A Taxonomy of Conversations

Yesterday I wrote 'This is not an end to ecumenical conversations but a fundamental change to the way we conduct conversations'.  Today, I will introduce a 'taxonomy of listening' although I think it is more appropriately thought of as a taxonomy of conversation. 

It is from Adam Kahane's solving tough problems and is also described in Presence, pages 74f.  At this stage I want to briefly review each of the four types of conversation.  More detail will follow later.  See pages 91 -92 and beyond of Kahane's book for more information.

1. The first kind of conversation is downloading.  This is where we listen from within our own story and consequently hear only what supports it.  I wish I could say this approach to conversation were absent from our churches.  I suppose it is a bad habit of highly creative and motivated people.  As a local preacher I am challenged to ask myself how I can get beyond this type of conversation in my services.
2. Next comes debating.  This is where we listen from outside, dispassionately weighing evidence.  It is a marked improvement on downloading.  It requires the debaters to think about what they are saying and what the other person is saying.  It is a gateway to types three and four because it requires listening to others and marshaling our arguments to meet theirs.  The problem is that like downloading it admits of nothing new.  This is why so many debates go on for years because neither side can ultimately hear what the other is saying.
3. Reflection is where we listen from inside and hear ourselves reflexively and others with empathy.  This is where receptive ecumenism displays great potential.  It invites traditions to try on the insights of other traditions and see if they might work for them.  It invites a more subjective understanding of unfamiliar traditions. 
4. Generative dialogue is where we hear not just ourselves and others but also the whole system.  We see ourselves within the whole; the role we play for good or ill.  This can be highly motivating when people experience it together.  Once in conversation with a Quaker, I was told most firmly that Friends do not make decisions by consensus.  Consensus still means people come to the meeting with arguments prepared.  Friends seek the Spirit of the meeting, I was told, the new insight that changes everything.  I agree, generative dialogue is where we encounter the Spirit of God.