1
Civil Dialogue: Producing Civility through the Process of Dialogue
Jennifer A. Linde, Arizona State University
Hugh Downs School of Human Communication
Arizona State University
Box 871205
Tempe, AZ 85287-1205
jlinde@asu.edu
John Genette, The Institute for Civil Dialogue
Clark D. Olson, Arizona State University
2
A paper presented for the Civic Dialogue and Leadership Conference
April 2014, College Station, TX.
At Arizona State University we have developed a format of civil communication
which encourages participants to explore the multiplicity of viewpoints that exist in
today’s complex society. Civil Dialogue® provides a way for people with divergent
opinions, as well as those in the middle, to engage in productive, facilitated dialogue.
Developed in 2004, Civil Dialogue (CD) was originally intended as a tool to explore
citizen reaction to political rhetoric (Genette, 2004). In the ten years since its
inception, CD has been used in numerous settings to explore such controversial issues
as taxation, abortion, gay marriage, the war on terror, free speech, gun control, and
immigration. Additionally, the format has been used as a pedagogical tool in numerous
classroom and community learning spaces. This essay examines CD as a process of
generative civility where participants are given the opportunity to engage challenging
ideological differences while simultaneously producing knowledge. We argue that CD
functions as generative through the communicative power of provocation, dialogue and
collective sense-making.
A CD event involves a gathering of participants who are interested in a format
that engages dialogue and civility. We promote the format as a way to help people
communicate in civil and productive ways, especially when they face “hot topics” with
a need to employ “cool heads.” In a CD session, participants consider a provocative
statement and have the opportunity to volunteer to embody a position on the statement
3
by moving to a semi-circle of five chairs at the front of the room. The positions range from
“Strongly Agree,” “Somewhat Agree,” “Neutral/Undecided,” “Somewhat Disagree,” and
“Strongly Disagree.” Participants are asked to follow guidelines for civility that are
explained by the facilitator. The dialogue is then extended to the broader audience who
are encouraged to respond with their own opinions and questions. CD promotes the
notion that individuals can have differing viewpoints and disagree vehemently with one
another, yet can do so within a context of civility.
Generative Civility and Civil Dialogue
Boyd poses the question “Is civility a public or private virtue?” (p. 864) .
Imbedded in this question is the positioning of civility as linked to morality, goodness,
or respectability. This is a useful articulation of civility and one that challenges the
common practice of mistaking civility for human manners or politeness. It is easy to
conflate civil communication with expectations of basic human politeness, especially at
a time in our society when political and media exchanges seem increasingly hostile and
impolite. Yet, rather than calling upon our politicians to “mind their manners,” perhaps
we should be very specifically asking them to “mind their civility.” Boyd names civility
a “paradoxical” concept and suggests that it resides at the “intersections of public and
private, social norms and moral laws” (p. 864). To establish a sense of public belonging or
community membership, participants in society typically agree to adhere to certain
modes of behavior and ways of communicating. Boyd makes a con nection between
formal communicative behaviors of civility and the existence of a “common moral
community” (p. 865). To behave in a rude or uncivil manner places the individual
outside of this moral space and jeopardizes an individual’s access to community
4
membership. Following this logic, it makes sense that the majority of a society would
benefit from actions of civility to ensure community membership. In this sense,
civility has a function that extends beyond the basic benefits of polite society; it
operates as a mechanism of citizenship.
Another potential function of civility in society is its capacity for knowledge
generation. Does participation in civil communication with others allow us to learn
more about a topic, ourselves and others? Can civility be a generative process? In our
work with CD, we have learned that the communication of civility i s very much
knowledge generating. In the ten years that we have facilitated CD in community and
classroom settings, we have observed that knowledge generation happens within three
specific areas of the CD format: the use of provocation to stimulate dialogue, the
communicative process of the core dialogue, and the collective experience of the
dialogue participants and audience members at a CD event.
