Local Peacebuilding in Practice: Community Dialogue S Contribution

Local Peacebuilding in Practice: Community Dialogue’s ContributionBy Ann Kelleher (Fall 2015)The following explanation and analysis of Community Dialogue’s practice presents how healthy human interactions can thrive in the complex, even contradictory, and emotionally fraught environment of a post-violent conflict society. Since sustainable peace requires constructively connecting across social boundaries, Community Dialogue (CD) has earned its peacebuilder designation. It can serve as a case study illustrating how dialogue activities can assist in achieving peace. While ample analyses exist explaining how wars happen, much less is available about how peace happens. Examples of local peacebuilding confirm that flames of hope flicker amid overwhelming public information about violence with its great facility for attracting attention. Commentators have a penchant for writing about atrocity and other accounts of inhumanity, and then focus on official peacemaking when its possibilities arise. Meanwhile public information providers seem to largely ignore other remarkable and often risky efforts for peace. Those made by local people. Certainly violent conflicts and top-level peacemaking deserve attention as compellingly important, exciting, courageous, and therefore newsworthy. However the public should have access to additional information, stories of locally prominent peacebuilders whose actions make a proportionately significant contribution to peace. Lost in fogs of ferocious violence, they may seem small in comparison and hard to find since they often occur at the grass roots. Yet in spite of this difficulty far too few sources tell stories of the human capacity for constructive, humane interactions helping to create conditions for peace. Such information should become part of our general knowledge. Why Study Community Dialogue? Community Dialogue as a case study makes sense because of its enduring success over seventeen years and deserved reputation for quality facilitation in widely divergent settings. Established as an organization in October 1997,1 demand has persisted for CD facilitation and its topically-focused pamphlets. Consequently a variety of foundations and public funders have continued to finance CD activities. Such sustainability provides evidence that the organization has effectively met real peacebuilding needs over time. It also means, according to those familiar with its work, that Community Dialogue has maintained its integrity in both motivation and practice. Using prominent CD characteristics as categories, the following commentary explains how the organization's vibrancy, established during its origins, remains ongoing as it energetically responds to requests for its skills and expertise. 1 Paul Steele Consulting, Management Consultants, “Community Dialogue – Evaluation on behalf of the Community Relations Council,” February 28, 2002, 7.1  As a grassroots community organization, Community Dialogue's origins reflected Northern Ireland’s fraught public environment.In the mid to late 1990s Northern Ireland's people experienced a charged atmosphere expectant with the potential for peace talks and punctuated by off and on again ceasefires. The 1997-98 multi-party talks ensued producing the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. Community Dialogue originated during that dynamic decade evolving organically from the interactions of socially concerned people with a wide variety of backgrounds; educators, religious and paramilitary leaders, mediators, middle and working class, all community workers in one way or another, and reflecting the breadth of opinions in both of Northern Ireland's historic traditions. They met as freely forming groups engaging in many vigorously animated and multi- sided conversations, discussions, debates, and of course, arguments. Participants in the groups thought it essential to engage in public discussions about the peace process because its results would have a profound effect on the lives of everyone. Those taking part in the group interactions understood that peace was too important to involve only the official negotiators. Community Dialogue crystallized from several groups: “There are maybe a dozen or more different threads that you could trace back as the origin [of CD]. The roots of what we are arise from the apparent failure of the OPSAHL Commission 1992-93,2 and the hunger of many community activists to review and revisit the process of including people in decisions about their future and finding a way to effectively do this.”3 Among the group of 30+ founders of CD, including those who became its long-term facilitators and supporters, opinions differ as to which of its initiating strands to emphasize. Many agree, however, on one main strand called Signs of the Times. Participants in this group trace its origins to Ireland during the late 1980s into the early 1990s when Jesuits held a series of dialogues, at least one lasting for three weeks at a retreat center. They discussed theological and current public issues and emphasized their interrelatedness. Naturally the violence in the North of Ireland raised relevant issues. One of the leaders had experienced a similar interactive process among Central American Jesuits in responding to that region's violence in the 1980s. As one of the groups emerging from the Jesuit-led discussions, Signs of the Times included more lay people and had a committee that organized parallel gatherings in Northern Ireland and the Republic as well as combined North-South interactions. Its members decided on topics, recruited participants and provided facilitation. The fact that some sessions included gender issues illustrates the variety of forward-thinking topics. Signs of the Times members 2 An independent charitable body led by a Norwegian human rights lawyer and financed by private foundations, it was part of Initiative 92's Citizens' Inquiry eliciting submissions from local people in Northern Ireland about their views. The commission issued a report in June, 1993. 