It is probably the simplest and most significant way that we bridge the distance between different viewpoints in understanding. Conversation offers clarity without demanding compromise; it is an invitation to belonging, to respect our alterity, and to create the space of mutuality. We do this by sharing words and gestures with each other in a way that is open, honest, patient, and respectful. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have strong opinions, that our convictions and values don’t lend weight to our arguments, or that the gravity of certain subject matter doesn’t challenge us or even make us feel defensive. All that is par for the course, but conversation—true conversation—need not devolve into one-sided ranting or attacks on the dignity of the person. Name-calling, denigration of the other, stereotyping, and the like are all anathema to conversation.
Entering conversation requires a certain generosity on our part, and a sense of graciousness that we extend to the other in welcome. We don’t measure the effectiveness of conversation in win/loss columns but in the recognition of mutuality and the deepening of our shared understanding. I keep returning to words like mutuality, understanding, and difference because they belong to the fabric of conversation which is made possible through the radical heterogeneity of existence.
And yet, conversation—authentic conversation—is under siege. The breakdown of public discourse, the totalitarianism of partisanship, righteousness and inflexibility, the elevation of power and coercion as a means to problem solving, the ever-widening distance between people, communities, etc…None of this stems from the failure of generous, gracious conversation. In a world where every problem looks like a Gordian knot, everyone seems to be swinging a sword. If only it were that easy. Conversation takes time, requires personal investment, a willingness to set aside oneself to make room for the other; conversation is a gesture of hospitality across the threshold of difference.
The transliterated meaning of the word, converse, actually belies the lived experience—“to turn about with” (Latin and French variants). It can mean walking with someone, and through that experience, becoming more familiar or conversant with them. It reminds me of journeying together. Pressing on the elasticity of etymology, my own nuanced understanding for the purpose of this particular line of thinking suggests that conversation means: turning toward the other.
Am I being overly romantic? Dramatic? Perhaps, but if you really took the opportunity to consider, in all earnestness, true conversation—not the passing along of information, but dialogue, meaning “through speaking”—as a principle form of encountering and engaging others, what might happen? Where so much is at state, and conflict appears to be a foregone conclusion in so many cases, why not start with generous, gracious conversation? Why not create the space of mutuality and enter in?
