‘Recognition Lies at the Core of Dialogue’

By Zev Trachtenberg
Xenia Fellow, 2009-2010
Assoc. Prof., Philosophy, OU

Something Lessa Keller-Kenton mentioned in her post was particularly thought-provoking for me: her conversation with the elderly man from West Texas.  Here was someone very different from herself, yet she was able to share with him a moment of mutual recognition of their common humanity.

I think Lessa is exactly right that that recognition lies at the core of dialogue.  It is, in a sense, the logical precondition (pardon me, I’m a philosophy professor) of the kind of communication between people this enterprise is all about.  I can take in what you say not necessarily because I can imagine having your experience myself — sometimes our differences make that impossible.  More fundamentally, though, I can grasp that what you offer comes out of your experience, which happened to you — just as my experience happened to me.  I can, that is, get that you are as much the subject of your experience as I am of mine.  That’s why Lessa’s point really rings true to me: It’s on the basis of their acknowledgment of their common humanity that dialogue partners can truly understand what each other says.

The wonderful thing about the dialogue process, cultivated so thoughtfully in The Xenia Institute, is that it actually establishes its own precondition. People entering into dialogue might well lack what they most require to succeed: that deeply felt acknowledgment of each other’s humanity.  But there’s a wonderful opportunity for a virtuous circle here.  Our efforts to understand each other can have the effect of enhancing the possibility of our understanding each other, as our encounter encourages us each to see the other as a person, like oneself.

And this leads me to something I’ve been thinking about a lot, lately — ironically, it’s the profound danger in the opportunities for “dialogue” apparently offered by the Internet.  And I certainly see the irony in making this point as a comment to a blog post!  But I’ll bet you’ve seen what I have in mind — scroll down the comments attached to blogs on important issues, and you typically confront the polar opposite of dialogue.  It is very hard to imagine healthy adults saying these things to each other in person.

This is a commonplace, but it seems increasingly true: By facilitating communication between strangers, disconnected from mutual human presence, the Web seems to foster the depersonalization, if not the outright demonization, of the people with whom one is communicating.  Nothing in the situation of a comment thread imposes any demand that anyone acknowledge that anyone else deserves the basic respect we almost automatically accord to people in our physical surroundings.  This is not simply an impediment to genuine dialogue on the Web, at least the free-wheeling Web of unmoderated, public boards.  What is even more disturbing is the idea that the norms that are being fostered on the Web might be spilling over, becoming a kind of standard for the way to express disagreement in public discussions.

In another part of her post Lessa makes some really great suggestions about how public events that are meant to promote dialogue can be structured to make them better occasions for dialogue.  I wonder what she — or other people in the Xenia world — might think would be good ways to structure Web-based discussion opportunities to foster the spirit of dialogue.  Having discussions moderated is one solution — but it has some disadvantages too.  What might be other ways to cultivate actual dialogue on the web, that wouldn’t compromise (or compromise as little as possible) its openness and freedom?

Following Sounds of Silence into Dialogue

By Vicki J. Schaeffer
Xenia fellow

“People talking without speaking; people hearing without listening.” These classic song lyrics from Simon and Garfunkel echoed through my brain as I watched the four-part video series on “What is Dialogue?” Wait a minute … shouldn’t an institute that promotes dialogue encourage listening and hearing, as well as speaking and talking?! Of course they should, and The Xenia Institute does just that! And these videos are proof of that. They encourage us to think about a definition of dialogue that will insure a transformation as we go out and talk with each other.

I must confess that as I watched these for the first time, knowing that I had been asked to write about them, I found myself doing one of the many things that can cause dialogue to breakdown. As I heard the words, I wasn’t listening. I was thinking about my reactions to what was being said and forming the words that should have become the opening sentences of this article. Once the “Sounds of Silence” started playing in my head (I’m a musician … that happens often!) I realized that I was missing the point. As soon as I became quiet and truly listened, the thoughts being expressed by the speakers came to life. The opening sentences became much clearer at that point.