3 Interviewee quote in Teresa Cullen, “A Corporate Analysis, an Organisational Evaluation and a Programme Impact Assessment of Community Dialogue,” Autumn 1997 – July 2000, Final Report, Part 1, 3.2 learned the value of dialogue during their intense interactions. It has the capacity to enable and deepen understanding of others' views as well as clarify one's own, and can do so in a way that creates healthy connections among participants.In addition to Signs of the Times, the Peace and Dialogue group contributed to founding Community Dialogue. Set up by Noreen Christian in 1994, Peace and Dialogue began meeting after the ceasefires broke down. "The primary reason was to gather the energy of the community to prevent withdrawal, silence and apathy." Noreen Christian became a founding member as well as the first Chair of Community Dialogue.4 A group called Democratic Dialogue provided a third source of members and motivating ideas for Community Dialogue. While both groups, Peace and Dialogue and Democratic Dialogue, formed as "people's initiatives" at about the same time, “Democratic Dialogue was more academic, statutory and business focused.”5 Any discussion of Community Dialogue's origins must make mention of Women Together. "Founded in the mayhem of 1970" the organization developed a wide range of activities. According to a member, by the 1990s "We brought together women from across the divides in Northern Ireland, from the South and eventually from the Church of Scotland Guild as well: women engaged with sharing, shifting and shaping a society free from violent conflict. . . . We always encouraged open and honest dialogue."6 In the early post Agreement period, Women Together focused on a new initiative called People Moving On in order to engage in campaigning and lobbying for the Belfast agreement's full implementation. Also, a representative of Women Together participated "in the tentative early conversations about the need for continued dialogue amongst ordinary people. . . . Community Dialogue was born." In May 2001 Women Together closed their office transferring "material assets, energy and enthusiasm for reconciliation and change to this new organization."7 Community Dialogue's early membership overlapped among the groups already noted here, as well as some others. Those who created Community Dialogue had coalesced around the need for a dialogue group with distinct characteristics: grass roots people embedded in their local communities, from a wide variety of political and economic backgrounds, and sharing the aim of providing a voice for Northern Ireland's community and voluntary groups. After all, people throughout society had a high stake in both ending the violence and in the governing system that an agreement would initiate. Dialogues would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding by Northern Ireland's people of the political issues relevant to the multi-party talks. It also would assist grassroots learning in preparation for a potential election to approve a peace agreement. “As a society we are very reluctant to talk politics or religion. For example, 4 Cullen, “A Corporate Analysis," 3. 5 Cullen, "A Corporate Analysis," 3. 6 Anne Carr, "Women Together in the darkest days of the 'Troubles," Open Democracy (May 16, 2014): 2. www.opendemocracy.net/50/50/anne-carr/women-together-in-darkest-days- of- troubles#.VktWeH3. Accessed November 14, 2015. 7 Anne Carr, "Women in Northern Ireland should be leading peacebuilders again," Open Democracy (May 16, 2014): 2. www.opendemocracy.net/50/50/anne-carr/women-in-northern- ireland-should-be-leading- peacebuilders-again#.VKtWv1f7164. Accessed November 14, 2015.3 the middle classes are ‘great friends’ with the ‘other’ side, but there is a veneer of politeness and there are taboo subjects that are skirted around. This is a clique and people are not challenged. People do not know the ‘other.’ . . . The referendum decision could not be a just judgement if people did not understand what was on offer.”8 In undertaking responsibility for enlivening and enlightening interactions at the local level, CD members knew how effective such engagement could be because of their own experience in various dialogue groups. They understood "dialogue" as profound interaction among people with substantially different and deeply-held perspectives. As dialogue participants themselves, CD's founders had learned the value of both cognitively and emotively learning about and respecting each other's differing views. They consciously applied active listening as well as other dialogue methods as they developed CD's facilitation practice. They understood that contentious interactions can be courteous and considerate, and that it could result in profound, intensely experienced learning. Community Dialogue formally offered its first dialogue in 1998. Its original members had developed what became CD's process during earlier dialogues held by their separate organizations. They secured grant funding for 1999 dialogues from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Community Relations Council, with the Omagh District Council providing added financing. At the turn of the new century, CD’s budget had grown substantially financed by the Hewlett Foundation and Atlantic Philanthropies as well as a major increase from the Community Relations Council.9 In addition to its Belfast office, CD opened another in Omagh.  CD has enabled dialogues of extensive scope and scale. From its beginning Community Dialogue offered flexibility in focus and format, as illustrated by the ample number and variety of sponsors, topics, venues and session arrangements that included seminars, presentations, training sessions, residentials, and public discussions. CD facilitators organized public sessions around issue-relevant speakers, films, leaflets, art exhibitions and performances. Members also engaged in media interviews and commentary. Groups and organizations across Northern Ireland and cross-border requested facilitation. At first topics emphasized issues related to the Belfast Agreement, then its impeded implementation. Further into the new century CD sessions added identity issues, sectarianism, and dealing with the past while moving into ethnic diversity and gender issues as they surfaced in the public consciousness. The following quote from the book Peace Comes Dropping Slow by Brian Lennon indicates CD's broad impact in its early years.8 Cullen, "A Corporate analysis," 3 quoting a Community Dialogue Executive Committee member. 9 Paul Steele Consulting, "Community Dialogue – Evaluation," 28. 