Dialogue is a meeting. Dialogue is a constructive clash of viewpoints. Dialogue is a source for gaining profound knowledge. Dialogue is more about perspective than about truth. Dialogue searches for common sense between our constructs. Dialogue is about living. Dialogue does not happen very often. Dialogue is not easy.
This blog is about constructive dialogue as a meeting between minds to change something about this world, about dialogue’s special relationship with truth, knowledge and common sense. But it’s also an account of a practitioner sharing his experience of facilitating dialogue over the years, inviting you to engage in an exchange of perpectives on dialogue and to exhange ways of facilitating constructive dialogue.
Pillars for this blog are philosophy, perspectives on several modern and post-modern thinkers, negotiation and mediation practice, peace building issues and developments, regular contact to practitioners in the field and of course my own consultancy work.
If you would like to meet me or work with me, be sure to check out my consultancy website on views-and-vision.org. You can also follow me on twitter (wiebering). My twitter activities are loosely related to the same topics as this blog. I tweet links and remarks related to mediation, organization development, peace building, development cooperation, conflict resolution, news items and literature.
The main keywords in this blog are: dialogue, dealing with perspectives, conflict resolution, multi-cultural aspects, peace building, civil society and social media. You may also encounter the occasional philosopher. I do not have a regional focus, but my own experience is closely related to the Balkans and my dealings with the peacebuilding and development organizations in Germany and the Netherlands. So I may have a tendency to use examples from those regions.
Check the tag cloud for more perspectives. Engage.
This picture is Jeremy Bentham’s design for the Panopticum. The panopticon is a prison design in which a single guard can watch over many inmates while the guard remains unseen. In fact, several modern prisons have been designed along these lines.
It crossed my mind today as I was thinking why I feel so terribly uncomfortable with Wikileaks. Somehow it looks like the tables are turned and the guards are suddenly watched, but is it that easy? Isn’t it a double-edged sword we don’t really know how to wield?
If we want it or not, Wikileaks is here to stay, that much seems sure. A challenging idea that promises to keep the powerful transparent and honest. And as with many ideas in the social media scene, there will be spin-offs and look-a-likes. Governmental information will be leaked, banking information (as we have seen yesterday), and certainly more to come. What to think about background information on development cooperation projects? What about leaking interesting info on the corporate social image of large companies?
William Ury – author of famous books like Getting to Yes and Getting past No – speaks about his experience and explains his negotiation and mediation strategies. I like this video very much as it underlines so much of what peace work is about: about being creative, about building bridges, about the role of the third person, about the responsibility of the parties. But what struck me most is his attitude: let’s not give up in being creative and trying to find solutions – together.
As noted in my previous post, during the coming weeks I will be travelling in the Balkans focusing on civil society development from an organization development perspective. I will be looking at peace and human rights organizations, that have grown from an initiative into a mature and sustainable organization.
The issue has been on my mind for a long time. In recent years there have been several studies over the impact of civil society development initiatives and support programmes. Here are some examples:
Yesterday’s blogosphere storm of criticism on the MSF video hit a soft spot in the humanitarian aid crowd. MSF wanted to change the way they’re showing what they’re doing. Some links to where the discussion took place: Osocio, The Road to the Horizon, Duckrabbit, Aidwatch and Aidthoughts.
MSF was aware of the change in portaying their work and asked for feedback, which they dealt with through engaging in the blogosphere. I myself largely agree with the criticism that MSF has crossed a line towards cheap tearjerking, but I especially like the point made in Aidthoughts that this is not the way we should talk about crisis zones.
Although I am critical towards the video, as far as I am concerned the real criticism should not target MSF alone, but also those who decide to donate to MSF because of cynical videos like these. After all, listeners and senders tune in to each other.
