SDgroup? Not at all. I am, however, finding that new ways, newpatterns of interaction, can lead to the shared results andfindings we seek. Providing elements of mindfulness duringthe PULSE Institute will also be important for leadershipdevelopment and transformational experiences.

Getting away is important; going to a different settingremoved from the daily cues and stresses provides a clearingand a space for new relationships and ideas to form.

80 “The Gamelatron draws on the thousand-year-old sonic tradition of Indonesia--Gamelan--and the emerging field of robotics to create magical, viscerally-powerful, site-specific performances and temporaryand permanent installations.” http://gamelatron.com/

73

Who: Dushaw Hockett81

Title: Executive DirectorOrganization: Safe Places for the Advancement of Community andEquity (SPACES)

Dushaw is a highly sought-after facilitator in spaces of socialjustice. He was gracious to reflect on elements of creatingtransformational experiences in his work, especially withcommunities of color that are healing from institutionalizedoppression. He identified the following seven elements:

1. “There is magic in creating a ritual, habit out of peoplecoming together.” Dushaw refers to treating the sustainedmeetings as “sacred dates” (like a wedding, he says). Hetypically finds that the breakthroughs are in that fourthgathering. People practice being vulnerable, and that onlyhappens with regular engagement. The Commons in DC and theChicago Black Space has met monthly for over two years. Dushawaskes, “If the vulnerability and breakthroughs happen in thefourth meeting, how do you ensure attendance at least until thatpoint? Is there a catalytic approach to jumpstart the trust andvulnerability?” This is part of the hypothesis for the PULSEretreat.

2. Humor in Healing. “I have observed that intentionally creatingopportunities for laughter brings healing, enjoyment, and higherlevels of satisfaction with the program.” “Laughter lubricatesthe mind and opens us to people who we may not be as open to.”For example, insert a reflection question designed to producelaughter, such as, “Share a nickname for you from your friends,family, or colleagues.”

3. The power of music. The 4 M’s of Music: medicine (it can havea healing effect), meaning (it can provide words that summarizeyour thoughts and experiences), memory (it can take you back to a81 Dushaw Hockett, Amy Lazarus, Washington, DC, January 17, 2014.

74

specific place and time), and motivation (it can keep you going,or inspire you). Ask, “what is your medicine song”, and someonestarts to sing a verse. Soon, others join in the other voices,and the music and laughter that fills the air contributes to anenjoyable atmosphere, common/shared experiences, and breaks downwalls so people are more comfortable to share. You can also beintentional about the type of music performed or played.

4. Be intentional about practicing vulnerability – sometimescoming from facilitators. It’s important for facilitators to have“stock stories” where they can recount authentic experiences thatalso have the effect of (1) demonstrating their vulnerability andrisk to share to crack open a space, in a way that (2) protectstheir emotional space and the boundaries with the group.

5. Creative use of prompts and tools. The Center for CreativeLeadership provides a Visual Exploration that has rich andpowerful images for participants to choose 1-4 (depending on theexercise). Participants continually refer to this exercise astransformative. It depends on how much time we give to this,where the group is, and what the reflection is. A powerfulquestion that seems to always work is: “What would you do if youwere unafraid?” The preamble for this module is to referencewhen Sheryl Sandberg attended the Barnard commencement ceremoniesand the keynote speaker referenced “majoring in being unafraid”when in college. Sandberg went back to Facebook and plastered thewalls with questions and images of “What would you do if you wereunafraid?”

6. Question formation. Good questions that lead to transformationare (1) grounded in the core base emotion of love or fear, and(2) are memory-based or future-based. Example: What would you doif you were unafraid – this is fear-based and future-based.

7. Cohort formation. There is a Harvard Business Review articlethat every team needs a deviant, and that a deviant helps theteam to go faster and farther. How can we create spaces where weare intentional about identifying characteristics of “deviants”who are ready to share their vulnerability? Also, within cohorts,

75

if there is some sort of relational tissue within the cohortprior, it can help expedite the journey.