4 By 2004 Community Dialogue had run over 500 general events, including half- day and evening seminars, nearly 200 local groups meetings, over 50 one or two-night residentials, 19 youth events and almost 100 internal dialogues. In that period there were also over 30 newspaper articles, 24 publications and 24 radio programmes, some of a considerable length. All these were attempts to publicise the perceptions we were hearing and to encourage further dialogue around them.10 A booklet by David Holloway adds that by 2004 an estimated 6,750 people had participated in CD’s dialogues.11 Clearly CD was responding to a large-scale and ongoing demand for its work. The pace of CD activity has continued well into the new century’s second decade. To illustrate, in the year April 2014 to March 2015 CD reported delivery of 122 dialogues, instead of the planned 86. These included three residentials and thirty accredited training sessions. The dialogues were delivered to 1,077 participants, instead of the anticipated 908. In addition, CD staff wrote and disseminated twenty-four informational materials, ten more than the anticipated fourteen, with most offered on the CD website for downloading and photocopying.12  The need for dialogue continues in a society still deeply divided while experiencing increasing plurality.Community Dialogue originated as an organization to offer ordinary people opportunities to engage in respectful learning about each other’s perspectives and, in the process, to refine and perhaps revise their own. Given its grassroots orientation, CD formulated its dialogues from important issues reflecting their time and place, and has continued to do so. Its work has provided a positive response to significant and emotionally laden divisive events in Northern Ireland. At its launch, CD focused on the political cross currents churned up by the 1998 agreement and its need for electoral approval. Subsequent dialogues responded to the dashed hopes resulting from the agreement's stuttering and then stalled implementation, followed by years of political stalemate well into the new century. Broader social issues surfaced as well in CD facilitations with two figuring more prominently. First, many dialogues focused on legacies of the past's prolonged violence, such as trauma, victimhood, sectarianism, clashing identities and "the double minority problem." Second, CD's encouraging peaceful ways to deal with difference also applied to society's increasing pluralism defined as multi-cultural, multi-gender and multi-economic class. Relevant social tensions and even hate crimes began surfacing in the news. Although they had existed earlier, they were submerged by the dominant PUL-CNR 10 Brian Lennon, Peace Comes Dropping Slow – Dialogue and Conflict Management in Northern Ireland, “Preface,” Belfast: Community Dialogue, 2004, 9. 11 David Holloway, “A Practical Guide to Dialogue,” Community Dialogue Critical Issues Series, Volume Two, August 2004, 9. 12 “Esmee Fairbairn Foundation Progress Report, April 2014-March2015.” 5 divide. Community Dialogue's practitioners knew that to achieve a participatory society, local people needed to tackle both sectarianism and other forms of prejudice. Subtle shifts in the wording of CD's mission statement reflected the broadening of its work. In 2002 the organization had asserted its mission as: “Community Dialogue exists to build trust and understanding in Northern Ireland through dialogue, research and analysis contributing to a peaceful, just and stable society.”13 According to CD's 2005 Annual Report the Mission Statement had expanded: “Community Dialogue empowers people, both locally and internationally, through dialogue, research, analysis, and education & training to address issues of division and exclusion leading to the creation of a peaceful, just, and inclusive society.” This newer phrasing embodied three additions; education and training, an international dimension, and wording that connoted social marginalization. While broadening its mandate to include disparaged groups considered different due to ethnicity, gender and income, Community Dialogue also maintained its focus on the legacies from thirty years of violence. For example, the persistence and in some cases even deepening perceptions of marginalization in the PUL community have caused CD to articulate this trend more prominently as its facilitators plan their future work. The flags issue in particular has highlighted the need for a focus on festering loyalist alienation. Community Dialogue has responded by consulting with local leaders in PUL communities to design a dialogue project flowing from a session on "Protestant Experience, Uncomfortable Truths." This recent seminar in Derry was organized by CD in cooperation with Derry-based organizations (North West Community Network, the Junction, and Towards Understanding and Healing). Much remains to be done in building inter-community bridges.  CD staff have demonstrated both creativity and a wide variety of relevant capabilities. Community Dialogue has benefited from the contributions of many people who have served as its facilitators, commentators, planners, writers, and administrators. Its continued sustainability serves as a tribute to the ability of its contributors to cooperate in synthesizing their knowledge and abilities in a flexible socio-political environment. The organization's practitioners have kept up-to-date with information and analysis. Also they have maintained their extensive contacts with a wide variety of local groups in Northern Ireland as well as cross- border. Adaptable, CD has a reputation for fair and open facilitation that empowers participants whatever their background and issues. In addition, CD maintains a network of over 60 facilitators who have a wide range of skills and experiences. They are called upon to provide facilitation in various dialogues as needed depending on specific contexts and themes, art forms in particular – drama, music, photography, dance, painting/drawing. Throughout its history, CD facilitators have demonstrated different interaction styles. Currently CD has three central staff, two with facilitator/project design/writer capabilities, and one administrator responsible for maintaining effective office procedures including vital budget13 Paul Steele Consulting, "Community Dialogue – Evaluation," 7.6 monitoring. The facilitators have alternative styles. One possesses an appealingly outgoing, stir- things-up sort of personality, and the other presents a gentle, make-people-feel-comfortable approach. Both have for years created safe spaces that encourage people to have the confidence to speak freely about what matters most to them. When possible they often co- facilitate, overtly calling upon their differing yet complementary interpersonal styles to deliver effective dialogues. An academic with field experience from the University of Bradford Peace Studies Program recently wrote a commentary on CD's practice. One of her points noted, "I can see how dialogue is useful to help develop understanding and relations across community borders. However, I sense these things take time and therefore I recommend that CD continue to focus on keeping engaged in on-going dialogue."14 This characterizes the commitment of CD's two facilitators on staff. They have effectively developed new local contacts as well as nurturing existing ones, thereby deepening and refining their facilitation practice. They keep well informed of subtle shifts in Northern Ireland's socio-political environment, have sustained funding from various sources, and coordinate the work of the other trained facilitators who they call upon given the large number of dialogues held every year. In general, they have maintained CD's momentum. In recent years Community