At the risk of sounding like a political pundit on a cable news show, allow me to give you some sound bites to think about as you watch the videos. (I promise I will not tell you what to think, as the cable shows do; and we will just have to wait and see if the opposing side presents their views!)

Dialogue requires us to “suspend our own point of view.” Does this mean we have to totally ignore our own beliefs? Of course not! (I only said I wouldn’t tell you what to think; I never said I wouldn’t offer my opinion!) In order to make dialogue successful, we must be willing and able to approach it with an open mind. Once that happens, it is easier for the transformation to happen.

Dialogue often fails because we tend to “focus on the things that set us apart.”  Instead of seeing our similarities, we are too quick to point out our differences. All one has to do is look at political or religious conversations today to see this happening. Living in the “Age of Jabber,” we are constantly surrounded by “shouting heads.” With all of this noise going on, is it any wonder that we cannot be in dialogue with one another?

As I continue to explore my own dialogue journey, I have become increasingly aware of how similar dialogue and music are. As an organist, I must not only play the notes that on the page, but I must also be aware of the silent places. Being able to “play” the rests allows the full chords of the pipe organ to fill the space of the cathedral, without blending one into another to create noise. Likewise, in true dialogue, I must learn to be silent and let another’s words fill the space. Once that has been allowed to happen, the chance that harmony will eventually occur is increased.  As you watch and listen to these videos, allow the whispered sounds of silence and words to lead you into a place of transforming dialogue.

Peace to all on your journey …

Third Podcast Highlights “Don’t Look Away,” the event that started it all

Today we offer part 3 in our podcast series concerning domestic violence.  Part 3 is a collection of highlights from Don’t Look Away: violence against women and human rights in Oklahoma.  This event was held last April as a collaboration between The Xenia Institute and the OU Women’s and Gender Studies program.  This first collaboration created many friendships between the two entities and started a conversation on domestic violence issues that will continue for some time.

As we prepare for tonight’s event, When It Hits Home: an evening concerning intimate partner violence, we found we should take a look back at the event that started it all.

Don’t Look Away podcast

Second podcast features law professor and former domestic violence prosecutor

Today we introduce our second audio interview in our continuing series related to “When It Hits Home: An Evening Concerning Intimate Partner Violence.”

In this interview, Clint Williams asks Connie Smothermon, OU professor of law and former domestic violence prosecutor, questions about Oklahoma’s domestic violence laws, questions about how to get involved, and discusses a domestic violence safety plan.

Connie Smothermon Podcast

Xenia releases first in a series of podcasts on One in Three

Today we introduce the first in a compelling series of audio interviews surrounding “When It Hits Home: An Evening Concerning Intimate Partner Violence.”

This interview is a conversation with Lagueria Davis and Gabe Miller, director and producer of One In Three, the film that will be pre-screened in Xenia’s joint event later this week.  To listen, click on the link.  To download this interview for further listening, simply right click on the link and choose “save as.”

Gabe and Lagueria podcast

Bridges Supporter Jim Agar to Receive Social Justice Award

The Xenia Institute announces that it has selected Norman businessman and Bridges supporter Jim Agar to receive its fifth annual Sam Matthews Social Justice Award.

Agar is an active supporter and fundraiser for Norman service organizations, primarily Bridges (formerly Independent Living Services for Youth), for which he has raised more than $100,000 in the past 12 years. Agar’s efforts have helped fund the Bootstrap Scholarship, which provides college funding to high school students who live alone due to family crisis. Bridges offers these students support such as food, clothing, medical care and housing, in order to help them graduate high school and pursue a college education or career. Bridges also provides one-on-one mentoring and guidance.

