3 min. read
When on trial for his life, Socrates called himself a gadfly. He called the institutional political machine a slow, dim-witted horse. My guess is the politicians putting him on trial — the very ones he likened to the horse — were not very pleased. They ceased the practice of dialogue and sentenced Socrates to death.
[featured-image single_newwindow=”false”]
Lots of Questions
Socrates, by way of analogy, was acknowledging he interfered with the status quo. He knew his persistent questioning of norms and assumptions was annoying and infuriating. Especially to those who wanted to retain power and prevent major change.
But at the core of what Socrates was doing, there was the very real desire to have dialogue. A dialogue is simply a conversation between two or more people. It requires statements and listening. It requires questions and responses. I would suggest dialogue requires more questioning and listening than anything else.
Dialogue requires more questioning and listening than anything else.
The act of dialogue, as a verb, means there is movement in the conversation. The dialogue is going somewhere. There may or may not be an agreed upon end, but the parties involved in the dialogue have made a journey from where they started.
This is why Socrates almost exclusively employed questions. Questions get the other person to listen to what is being asked, to listen to their own opinions, and to evaluate where they stand.
By relentlessly questioning, Socrates was just like the gadfly that won’t leave a horse alone. It eventually got him killed.
The Dialogue of Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth was very much like Socrates in this respect. For him, the horse was the religious institution. He continually questioned the status quo of the professional religious powers. It also got him killed.
Like Socrates, Jesus often answered questions with questions. To make declarative statements too early in a conversation kills the dialogue. Jesus wanted conversations to keep going. An on-going dialogue requires real work. It also doesn’t allow for short-cut answers nor demonstrative assertions that shut down further dialogue.
Maybe this means that in order for dialogue to happen, everyone involved in the conversation must have a posture of humility. Like Jesus, we cannot be looking to “win” a conversation. Instead our goal might be to gain deeper mutual understanding. If so, we must enter conversation humbly.
The Loss of Dialogue
Our public modes of communication in 2016 don’t seem to carry much authentic dialogue.
Political debates are far from an actual debate. Instead of questioning, seeking understanding, highlighting similarities and differences, we see each person trying to generate better soundbites for the media cycles.
Interviews are painful to watch or listen to. How often does a question get asked, and the response has precious little to do with the question?
Social media (pick your channel) seems to be more and more about dropping the mic on those we disagree with. Dialogue is almost non-existent.
Dialogue in many work places has its genesis most often in disagreement. When a conversation begins because of disagreement, the parties involved already have preconceived notions and find themselves arguing their points rather than genuinely listening to the counterpoints.
Listening
Maybe listening is undervalued in the whole dialogue project. What would happen if, in any given conversation, we decided at the outset to simply listen and ask a few questions along the way? How might that change the tenor of the dialogue? How might that turn a potential enemy into a potential friend? How might that teach us to be humble?
It takes humility to authentically listen to another.
Those who know me know I am a pacifist. I have come to adopt this way of living because I follow the way of Jesus. If he truly was divinity in human form, he had unlimited power for violence. But he never used his potential power to hurt others.
There’s another reason I’m a pacifist: I get too angry to not be. This means, I sometimes so vehemently disagree with injustice, wrong thinking, and plays for power that I could do great harm to others if I allowed myself to.
Choosing to not be violent has meant I’ve learned to listen. It has not been an easy journey, and it is far from over. I’ve made many mistakes along the way. But I’m learning to set my anger to one side and do the hard and long-suffering work of just listening.
I’ve found this makes the questions I ask more meaningful and more helpful in promoting dialogue. I’ve found I truly must embrace humility in order to listen, because listening means I’m not forever defending myself against all sorts of misguided statements and accusations. I’ve found that when I listen more and make fewer or no declarative statements, authentic dialogue has a much better chance of developing.
Like Socrates and Jesus, like so many outsiders, I too am a gadfly. I know that those of us on the fringes of traditional power structures and institutions are bothersome to those who hold power. I know we are discomforting to the modes of institutional thinking.
But I also know that change and transformation that lasts always requires dialogue. And dialogue requires listening.