Dialogue practitioners have adopted creative new approaches to dialogue, as described below in this review's section on "Community Dialogue's Practice." Participants now engage in photography, music, or painting as ways to create a lively interactive atmosphere that encourages heartfelt engagement within the group. Expanding their methodology repertoire to include these experiential "active learning" approaches resulted from the ongoing self-assessment of CD facilitators. They enjoy applying new ideas and accurately envision probable participant responses. Community Dialogue employs innovative arts-themed dialogues in direct response to its facilitators' increasing awareness that some people refrain from participating because they fear the dialogue process or lack confidence. Also, arts dialogues challenge and stimulate participation in creative ways. "Art can create a frame around an issue or relationship that offers new perspectives and the possibility of transformation. Acting like a prism, art allows us to view the world through a new lens," a new interpretation of the problem and the world around it.15 In 2012 the Belfast City Council's Good Relations Fund supported a series of pilot workshops featuring a drama strategy known as Theatre of the Oppressed. Developed in the 1960s by Augusto Boal of the Brazilian theater, this public acting out of their experiences by local people has been applied in many places in the world. Yet it remains a relatively new approach in Northern Ireland. Community Dialogue worked with Theatre Lab, a local theatre group in innovatively combining Theatre of the Oppressed with dialogue, what they called a 14 Sif Johanna Hvid Peterson, "Reflections on Participation in a Series of Community dialogue Events," September to November 2013, as an attachment to recent "CD Event Reports." 15 Jim O'Neill, "The Arts and Conflict," 2014 paper, 1. 7 Forum Theatre process. They benefitted by the experience of Hector Aristizabal, a theater professional from Colombia and practitioner of Theatre of the Oppressed, who was resident at the Playhouse in Derry/Londonderry.Two women's groups and two groups of refugees and asylum seekers participated in the project. Each group identified examples of oppression they had experienced and then several members of the group acted out a selected scenario. Other members of the group become "spect-actors," spectators who also take part, sometimes replacing the scenario's characters, but always by discussing how to resolve the issue illustrated in the drama-as-dialogue. One of the scenes created by a refugees and asylum seeker group posed scenarios in which a bureaucracy acts as a barrier to accessing specific services, such as opening a bank account. One of the women's groups identified bullying in the workplace. Participants also acted out various scenarios on how to respond to the problem as part of the dialogue process. The project found that, "The (Forum Theatre) methodology creates a critical distance for participants to facilitate a different perspective and allow space for alternative actions."16A perceptive quote by its originator puts Theatre of the Oppressed in a general human context: All our senses, our perception of reality, and our capacity of feeling and reasoning, tend to become mechanical by every day repetition. We tend to become less creative, accepting reality as it is, instead of transforming it. Games of the Oppressed is a system of Games that help us to "feel what we touch," "to listen to what we hear," "to see what we look at," "to stimulate all senses," and "to understand what we say and hear."17  CD emphasizes process rather than a particular purpose or category of participants.Community Dialogue facilitators work in a wide variety of settings with an even wider variety of groups willing to discuss highly controversial topics. General local and regional groups as well as those with specific interests - rural, church, immigrant and women's groups - request CD facilitated dialogues, as do governing councils and self-defined community groups. International visitors, such as US university student groups, invite CD to conduct a dialogue. More general groups throughout Northern Ireland also contact CD; for example an anti- sectarian Facebook group. Participants sometimes ask for particular topics, yet most arrive at a topic in consultation with CD staff. Groups organized to accomplish a specified agenda also avail themselves of CD facilitation, such as for the training of peacebuilding facilitators. The following list of topics for April 2014 - March 2015 illustrates the range of topics for the 122 dialogues delivered during a recent year: 16 O'Neill, "The Arts and Conflict," 2. 17 O'Neil quoting a comment by Augusto Boal in2004, "The Arts and Conflict," 7.8 - Remembering the Past, Envisioning the Future, - The Protestant Experience: Uncomfortable Truths, - Identity and Belonging, - Contentious Issues, - Rural and Broder Issues: Forgotten Voices, Unspoken Truths, - Women and Community Action Accredited Active Citizenship, - Who Belongs Here? Pluralism, Diversity and Inclusion, - Peacebuilding Summer School, - Peer Review Working Group, - Creative Dialogue Resource Materials, - Legacy Research Project,18 - Women and Sectarianism, - The Aisling Project.As a community development not a politically motivated organization, CD has remained separate from Northern Ireland's political processes. It aims to provide space for local people to express their thinking about significant public issues of the times and learn of others' perspectives. “Community Dialogue does not practice conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation or other forms of problem solving as part of its process,“ while asserting that “dialogue is a skill integral to conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation or other forms of problem solving.”19 Not an attempt to dodge difficult issues, CD's policy and practice has always facilitated the tackling of the most sensitive topics in Northern Ireland. They encourage individual participants to think critically by interacting constructively with people with whom they do not agree. Process and not product remains the point. True to its lively origins, CD has developed an effective positive encounter process that thrives on deliberations about controversial public issues. Community Dialogue therefore models how to jettison a prevailing practice of fearfully employing silence to avoid contentious interactions. It has established a reputation for facilitating interactions involving deeply held differences by using facilitation devices developed through years of experience. Yet while CD values process over end result, its facilitators also sustain an assumption that the process increases participants' capacity to understand and adopt behaviors that reduce conflict and increase acceptance of and respect for diversity. Community Dialogue attempts to foster socially responsible peacebuilders through the dialogue process.Community Dialogue’s PracticeThe CD facilitation process has proven itself with a wide variety of participants and sponsoring groups in a changing socio-political context. The organization developed its own particular practices from experiences within Northern Ireland's distinctive environment. Yet, as one of many peace practitioners in N.I. as well as other post violent conflict societies, CD's 18 "Esmee Fairbairn Foundation Progress Report, April 2014-March2015." 