Programmatic implications:

1. Dushaw’s reflections reinforce and align with SustainedDialogue’s findings of the power of a continuous process.

2. Practice vulnerability – often by a facilitator or by abrave and ready participant.

3. Include humor and questions that create space for laughter,(e.g., ask about nicknames).

4. Music can have a powerful effect for healing, for creatingshared experiences, and for setting the tone. Be intentionalabout the music you have on in the background, at thebeginning or close of a session, or that you ask people toshare (e.g., what song motivates you when you’re down?).

5. Multi-media can provide powerful catalysts for dialogue.Asking “What would you do if you were unafraid” can be apowerful question alone. Adding a visual component engagesmultiple aspects of the brain and caters to a diversity oflearning styles.

6. Intentionally formulate questions – and train facilitatorsto formulate questions – that are (1) based on love or fear,and (2) are memory-based or future-based.

7. Find a way to not have to rely on great attendance until thefourth meeting when the “ahha” moments tend to happen.Provide a catalytic experience or booster to deepenrelationships and trust earlier.

Who: Barbara Veale Smith82

Title: FounderOrganization: Harmony Lake Ranch

Barbara created and owns a spiritual retreat center, has beenengaging in transformative experiences and learning for severaldecades, and seems dedicated to and passionate about creatingintentional, inviting spaces for others to have their

82 Barbara Veale Smith, Amy Lazarus, Washington, DC, January 17, 2014.

76

transformational experiences. She briefly reflected that theelements that contribute to this are:

Silence, sitting in quiet. Sitting back and seeing a way toconsider

Awareness is transformative Questions are really essential

On the question of transformation that you posed, I rememberedlast night the potent and critical role that BOOKS (and readingin general) have played in my life.  For example, I read What isthe What83. In case you're not familiar, What is the What is adifficult to read, haunting account of Valentino's experiences -but that young man and the very troubled part of the world inwhich he lives and works is a part of my heart now, because ofthe book.  I guess the transformative power in this case relatesback to Dick Simon's [TEDx talk on eliminating the word “THEM”from the language] encouragement to ask about/know another'sstory.  There are other books that also transform - in differentways, such as Byron Katie's Loving What Is.  After reading her book -and checking out the veracity of what she wrote about for myself- there also seems to me to be a way to completely honor ourexperiences, while also questioning the beliefs that can arisewhen we hold too tightly to our stories and don't see our ownprojections. Obviously the work I was doing with my own spiritualteachers helped to provide fertile ground in which Katie's wordstook root.

The other transformational "tool" (for lack of a better word)that comes to mind is with regard to values.  Being asked toclarify my values, to see what's most important has been enormouslypotent in my life.  When we're clear about what we value, whenwe're clear about what's most important to us - then it becomespossible to make changes, so that our lives most clearly reflectour deepest values.  It seems to me we are then more likely to

83 A novel based on the life of Valentino Achak Deng, a young boy who left his village in Sudan at the age of seven and became part of the "Lost Boys," and is now back in South Sudan helping to educate young people in his country by Dave Eggers about two years ago.  

77

give our time to projects, work, and relationships that nurture,support and/or help to make manifest those values in the world.So again, the power of a question, and in this case - particularquestions:  "What's most important to you?"  "What do you valuemost?" seem extremely important and potent in order to invitetransformation.

Barbara has offered to create a module at the PULSE retreat about mindfulness and“beingness”. It will focus on why consciousness is powerful and important, and how togo about practicing it, as humans and as leaders.

In addition to these “experts,” several alumni and fellowtravelers shared their reflections on transformationalexperiences.

A time and space for reflection was a common element that 100% ofinterviewees referenced as critical to their transformationalexperience. Some found this reflective space during part of aprogram, sometimes with others in a small dialogue group, othertimes with a journal, and still other times on a walk or in dailyroutine where they suddenly found themselves having an “ahha”moment.