Agar, assisted by E’Ann Robinson, has personally secured funding, arranged mentors and awarded graduating students with a plaque marking their achievements. More than 50 students have received a Bootstrap Scholarship since Agar began fundraising for the scholarship in 1996. Hal Smith, chairman and chief executive of Hal Smith Restaurant Group and a former Bridges mentor, said Agar was inspired to begin the Bootstrap Scholarship as a way of recognizing the efforts of students who persevere to stay in school despite hardships. He cites a letter Agar sent to him: “By lending a hand,” Agar wrote, “we may help a child become a productive and responsible adult. To know that we have tried and that we sometimes succeed should be ample reward for our efforts.”

Agar has been a part of the Norman business community for the past 55 years, and played key roles in several businesses. He has also been a community leader, serving on the Norman City Council, as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and president of the Norman Rotary Club, and as a supporter for several city and county events.

The Xenia Institute’s Sam Matthews Social Justice Award is awarded each year to a member of the Norman community who has been an advocate for social justice. The award is named for Sam Matthews, the first Realtor in Norman who defied social customs of the 1960s to sell a home to an African-American family. Matthews received the inaugural award posthumously in 2005; he died in 2000.

“We are thrilled to announce Mr. Agar as this year’s Matthews Award recipient,” said Clint Williams, executive director of The Xenia Institute.  His volunteerism in the community is a perfect representation of the vision of this award: regular people like you and me taking us a step forward in social justice for all.”

The Sam Matthews Social Justice Award Banquet will be at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010, in the fellowship hall of First Christian Church, Norman.  Tickets are $20 and are available by calling the Xenia Institute at 405.321.8682, or by e-mailing Paige Hoster, assistant to the executive director, at paige@xeniainstitute.org.

The Xenia Institute brings people together, creates a safe space for dialogue, and transforms dialogue into action.

For more information about The Xenia Institute, call 405.321.8682, or e-mail Executive Director Clint Williams at clint@xeniainstitute.org.

Xenia Dialogue Fellow Wins Outstanding Professor Award

The Xenia Institute congratulates our dialogue fellow Susan Sharp, who has been awarded the 2009 Kinney Sugg Outstanding Professor Award in the University of Oklahoma College of Arts and Sciences. We were thrilled to hear this news and commend Susan for her outstanding scholarship and her inspirational teaching.

We have worked with Susan in dialogue sessions and community projects for the past two years, and we can attest to her strong commitment to community engagement.  The Xenia Institute is honored to be associated with such a formidable scholar, master teacher and active community citizen.

The University of Oklahoma announced the award Oct. 13:

Susan Sharp, professor of sociology, recently was named the 2009 Kinney Sugg Outstanding Professor in the University of Oklahoma College of Arts and Sciences.  Sharp is recognized as a leading researcher in the field of women and crime and is the author of many books and articles on the effects of female incarceration and on the effects of the death penalty. Paul B. Bell Jr., Dean of the college, surprised Sharp in her classroom on Tuesday with the news that she is the recipient of the plaque and monetary award in the amount of $5,000.

“Susan Sharp is a model professor who exemplifies the ideals of the Kinney Sugg Award.  She is both a well-respected scholar in her field and a talented teacher who is praised by her students,” said Bell.

Sharp graduated Phi Kappa Phi from Texas Tech University with her masters degree in sociology and received her doctorate degree from the University of Texas in 1996.  That same year, she joined the faculty of the University of Oklahoma.  She teaches classes at OU on women and crime, criminology and the criminal justice system.

While at OU, she has earned several honors, including the Saltzman Award from the American Society of Criminology’s Division on Women and Crime; Kenneth E. Crook Outstanding Faculty Award in the OU College of Liberal Studies; University of Oklahoma Good Teaching Award; ING Faculty Member of the Game; and most recently the L.J. Semrod Presidential Professorship at OU.

Sharp is a member of the American Sociological Association, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and American Society of Criminology.  She serves as chair of the Outstanding Paper Award committee for the Division on Women and Crime, ASC; Dean’s Executive Committee, OU College of Arts and Sciences; Committee A for Women’s and Gender Studies at OU; and reviewer for several journals.