19 Holloway, "A Practical Guide to Dialogue," 14.9 facilitation also parallels that of others. Dialogues in varying societies share some common characteristics. Therefore the following discussion describes both the ways in which CD's practice reflects that of other dialogue practitioners as well as ways in which it is distinctive. Community Dialogue’s Practice Similar to that of Other Facilitators By definition dialogue means a process of respectful and reciprocal interaction across boundaries. Such purposeful discussion, disagreement and debate must occur without rancor and, given the difficulty this implies, good facilitation often relies on creating a nascent group culture, one characterized by mutual respect and active listening. Because participants experience a conflict of opinions with their own challenged, they must feel that this does not mean disrespect. Actually it can mean the opposite in a supportive group atmosphere that values the humanity of all participants and appreciates the opportunity to learn the views of others. With the challenge of creating such at atmosphere, dialogue facilitators begin with an activity to achieve participant agreement on behavioral guidelines. Community Dialogue introduces such a discussion with the following handout of Ground Rules and implementing Guidelines.Ground Rules1. Treat what you hear in confidence. 2. Others have the right to believe and feel differently from you. 3. You do not have to respect beliefs that are wrong to you. 4. Treat others (expressing the beliefs) with the respect you expect. 5. When others share do not interrupt. 6. Do not represent the views of a wider group. Share your own. 7. Do not pressure anyone into speaking. 8. All participants’ views and ideas have equal value.Guidelines1. Risk trusting other people with your feelings and experience. 2. Share what feels comfortable for you – don’t go beyond that. 3. You do not need a clear position; it is okay to be confused or to change your mind. 4. People who listen more than they speak often have more of value to share. 5. Try to be present for the full process as absence can have a negative impact. 6. If you feel uncomfortable, you may need to take time out. 7. Take care to listen well. 8. Ask if you don’t understand. 9. Dialogue is not about agreement. 10. Help and support each other during the process.10 As with other practitioners, CD understands the search for understanding means appreciation for but not necessarily acceptance of other views, just as empathy for the person expressing an opinion does not confer credence or sympathy about what is said. Community Dialogue’s Prominent Distinguishing CharacteristicsSeveral characteristics distinguish CD's dialogue practice when taken together. While one or two of the following features may apply to relevant activities other organizations, as a whole they describe Community Dialogue as a distinctive organization. It has specialized in its own version of dialogue that has proven effective with a wide variety of participants in many settings. 1. Process is the Point Analyzing dialogue can consider it as having three definitional elements; purposes, participants, and processes. Community Dialogue emphasizes process and several those CD calls upon to facilitate think of this as its core characteristic. Community Dialogue facilitation encourages a healthy and open interactive environment and often participant groups develop their own themes whatever the announced dialogue topic. Such group initiative fits with CD's aim of local community opinion-making. Facilitators seek to support a safe and healthy group dynamic so that individual participants feel confident to express themselves. Community Dialogue does not seek to achieve agreement, or resolve a contentious issue, or reconcile embittered participants, although facilitators certainly welcome such solutions if they happen in specific dialogues. This strategic approach frees participants from the pressure of having to agree to something. Therefore it enables a more open and deeper dialogue. The organization's publication "Practical Guide to Dialogue" asserts its pragmatic process goal as "deepening understanding of our own and each other's positions leading to a shared understanding thereby enhancing our ability to make informed decisions."20 The booklet continues by fully explaining CD's emphasis on the process of dialogue:Dialogue aims to transform understanding of issues through open, honest sharing and deep listening. - It does not aim to provide answers. - It does aim to leave people questioning.One of the most important outcomes of a dialogue is not what answers the participants have arrived at but what questions they will leave with. In the materials we produce and the dialogue process we facilitate we ask people to20 David Holloway, "A Practical Guide to Dialogue," The Community Dialogue Critical Issues Series, Volume Two, August 2004, 19.11 - Question their own positions and look at the needs underlying them. - Question the positions of others and look at the needs underlying them. - Explore how to meet those sometimes shared and sometimes-conflicting underlying needs.We encourage a re-examination of stated positions, based on the assumption that we all want something different and we are all unlikely to get what we want. This is not to say that on some occasions there may not be outcomes such as agreement or the emergence of new ideas for resolving old problems. But it is important to understand that these are neither preplanned nor even necessary as part of a successful dialogue process.Dialogue is an unfolding process of transforming and deepening understanding of others and ourselves through listening, sharing and questioning. For most people it is a new experience to disagree with others but still to be heard and accepted and not to be argued with or disapproved. It takes courage for people to get to the point of finding this out.21 An additional publication cited previously in this report, Peace Comes Dropping Slow by one of CD's founders and an experienced facilitator, includes an illustration of how CD's process translates into practice: “Many of these events were deeply painful for those