Category: The Fifth Principle of Dialogue

Master of Arts in Whole Systems Design thesis. Antioch University Seattle, Seattle, WA

(2006)

Table of Contents

  • DEDICATION
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • THE PROJECT
  • METHODOLOGY (HERMENEUTIC ETHNOGRAPHY)
  • A NEW DEFINITION OF DIALOGUE
    • EXPLORING THE DEFINITION
    • TRANSFORMATIVE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION
    • ENABLING DIALOGICAL SPACE (THE FIRST LAYER)
      • Qualitative Time & Space.
      • Willingness & Good Faith.
    • CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EMERGING DIALOGUE (THE THIRD LAYER)
      • Re-humanizing Self and Others.
      • Suspension.
      • Search for Shared Meaning.
      • Framing in a larger context.
  • ARCHETYPAL MODEL OF DIALOGIC PROCESS (THE SECOND LAYER)
    • ME AND OTHER
    • GIRAFFE AND JACKAL (AUTONOMOUS AND COLLECTIVE PRINCIPLES)
    • HYENA (UNWILLING AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE)
    • GEODUCK (UNWILLING COLLECTIVE PRINCIPLE)
    • MALICE AND INDIFFERENCE (THE OUTER CIRCLE OF ENGAGEMENT)
    • THE RHINO (ORDERING PRINCIPLE)
    • MONKEY (CREATIVE PRINCIPLE)
    • SHARK AND LOCUST (UNWILLING ORDERING AND CREATIVE PRINCIPLES)
    • THE CENTER (DYNAMIC BALANCING PRINCIPLE)
    • LITERATURE SUPPORTING THE ARCHETYPAL MODEL
    • THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THESE ARCHETYPES
  • FUTURE DIRECTIONS
    • DEPTH PSYCHOLOGY
    • GAME THEORY
  • CONCLUSIONS
  • WORKS CITED

Abstract

This paper introduces a new theory and model of dialogue as a transformative process of communication that consists of an enabling dialogical space, an archetypal model of dialogic process, and having specific characteristics of emerging dialogue. While engaged with literature, the author also offers iterative enhancements to several theories including the addition of a practice of cultivation and the principle of change in Isaacs’ models of principles for dialogue and practice of dialogic leadership; enhancement of Starhawk’s model of group leadership by building circles of engagement, which include central alignment, surrounding willingness and an outer circle of malice & indifference; and, extending Keirsey’s model of temperaments by developing a fifth temperament of dynamic balance. The paper then finishes by offering some suggestions for future research and continued praxis using this new theoretical framework.

Dedication

Before getting specific, it would be disingenuous in a work on dialogue to not begin with an acknowledgement of the influence and contribution of everyone I have connected with over the years. I owe a great debt to everyone, especially, in connection to this work, my colleagues and professors at The Evergreen State College and Antioch University Seattle.

I cannot say enough to thank Erica Stillman, my partner, for her love and support during this work and, more importantly, for her love and support during everything else.

I could not have done this work without the support and collaboration of Robin Fenske during my undergraduate studies at The Evergreen State College. I wish for everyone the experience of close collaboration with a fun, smart and engaged colleague like that I shared with Robin.

If, as suggested by Mary Parker Follett, the true test of a teacher-student relationship is whether the student can build on the work of the teacher, I hope that this work is in some way a monument of success for Dr. Patrick J. Hill of The Evergreen State College. Without hesitation, I dedicate the success of this paper as celebration of Patrick as a teacher in the best meaning of Follett’s notion and more.

Of course, I keep any mistakes and failures in this work for myself.