Students in her classes write of her inspiring teaching and “real” mentorship:

• “She is an excellent teacher and the reason why I chose to major in criminology.
• “She should continue teaching the same way. I loved it. Probably my favorite class ever.
• “I really learned a lot about myself and life.
• “Best Honors course I’ve taken. Sharp is well-versed in the subject area, promotes discussion and is truly experienced in her field.

Doctoral candidate Juanita Ortiz wrote in her letter of recommendation, “She is truly an asset to every student she encounters, not only by way of the knowledge she imparts, but also in terms of the sincere interest and investment of time that she takes in every students.  Dr. Sharp is an amazing professor, but that is only because she is an amazing and compassionate person first.”

The Kinney-Sugg Outstanding Professor Award, established by OU alumna Sandy Kinney and her husband, Mike Sugg, was first awarded in 2002 to help the college reward and retain outstanding professors.  The OU College of Arts and Sciences is the oldest, largest and most diverse college at the University and provides 61 percent of course hours to the university student body.  Visit their Web site at www.ou.edu/cas.

A Boost for Peace?

The news that U.S. President Barack Obama on Oct. 9 was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize surprised many in the U.S. and around the world. After all, the president has only been in office for nine months; his name was proposed as a candidate for the prestigious award just weeks after his inauguration. Was he really “ready” for a peace prize?

Many people said no, citing the dearth of peace-related accomplishments on the Obama’s presidential resume. For example, one blogger wrote:

Anyone who shows up on the world stage willing to recite pre-approved bromides about “cooperation between peoples,” clumsily participate the kabuki dance of “international diplomacy,” and toss a few cliches on the alter of global climate change will duly receive his tchotchke.

However, contrary to popular belief, the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t necessarily awarded for work already done or peace work that are in the process of being done. Shortly after the announcement of the award, when many people were trying to figure out how the decision could possibly have been made, the Associated Press clarified the committee’s criteria. While Nobel Peace Prizes often go to those who have successfully negotiated or brought about peace in certain areas or certain times (such as past winners Martin Luther King, Jr., and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for their efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East), the committee also may choose individuals who are at the beginning of their work, in order to “encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.”

Still, it was exactly because of Obama’s emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy that brought him the attention of the peace prize-awarding committee. In the speech announcing the president’s award, the committee said that thanks to Obama’s vision, the U.S. is meeting the world’s challenges constructively and paying attention to other voices and opinions from around the world rather than tackling problems unilaterally. According to the committee:

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

The online news portal Global Post questioned whether Obama’s committment to listening and work in dialogue was enough to deserve a prize of that magnitude, especially considering that Obama is commander-in-chief of a military that’s currently involved in two wars. Will the prize, Global Post’s editors asked, spur Obama to move past good intentions into actual work to bring about peace?

It seems the judges in Oslo have awarded him for having a good ear for listening to the world. And that’s not a bad thing, even if he does still have a lot to prove. The big question now is whether being recognized by the Nobel committee this early will help or hinder the administration in carrying out the president’s great hopes for success in foreign challenges that include: reaching a settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, executing the U.S. draw down of troops in Iraq; continuing to build the institutions of democracy in Afghanistan; and containing the nuclear threat posed by Iran.

It’s a long list and there is a lot of work to do.

The Xenia Institute is providing a forum for this debate on our Web site. We asked Xenia fellows, bloggers, friends and community members to weigh in on the public discussion. Is dialogue enough of a criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize? Should the prize go to someone else? What does this prize now mean for Obama — and the world? Read their thoughts on the subject and post your comments here.

Health Care Reform’s Moral Center

In mid-August, President Obama held a conference call with leaders of U.S. faith communities to enlist their help in his administration’s struggle to reform the U.S. health care system. Obama also asked the religious leaders to help guide the national conversation on health care reform. According to Politico:

Speaking on a conference call Wednesday evening with what organizers estimated were 140,000 members of churches and religious groups, Obama also suggested that some critics of his health care proposals were violating the Biblical commandment against lying.