who took part, but almost all also said they found them challenging and that they led to new understanding. . . . At the end of Community Dialogue events there was seldom much agreement.”22 Emphasizing process fits CD's stated aim to provide space for local people to express their thinking about significant public issues of the times and learn of others' perspectives. A current CD contributor, one of the organization's most requested and experienced facilitators with an advanced degree in counseling and working on a doctorate in psychotherapy, has thoughtfully reflected on CD practice: It is a process of building and further deepening trust; trust in self and in the group. The exercises are designed to explore in a gentle way our perceptions of self and others. What is comfortable to share and where my personal boundaries lie, and the links from this to community. It fosters a sense of community by encouraging teamwork. Supporting each other in our many and varied roles within the group but also in the wider social context. There is a beautiful surrender that happens within the group, by paying attention to creating a safe environment for the deeper exploration of issues. Fears and inhibitions begin to drift away and confidence begins to soar. 21 Holloway, "A Practical Guide to Dialogue," 19-20. 22 Brian Lennon, Peace Comes Dropping Slow – Dialogue and Conflict Management in Northern Ireland, “Preface,” Belfast: Community Dialogue, 2004, 9.12 This is very much facilitated by the creative process, through the use of warmup and trust building exercises, games designed to free individuals and the group from that which binds them. They “get rid of the box,” to think and create differently, to have fun, to delight in the exercise but also in our self and the other. It reminds us of the importance of “play” and getting in touch with the very things that inspire us, touch us, having meaning for us, enrich and nourish us on a very deep level. . . . The session allows for all that is unique about the individual, and a complete acceptance of the other and a freedom to be true to self. Once the individual has been experienced in a wider group in this way - as an individual and as part of a wider community – he/she has been truly seen, heard, and feels of value. There is a ripple effect, a desire to share the experience with others, and a sense of responsibility for doing so. The creativity spills over into the community and perhaps new skills in dealing with common issues, conflicts and challenges have been learned.23 2. Move Past Established Positions to Participant Engagement. All effective dialogues design strategies enabling participants to move beyond the often stated, static and stalemated positions on issues typical in a deeply divided society. Such accusatory positions reflect society's entrenched and mutually reinforcing victimization. They become standard short hand for explaining the ongoing conflict. This reductionist sloganeering blocks more considered thinking that would reflect reality's complexity. Facilitators must diffuse the polarization and its confrontational tit-for-tat recrimination that leads nowhere by encouraging participants to engage directly with each other. Community Dialogue built into its process a way to get past the assertion of positions during its earliest dialogues. At some appropriate point during the flow of discussion, debate or argument, CD facilitators asked three questions that shifted participants' comments to their own experiences and reflections instead of restating generally held positions: - What do you want from a political settlement? - What can you live with, bearing in mind that others want different things than you do? - If you cannot accept what is on offer, what is your alternative?24 These questions produced participant comments during dialogue sessions that personalized their perspectives. They explained opinions in their own words, through stories and lived experiences. The personal, heartfelt exchanges inevitably revealed the complexities underlying public issues, making them more complicated than allowed by typical, oversimplified position statements. Participants discovered their commonalities, such as the fact that people on all sides of the conflict have suffered as a result of violence-induced trauma. Empathy 23 Comments by Catherine Quinn as reported in "Feedback from the Residential with Bellaghy Women's Group An Creagan," December 7-8, 2013, 4-5. 24 “Welcome” section of the booklet “What if the Review Fails? Plan B,” published by Community Dialogue for a dialogue at Grosvenor Hall Belfast on August 24, 1999, 3.13 emerges when people realize they are connected by shared life struggles and heartrending experiences. Community Dialogue's first set of three questions reflected the immediate issues of the time - the pending vote on the Belfast Agreement with its contentious features followed by political skirmishing over the agreement's implementation. The latter led to four suspensions of the Stormont government, and finally to a reintroduction of direct rule lasting from 2002 until the 2006 St. Andrews Agreement.In addition to the stalled peace process, CD dialogues took on social issues during first years of the new century. As well as sectarianism, issues of identity and social diversity began to include those based on gender and ethnicity. So the three questions were revised to become more generic: - What do you want? - What do you really need and why do you need it? - What could you live with, given that the needs and hopes of others may differ from yours?25 3. Welcome Eclectic Attendees Various CD dialogues over the years have been open to the general public. While people connected with the organization differ as to the extent of this CD practice, the fact that it characterized at least some sessions marks Community Dialogue as distinctive from other local peacebuilders. In order to minimize debilitating disruptions caused by spoilers, organizations sponsoring dialogue sessions often use a pre-screening strategy for participation. The fact that CD has facilitated events with open access illustrates confidence in its facilitation, in the dialogue process itself, and ultimately in the basic humanity of its participants. 4. Entertaining Initial Activities Current CD practice has developed an emphasis on using entertaining and enjoyable activities early on in a dialogue in order to establish an engaging and interactive group environment. Peacebuilders in Northern Ireland can appeal to a sense of fun for its own sake, called craic in Irish, as a shared cultural norm. It engenders a cheerful, buoyant atmosphere in anticipation of potentially difficult exchanges to come. Lighthearted laughter opens participants to positive communication with each other as part of creating a group-based community resilient enough to sustain itself when tensions rise.5. Minimum of Two Facilitators25 Holloway, “A Practical Guide to Dialogue,” 20. 