The Generative Process of Provoking
A round of CD begins with a provocative statement. The statement is either a
direct quotation taken from a media source or crafted by the facilitation team. The
statement is designed to provoke curiosity and push participants to evaluate their
position on a particular topic. In this sense, it operates as a critical thinking exercise,
an approach to teaching/learning that has traditionally been inclusive of the use of
subjective, emotional positions as a legitimate method of learning. In his use of
provocation in college philosophy courses, Jon Mills (2010) has noted that techniques
that are intended to incite and “awaken students from their dogmatic slumbers” often
lead to stronger logical arguments (p. 21). For several years, CD has been used in a
5
performance studies class at ASU that teaches students about the use of performance in
social contexts. In the unit on the CD format, students are asked to post a provocative
statement to the course website that would evoke audience members (the class and invited
guests) to “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree”. Students are instructed to craft original
statements or offer quotations from politicians, news media, or community sources. Having
students generate the statements rather than providing them with statements was driven by a
desire to engage them in topics that were of personal value to them. The intention is to decenter
the authoritative voices of researcher and teacher and allow the class community to bring their
anger, joy, hope and frustration to the dialogue. The call to “provoke” others to strongly agree or
disagree utilized the language of the method and previewed an expectation that the class would
be able to engage in dialogue, even if they did not agree with one another. Madison (2005)
suggests that to be provocative allows for an unsettling of the taken-for-granted and can lead us
to critical awareness. She articulates provocation as a way to generate memories that we may not
otherwise recall. Provocation operates in classrooms as a critical pedagogical tool that
generates passion and commitment to a topic and disrupts passive teaching/learning
spaces.
In addition to provoking curiosity, passion and positionality for participants, the
provocative statement allows for an examination of the topic by the facilitator. For
example, in a recent round of CD that utilized the provocative statement: States should
not be allowed to limit a woman’s right to an abortion, the facilitator introduced the
round by reviewing federal abortion law and highlighting specific state laws that focus
on abortion. Additionally, the facilitator was able to pursue a more generalized
discussion of states’ rights vs federal rights, thus elevating the complexity of the topic
6
and allowing participants to expand their understanding of the underpinnings of
abortion legislation.
The Generative Process of Dialogue
The core dialogue of CD involves a ten minute discussion among five volunteer
participants with minimal interaction with the facilitator. The volunteers move from the general
audience that has discussed the provocative statement to specific chairs that range from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree.” The structure of this component of the CD format is founded on a
conceptualization of dialogue as a responsible and engaged exchange that promotes speaking out
loud as a generative act. Walter Ong (2000) reminds us that verbalizing is necessary because
“thought is nested in speech” (p. 138). “In all human cultures,” Ong explains, “the spoken word
appears as the closest sensory equivalent of fully developed interior thought” (p.138). Those
who participate in the core dialogue of the CD format often report to us that through the process
of speaking and listening they come to understand a topic more fully. They also report that it is
in the act of speaking and listening that they locate their knowledge deficiencies. One young
woman who moved confidently to occupy a chair at the start of the core dialogue reported to us
at the end of the round that she realized that she had been speaking from her mother’s
perspective the entire time and she had no idea what she actually thought about the topic. She
vowed to move toward formulating her own positions rather than positing her mother’s.
We find invitation rhetoric (Foss and Griffin) to be a useful framework for further
articulation of the generative quality of the CD core dialogue. Foss and Griffin’s early
conceptualization of invitational rhetoric (1995) viewed communication as an exchange where
emphasis is placed on dialogue rather than debate. Later discussions (Bone, Griffin & Scholz,
2008) extend these ideas to include the construction of invitational environments and the
7
building of relationships of reciprocity (p. 446). Like invitational rhetoric, CD functions to
produce an environment of knowledge sharing through speech and does not seek persuasion or
change as an outcome of the dialogue. Rather, the five core participants co-create a space of
exploration of a topic via the positions that they embody in the core dialogue. During the
presidential and vice-presidential debates of fall 2012, we produced a series of CD events that
brought groups together to watch the debates and then process them using the CD format. One
participant came to every event and occupied a different chair/position each time. He reported to
us that it was helpful for him to speak from multiple perspectives so that he could make a more
informed decision as a voter. It is in the core dialogue of the CD format that sharing and
learning highlights civility as a productive and knowledge generating practice.