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness,” Obama said on the call, which was played out live on the Internet. “I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth.”

While politicians, pundits and the press have examined health care reform’s political and economic aspects, this meeting was the first widepsread public discussion about the issue’s moral, religious and ethical sides. The day after that conference call with the president, progressive evangelical Christian leader Jim Wallis continued that public discourse, writing a blog that unabashedly named health care reform as clearly a moral issue. Wallis wrote:

We are calling on people of faith to carry on the healing ministry of Jesus by making sure your political representatives understand that the faith community will be satisfied with nothing less than accessible, affordable health care for all Americans, built on a solid financial foundation.

People of faith need to be the steady moral drum beat driving the debate and keeping our politicians accountable. This is a critical and long-overdue opportunity to fix a broken an inequitable system which must not be derailed either by powerful special interests or by those, on any side to just want to score political points. It is up to all of us to make sure that doesn’t happen.

The Washington Post’s On Faith section responded to Wallis’ blog post, asking its panel of religious leaders, and writers and experts on religion, whether they agreed with Wallis’ charge, and that debate is playing out at the On Faith site. Most of the panelists seem to mirror the opinion of most Americans individuals and faith communities — that the U.S. health care system needs to be reformed — there is a diversity of opinion over what shape that reform should take. For example, Robert King, in his article about the role that religious faith and moral understanding play in the debate over reforming U.S. health care, he with the perspective of two Christian ministers:

The Rev. John Hay Jr. reads the parable of the Good Samaritan — who bandaged the wounds of an injured stranger and paid to have him cared for — and sees a biblical basis for supporting universal health care, even if it means a greater government role.

Curt Smith reads the same passage and sees an example of someone who helped his fellow man without asking for the government’s help in doing it. “Notice in the story of the Good Samaritan,” he said, “the guy used his own money.”

Questions of how much the government should be involved in health care reform, whether federal money should provide funding for moral hot-button topics such as abortion or contraceptives, and whether would be church-state issues involved in some aspects of care and reform have sprung up in public discussion.

The Xenia Institute is providing a forum for this debate on our Web site. We asked Xenia fellows, bloggers, friends and community members to weigh in on the public discussion. Is health care a moral or ethical issue? Why or why not? What shape should the moral response to health care reform take? Read their answers and contribute to the conversation here.

Democracy and the Honduran Coup

By C. J. Hobson,
Ph.D candidate
University of Oklahoma

Finding an end point to a dialogue on democracy is as complex as finding the beginning, much akin to the storied Caucus Race of Alice in Wonderland. Since the completion of the Grasping at  Democracy series a few weeks ago, two very interesting plays in global democracy have begun to unfold. The case of Iran has garnered much international attention and even more international speculation. Where this case may lead will most certainly captivate the minds of untold millions of global citizens and, more importantly, the minds of the almost 66 million citizens of Iran. Much less discussed has been the most interesting and very complicated story of the Honduran coup, which took place quietly during the early morning of June 28, 2009, and sent the president packing to Costa Rica.

As with the other case studies on democracy, I find the roots of history to be vital to a meaningful understanding of any country, people or political circumstance. Much like Chile, Honduras was born out of the designs of the Spanish Empire and found its independence under similar circumstances, first as part of the Federal Republic of Central America in 1821 and then as a singularly independent country in 1840.  The second half of the 19th century through World War II leaves Honduran history pockmarked with shifts from civilian, semi-democratic rule to military juntas.  Most notable during this period is the incessant U.S. intervention and insertion of American troops. During the period, known pejoratively in the U.S. as the “Banana Wars,” U.S. troops were sent in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925. As is evidenced by the dates, only World War I provided some respite from foreign intervention. These conflicts were rooted in trade of fruit, coffee, sugar and other commodities not only in Honduras, but in many other Central American countries as well. This policy could be derived from U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s notion of speaking softly but carrying a big stick.