14 Community Dialogue makes every attempt to have two facilitators even for small groups. When process is the point, facilitation must include a heightened sensitivity to the behaviors and attitudes of each participant as well as to the mood of the group. Two discussion leaders expand the capacity to observe behavioral subtleties and significant shifts in the social environment. It also means they can make a comparative analysis of how well the dialogue is going and what refinements could enhance its effectiveness. Also, multiple facilitators allow for differing backgrounds and facilitation styles. 6. Prepare Information Materials From the start, CD members understood that local people willing to engage with each other about prominent public issues would benefit from the availability of non-partisan information beyond that typically covered in news stories. So to deepen the dialogue experience CD produced leaflets, pamphlets, worksheets and booklets, providing them to the general public as well as to dialogue participants. In this way Community Dialogue continued to carry out its originating commitment to the importance of local people's views. Usually written by a small group of CD members, the public education materials supplied a useful shorthand for getting a mental grip on public issues. The publications presented unbiased issue-relevant factual information as well as differing perspectives, the latter phrased as people who held the views would express them. Community Dialogue's issue clarification role succeeded because the authors of the publications themselves came from N.I.'s various contending communities. The materials aided dialogue sessions by provoking discussions about the most provocative public issues in a way that allowed argumentative, deeply held opinions to surface. Participants felt free to express their sentiments because the materials legitimized contrasting views. An early CD leaflet supplies a sample of the kind of information researched and provided to the public: “The Agreement - On Prisoners” dated April 1998, had a section “Some facts about early release.” - About 400 prisoners currently in prison will qualify for early release. - Of these, all but 63 will have been released anyway within two years. - Early release will apply only to prisoners of organisations on ceasefire. - The Government has said it will appoint a Sentence Review Board to consider whether or not individuals will qualify for early release. In reaching its decisions, it will take account of the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of the prisoner reoffending. - The Government has also said that prisoners released early will be released on licence. This means they can be recalled in the event of a breakdown of a ceasefire or if they reoffend. - A form of early release has been in operation in Northern Ireland since 1985 under the Life Sentence Review Board.15 - Since 1991, over 9000 people have served time in prison for scheduled offences. Of these over 8,500 have been released. Less than 1% of life sentenced prisoners have reoffended.A selection of CD materials in its first years illustrates some of Northern Ireland's major issues at the time. - "Community Dialogue Discussion Pack," issues of the peace negotiations (1998-99). - "The Way We Are" with the views of nationalists and unionists about implementation of the agreement (1999). - "The Agreement Three Years On," information on what has happened since the agreement and perceptions of nationalists and unionists (2001). - "Down Again! The Fourth Suspension," events and perceptions of nationalists and unionists (2002). - "IMC Report: Truth or Political Manipulation," the Independent Monitoring Commission on paramilitary activity and progress to security normalization (2004). - "Dealing With the Past – from Victimhood to Survival?" information on various strategies (2005). - "The Double Minority Problem: Identity and the N.I. Conflict," (2005).The 2005 materials demonstrate that CD's publications had moved to general, ongoing issues that remain as relevant at the time of this writing as they were ten years ago. The "Steps Into Dialogue" project (2007-2011) continued Community Dialogue's practice of providing materials for public education purposes as well as in support of its dialogues. The project produced a series of leaflets and booklets, for example:- "St. Andrews Agreement – An Aid for Dialogue." - "Agreement at Hillsborough Castle – An Aid to Discussion and Debate." - "The Peace process is Over (?)." - "Social Apartheid: Is This What We Really Want?" - "Society Issues - Proposals by the Consultative Group on the Past, Summary Report." - "Programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration: A Summary Document and Aid to Dialogue." - "From Past To Future – the Saville Inquiry and Beyond."Reflecting CD's work on diversity issues in recent years, the "Conversations Around the Kitchen Table" booklet presents the views of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in their own words. A booklet in preparation reflects CD's continuation of its peace work: "Galvanising the Peace" offers a description of the current context for the ongoing peace process "at a time of reduced resources and hardening attitudes." It commits CD to "publish a revised document with recommendations designed to galvanise the peace" after facilitating public conversations. 16 The booklet outlines twelve "Critical Themes for the New Phase" of the peace process that include building trust, dealing with legacy issues, reclaiming community, celebrating cultural diversity, revamping political and civic leadership, taking on sectarianism and division, cultivating positive impacts for children, young people and women, plus creating constructive public policies involving education, housing, contested spaces, the economy and existing political institutions. Not solely a CD document, "Galvanising the Peace" emerged from discussions among several Community Relations Council core-funded groups who comprise the Galvanising the Peace Project. As a participating member, CD has participated in the process of producing the document and has prepared a summarized version for use in dialogues. Community Dialogue's publication record illustrates an accepted assumption that effective local peacebuilding organizations reflect their time and place. In the case of Northern Ireland, CD's topics represent the following flow of issues: about the peace agreement itself and then its tortuously stalled implementation, those reflecting a growing awareness of social diversity, and, at this writing, themes related to the stalemated devolved government. Variations on ThemeSuccessful organizations