The Generative Process of Audiencing
The staging of CD is inspired in part by Augusto Boal (1995), creator of the
Theatre of the Oppressed, Forum Theatre, and Legislative Theatre. Carlson (1999) explains that,
for Boal, “art merged with daily activity” as “a means of exploring social situations and of
developing leadership and coping skills in the participant/audience” (p. 120). Much of Boal’s
work focused on a re-imagining of audience as shareholders rather than passive observers. He
believed that empowerment happened when people moved from passive witnessing to active
speaking. It is at this site of participation that we see the potential for CD as a generative
audience experience. The audience component of a CD event is very important. The collective
group shares the role of audience as the facilitator unveils the provocative statement and provides
a context for the core dialogue. Once volunteers move to their chosen positions, the audience
now shifts to a role of critical observer of the information exchanged in the core dialogue. Core
dialogue participants often tell us that the presence of the audience has a significant impact on
8
their awareness of their verbal and nonverbal communication. The audience serves as a
reminder that they are being asked to communicate within a structure of civility and they are held
responsible for the ways that they speak, listen, and embody the position they have taken.
When the facilitator moves away from the core dialogue and opens the discussion to the
entire group of participants, the audience shifts its role once again and now becomes a more
active shareholder—similar to Boal’s reimagining of participatory audiences. Those who attend
CD events often remark that they look forward to this final audience participation segment since
it is a time for them to contribute to the information that is disseminated during the core
dialogue. Audience members ask questions, support the positions represented in the circle
through their own stories and knowledge sharing, and often challenge the dialogue participants to
reframe or reengage the ideas that they have spoken about to one another.
Park-Fuller notes that there are limitations and challenges associated with fully
understanding the audience experience. (2003) CD meets this challenge is in the way we
promote the format as mobile and accessible. We have staged CD events in large and small
theatre spaces, university classrooms, and at conferences and churches. We have determined that
the physical location for the CD has little impact on the participation levels from the audience.
Large audiences of 100+ have engaged the format with great energy and enthusiasm, hands
raised, eager to have their moment at the microphone. Smaller audiences of 10 or less have
taken on a collective quality of intimacy and analyses. They often delve deeply into the
statements that are made in the core dialogue and feel at ease disclosing their own stories and
experiences with the topic. The structure of the format allows for a balanced approach to
participation for audiences (large or small) and they play a key role in the generation of
information that the overall CD event produces.
9
Future Implications of Generative Civility
As scholars continue to study civility and dialogue, we will become more adept
at locating the impact that this type of communication has on organizations,
communities and classrooms. The architects and practitioners of Civil Dialogue will
continue to examine the generative potential of civility as well as the ways that Civil
Dialogue’s use of provocation, dialogue and audiencing operate to expand participants’
knowledge in a multitude of ways.
10
References
Boal, A. (1995). The rainbow of desire: The Boal method of theatr e and
therapy. London: Routledge.
Bone, J., Griffin C. & Sholz L., (2008). Beyond traditional conceptualizations of
rhetoric: Invitational rhetoric and a move toward civility. Western Journal of
Communication. 72 (4), 434-462, DOI: 10.1080/10570310802446098
Boyd, R. (2006). The value of civility? Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 863-878.
Carlson, M. (1999). Performance: A critical introduction. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Genette, J. (2004). Takin' it to the streets: practicing rhetorical criticism in communities.
Unpublished manuscript, Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ.
Ong, W. J. (2000). The presence of the word: Some prolegomena for
cultural and religious history. Binghamton, NY: Global.
Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: method, ethics, and
performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, J. (1998) Better teaching through provocation. College Teaching, 46(1), 21-25
DOI: 10.1080/87567559809596228
Park-Fuller, L. (2003). Audiencing the audience: Playback theatre, performative writing,
and social activism. Text and Performance Quarterly, 23(3), 288-310.