Clearly destabilizing, these conflicts continued to lead to violent governmental swings between left and right, exacerbating the friction between classes in Honduras. Class in Honduras at this point, as in many countries, arguably today was rooted in land ownership and access. This resulted in the military dictatorship of General Tiburcio Carías Andino, which maintained ironic stability during the Great Depression but was finally overthrown in 1948. The period of 1948 through to 1979 the Honduran government was controlled primarily by military leaders and/or local landowners and strongmen. It was this process of foreign, most notably U.S. intervention, that bred a distinct distaste for political machinations north of the Rio Grande. It is important to note that many of these conflicts came to a final head in Honduras’ neighbor Guatemala with the U.S.-instigated coup d’etat in 1954 against the democratically elected leader of President Jacobo Arbenz. This was done for primarily economic reasons, but was couched very much in the Cold War context of the day.  It is without doubt that these neighboring events continued to inform the Honduran political psyche.

With the return of civilian rule in the early 1980’s and the institution of a new constitution, U.S. relations continued to warm with foreign military aid from the U.S. reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This provided military stability at a time in which much of the rest of Central America, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama were engulfed in bloody civil conflicts. This stability also ensured democratic elections, but also nonaggressive reform, particularly much-needed land reform. Much of Honduran life remained status quo until the election of Jose Manuel Zelaya in 2005 with a relatively small margin of 4%. Highly popular with the common people of Honduras, Zelaya has been perceived to be much in the vein of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  This is with particular note toward land reform, which is always a highly charged issue in developing-world democracies.

Much like Chavez, Zelaya attempted to promulgate a public referendum to allow for a constitutional convention, which would allow him to run for more than one term.  Seen as highly dangerous to the institution of the constitution, the more conservative legislature and judicial branches balked. These events all came to a head in late June with the attempted firing of the Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, who is the congressionally appointed head of the Honduran Armed Forces. After the attempted firing of the general by President Zelaya, the Supreme Court of Honduras required his reinstatement. When this was not done, the Honduran military, with the perceived nod from the legislative and judicial branches, moved in for a coup. President Zelaya was escorted along with his staff from the presidential palace in Tegucigalpa onto a place and out of the country on June 28.  Most recently, he has attempted to return from exile in Costa Rica and his plane was again turned away. While a new president of Honduras has been appointed, Zelaya refuses to concede his seat and this leaves the world with one of two Honduran presidents to recognize.

This set of complicated circumstances which have unfolded over the past few weeks has resulted in Zelaya appearing before the U.N. begging for continued recognition, as well as the expulsion of current non-Zelayan government from the Organization of American States (OAS). Additionally, it leaves the leaders of the world in a highly complicated position. On one hand, does the family of global democracies embrace a democratically elected president who may have been trying to undermine the rule of the constitution by public pressure, but who has been ousted and remains in exile? Or on the other hand, do they recognize a democratically elected congress and appointed judiciary who argue that they were protecting the constitution but promulgated a military coup and the removal of the President?  There is no immediate answer, but add into this the complex relationship that the U.S. has with all of Central and South America, as well as the wild card of everyone’s good, bad or ugly relationship with Venezuelan presidential powerhouse Hugo Chavez. Certainly the notion of contestation and participation, the very root of polyarchy and democracy is in jeopardy.

The question that the global community –– and, more importantly, the Honduran people –– must ask is: Which side jeopardizes democracy most? Those who would protect the constitution and remove a president by force, or those who would allow the president to sit even if it radically changed the nature of the government of Honduras?

I shall editorialize to a higher degree at this point and hope most fervently that whichever side is selected in this slow burning conflict that it is the people of Honduras that are allowed to make the final choice. A democracy at the point of anyone’s bayonet is rarely a long-lasting institution.

• Related link: News for June 30  |  Xenia News & Analysis
• Related link: Class and Coups Edition  |  Xenia News & Analysis

Next Page »