Others agreed that transformation occurred when taken out oftheir comfort zones, having a new experience, interacting withpeople who are different than you, and having space forreflection. They would often turn to a specific moment (e.g.,going abroad, traveling), or series of moments (e.g., therapy for12 months)

An alumnus of Common Ground reflected that challengingexperiences are transformative. Reflecting on his experience as ateacher, he said, “encountering my inadequacy to change things,such as my students’ lives” was transformational. “It made medistinguish between my abilities and where I believed a higherpower stepped in.”

Another alumnus reflected: “I often wonder who I would be if Ihadn’t gone on Common Ground. How different my life would be.

78

Would I still be closeted? Would I know I was gay? How would Ispend my time not working on this program? I am a differentperson because of the learning and friendships and opportunitiesfrom this program.”

79

Bibliography

Badenoch, Bonnie. Being a Brain-Wise Therapist: A Practical Guideto Interpersonal Neurobiology, Norton, Kindle Edition.

Bohm, David. On Dialogue, Routledge, 1996.

Brown, Tanya A. “How Do We Make That Change? Analysis of Transformative Dialogue in a Community Initiative”. PhD diss., Duquesne University, 2008.

Damasio, Antonio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Penguin, 1994.

Diaz, Andrea N. “Composing A Civic Life: Influences of Sustained Dialogue on Post-Graduate Civic Engagement and Civic Life.” Ph.D diss. Fielding Graduate University, 2009.

Dirkx, John M. "Transformative Learning Theory in the Practice ofAdult Education: An Overview." PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7(1998): 1-14.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin, 1981.

Fisher, Ronald. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse University Press, 1997.

Gabriel, Paulette. “Personal Transformation: The Relationship ofTransformative Learning Experiences and Transformational Leadership.” Ph.D diss., The George Washington University, 2008.

Goleman, Daniel. The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights, More Than Sound, LLC, Kindle edition, 2011

Isaacs, William. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, Currency-Doubleday, 1999.

80

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Ferrar, Straus & Girroux, Kindle Edition, 2012

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, University of Chicago Press, 2012

LeDoux, Joseph. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinningsof Emotional Life, Simon and Schuster, 1996.

Mezirow, Jack. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Pasquariello, Gino. “The Way In and The Way On: A Qualitative Study of the Catalysts and Outcomes of Transformative Learning.” Ph.D diss., Asusa Pacific University, 2009.

Ramachandran, V. S. A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, Pi Press, 2004

Reiss, Karla. “Challenging Assumptions.” In Be a Changemaster: 12 Coaching Strategies for Leading Professional and Personal Change, 10-21. Thousand Oaks: Corwin A Sage Company, 2012.

Ross, Karen. “Linking Process to Outcome: Implicit Norms in a Cross-Cultural Dialogue Program.” Peace & Conflict Studies 19(2) (2012): 193-218. http://www.academia.edu/4252971/Linking_Mechanisms_to_Outcomes_Implicit_Norms_in_a_Cross-Cultural_Dialogue_Program

Saunders, Harold H. The Other Walls: The Arab-Israeli Peace Process in a Global Perspective, Revised Edition, Princeton University Press, 1985.

Saunders, Harold H. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue toTransform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts, Palgrave, 1999.

Saunders, Harold H. Politics is About Relationship: A Blueprint for the Citizens’ Century, Palgrave, 2005.

81

Saunders, Harold H. Sustained Dialogue in Conflicts: Transformation and Change, Palgrave/Macmillan, 2011.

Schoem, David and Sylvia Hurtado. (eds.), Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community, and Workplace. University of Michigan Press, 2001

Siegel, Daniel J. The Developing Mind: How relationship and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York: Guilford Press, 1999

Vieten, Cassandra. “A Research Based Model of Consciousness Transformation.” SHIFT (2009): 32-34.

Waldrop, Mitchell M. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edgeof Order and Chaos, Simon and Schuster, 1992

Yankelovich, Daniel. Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in A Complex World, Syracuse University Press, 1991.

82