introduce refinements and produce spinoffs as part of their ongoing work. Currently CD staff are in the process of developing and disseminating a "toolbox," aids to facilitation refined by CD as part of its practice. In addition, in recent years dialogue topics have expanded to take on an arts approach through photography, music, theatre and painting. Community Dialogue's process-oriented style of facilitation easily enables its facilitators to incorporate participant directed, freely flowing artistic creation and reflection into CD practice. According to the academic observer from Bradford University's Peace Studies program quoted earlier in this review, who attended several CD arts oriented dialogues in the fall of 2013, (Community Dialogue’s) style of facilitation is open-ended in the sense that it allows the conversation go in the direction participants find meaningful. This is important, I think, as it gives people ownership and the power to say what they feel is important. . . . The strength of using music in peacebuilding is that it gives people the opportunity to meet around something non-conflict related and around an interest they have in common. . . . Song writing is also an alternative way to tell one's story, which may be easier than conversation. Sharing songs is also a great way to encourage and start conversation, and creativity since music touches our emotions.26 A current CD project provides an example of a spinoff, a set of activities not anticipated in a fully developed proposal to a funder or in a planning session, but evolving from an ongoing project. The Aisling Photography Project began in 2014 in a series of conversations between a CD staff member and a woman with extensive experience in working in photography and a wish26 Sif Johanna Hvid Petersen, as previously cited in "Reflections on Participation in a Series of Community Dialogue Events."17 to contribute to peacebuilding. Their conversation flowed from CD's first foray into "creative dialogue" using cartoons in conflict as the medium for stimulating interaction involving contentious issues. The photographer became the new project’s coordinator with funding from Belfast City Council. Subsequently the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure provided financing for additional photography equipment. Aisling means dream or vision in the Irish language and it inspired a group of men from north and west Belfast who, given disposable cameras, set out to "capture the vision of themselves, their families and their community." They explored their "aisling/vision through the medium of photography" and produced a very well attended exhibition at the Duncairn Centre for Culture and Arts, one that attracted the Lord Mayor of Belfast and representatives from Stormont’s Department of Culture Arts and Leisure. The exhibition then moved on to other venues, such as the Falls Road Library. As a whole, art-inspired dialogue engages participants by adding a less directly cognitive dimension. It carries some risk for people who do not think they have any specific artistic talent. Yet CD practice has demonstrated that magic can happen when these participants, usually the overwhelming majority, discover they have something to contribute. This leads to increases in their confidence and, as reflective conversation shifts to public issues, they feel empowered to give voice to their own opinions. The process of explaining to the group the meaning of their artistic contribution in the context of respectful listening, confers a validity to their experiences, emotions and reflections. A sense of community happens, as explained by a current CD facilitator who has guided several arts dialogues: They start working on their individual pieces of art work, that when completed will form a part of the “bigger picture.” There is a shift from the internal world to the external world of community and its meaning. There is a physical visual representation of their sense of community and what it means to them. There is a new perspective, each individual has made a contribution to the whole and everyone can see the value of this contribution. Each is different but equally respected. They are diverse and unique in their own beautiful way. Each piece is accepted as a valuable part of the whole. Each individual can see what has meaning for each other and how this is important to them, but not more than any other. This is where real dialogue begins, issues of diversity, good relations, challenges, symbols, feeling and emotions, thoughts and questions, anything that arises. The potential is limitless. It is a most valuable tool for creating dialogue in a safe and light way. It allows for the deep exploration of the being, the group, and the wider social context. It brings individuals together. It creates a safe space to explore and it allows the potential of healing to arise from within us all.27 27 Catherine Quinn quoted in "Feedback from the Residential with Bellaghy Women's Group An Creagan," noted previously. 18 Summary Often occurring in peacebuilding analysis, commentators on Northern Ireland’s peace process frequently fail to focus on the role of local organizations. This infers their work is not worthy of notice. Yet a durable demand persists to this day for Community Dialogue's activities, as well as for those of other groups operating at N.I.'s grass roots. Their ongoing role speaks for itself and also provides evidence of the human capacity for helpful and hopeful intercommunity interaction. While mass media coverage of hurtful events that harm peace seems to dominate the news, local peacebuilders continue making constructive contributions to the creation of a healthy society. Community Dialogue's record of achievement provides evidence of the effectiveness of grass roots peacebuilding work and its confidence in the constructive capabilities of local people. Such systematic support for healthy intercommunity interactions in a deeply divided society must continue. Assuming that enough has been accomplished that allows funding for local peacebuilding to fizzle does not fit with available evidence. In the words of a participant in a 2013 CD residential on the "Varieties of Irishness," “Ignorance breeds fear: segregation breeds ignorance.” Since ignorance has a monumental head start, this means the effort to combat it must continue. Along with other local N.I. peacebuilders, Community Dialogue has created openness where there was rejection, articulated self-awareness where there was silence, and engagement with difference where there was distain. Community Dialogue’s track record can inspire a heartening confidence in the human capacity for constructive change. 19

Local Peacebuilding in Practice: Community Dialogue S Contribution

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support