What Does a Forum for Understanding Event Look Like?

---

Forum for Understanding

Finding Our Connections Through Understanding

By Nancy J. Ross, LCSW, BCD

Description/Overview

In our divided and often lonely world, many of us would like to find a way to be seen and accepted for who we are, whether or not our ideas fit with the perspectives of those around us. I imagine a forum where two or more individuals who differ greatly in their worldview, would be able to have a respectful discussion, explaining who they are, why they believe what they do, and ultimately, be able to express their core values through their unique views. I would screen the participants ahead of time, provide two hours of coaching in effective communication skills and facilitate the conversation.  I also imagine that other participants (the ‘audience) would serve as observers and from time to time, be allowed to ask questions, or comment on what was working in the communications between the actual individuals who are participating in the conversation itself. This ‘Greek Chorus’ would be an integral part of the process. 

Goals & Objectives

The primary goal is to have each of the differing parties begin to experience what it feels like to be deeply understood and acknowledged by others who have significantly differing viewpoints. The goal is not to have those who are taking part in the conversation agree with each other, or even make any attempt to have any of them change their minds, but rather have them experience the rare opportunity of being heard and understood while expressing views that are important to them but not necessarily accepted or understood by others.  

So much of the intense conflict we encounter is created when we feel our own ideas, even our own sense of well-being, is threatened by the ideas of others. In those situations, we become invested in who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’. The result is what we are encountering in our culture now—the polarization of individuals, families and groups, where, as threats continue to grow, each of us hunkers down, increasing our investment in defending our point of view while dismissing or discounting other’s viewpoints. Consequently, we turn away or turn against each other, without ever really seeing the person behind the ‘threat’, thus creating more isolation, more loneliness, and ultimately more distrust. Unfortunately, this pattern has now become a way of life. 

Another objective is to have the actual discussants learn how to effectively participate in these discussions by using effective emotional self-management techniques, while implementing effective talking and listening skills, both in learning to listen as well as being able to express themselves so that they are more easily understood by others.  At the end of the discussion, the goal is to see and appreciate the person behind their views while still feeling comfortable with one’s own.  

Topics will be suggested and chosen ahead of time and will likely include current issues that have fueled divisions between us. Whether the topic is race, class differences, politics, parenting or science vs. faith, or another area of conflict, I don’t imagine any topic being off limits. 

Another objective is to give people the experience of deeply listening to others without the need to judge, defend or convince, which can allow them to develop a deeper sense of being fully themselves. What does that mean in the context of this forum? Inevitably when we can find a comfort level that allows for more openness, creates curiosity and stimulates conversation, our normal defenses fall away and  a new experience of seeing the other person emerges. Just the experience of being heard, accepted and deeply seen by others can change the dynamic from defense to connection.  David Brooks in his book. How to Know A Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen, speaks to exactly this issue. In other words, we discover that it’s possible to find a deep human connection, even when we vehemently disagree on basic ideas. 

Procedure

Participants will be pre-screened by me ahead of time to insure each is open to coaching and able to self-manage their emotions when hearing ideas that they seriously disagree with. I imagine one or two  individuals representing a given topic on each ‘side’. 

The participants and audience will be given specific guidelines on what works and some things to avoid ahead of time(no blaming, shaming, yelling, angry outbursts). The focus is on learning how to have difficult, divisive conversations in a way that all feel heard and understood. 

Examples might be: Use only “I” statements, learn the skills of acknowledgement, asking for more information, asking open, curious questions, or summarizing what you heard without any ‘spin’. 

The audience will be informed to focus on what is working, what is making a difference, or to offer ideas that might help the discussants in their efforts  express their ideas without unnecessarily antagonizing others. From time-to-time I will invite them to comment on what they see is especially effective, hopefully reinforcing the discussants in their efforts to reach their goals.  

We’ll build in a debrief at the end where we ask the discussants what the experience was like, what they learned, what helped or what didn’t. The audience will also be a part of the debrief. 

Structure

I will facilitate, encourage listening, and actively coach to keep the conversations open and flowing in a positive way. Each side will have a given amount of time to talk about their views, hopes, concerns, etc. while the other follows and listens to understand. Once the initial views have been expressed, and the individuals feel they are understood, the ‘other side’ gives their point of view in the same way.  

We can do ‘freeze frames’ on what makes a particular presentation of a topic hard to hear, and what the audience might suggest that would make it better. The focus will be only on understanding, not determining which side is stating facts accurately. 

If anyone needs time to ‘cool down’, or relax while gathering their thoughts, we will have volunteers ready to take them to the ‘parking lot’ while the rest of us talk about what happened, and what would work to keep our goal of understanding in place.  

It may also work to use a model used in many trainings, commonly referred to as a “fish bowl”, where another participant takes the place of the talker/listener and carries on the conversation. This may be a way to handle situations where the person shuts down or feels they need an assist. 

I imagine an hour and a half with a 15-minute break would be enough to be able to have productive discussions and fully engage in a topic. 

I envision the discussants sitting across from each other or around a small round table in the middle—maybe with snacks in the middle of the table.  In a larger circle around the table will be as many observers as is comfortable to have in the room. We may need to limit the number.