By Steve Schultze

Staff Writer

Community is in large part a dialogue, and for lively dialogue to occur, there must be lively differences. To insist upon conformity as a condition of acceptance and as a criterion of membership in the community, will ultimately destroy the dialogue upon which genuine community is based and which is its lifeblood. It will create strangers where there might have been neighbors, because they will have nothing to discuss.

-Julia Corbett, quoted in

Dialogue, January 2001

In the last issue of Chimes, Dialogue co-editors Chris Filippini and Rowley Kennerk discussed the current state of the long-running art publication and pleaded for discussion on how to catalyze dialogue on campus. Ironically, their comments failed to express a coherent vision of what dialogue itself is. Meanwhile, the publication continues to come under criticism that it speaks monologically through the mouthpiece of a restricted ``artistic'' elite. Has the Dialogue staff lost sight of the true meaning behind their own title?

Dialogue as a publication is a static, one-way medium that is transmitted to the student body at unpredictable intervals. As it is currently structured, a relatively small group decides what is worthy of publication and the rest of campus can discuss pieces that make the cut. Dialogue staff members complain that students and faculty are hesitant to contribute, while readers feel uncertain or unwelcome in the Dialogue community.

Dialogue as a concept is close to my heart. There is a wealth of thought on the topic, including that of communication theorist Martin Buber, philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer and physicist-thinker David Bohm. I can only give a taste of the rich breadth of the topic.

Gadamer viewed healthy dialogue as the key to true understanding and he thought it was at the heart of how we live in the world. Dialogue starts with goodwill between participants as they try to come to a common ground where they can converse openly. Knowledge emerges as an understanding between people in which they are open to the unique ``horizons'' of others. Such openness allows the possibility for change and true creativity that is not restricted to either participant's personal values. This creativity emerges unexpectedly when we interact back and forth, in dynamic openness with others.

Bohm worked more practically with dialogue in groups, and developed a few guidelines. First, participants must suspend their assumptions. This involves waiting to make judgment and sharing and exploring others' suspended assumptions. Second, participants must view each other as colleagues or peers. People must treat each other as equals and be open to the exploration of everyone's ideas. Third, in the early stages there needs to be a facilitator who ``holds the context'' of dialogue. This facilitator should try to move the group through any sticking points it encounters and encourage the dialogue that eventually enables the group to carry on independently of the facilitator.

Bohm goes on to say that dialogue cannot take place within the context of rigid authority or a strict agenda. It should be decentralized as much as possible and avoid imposing a ``screen of thought.'' When people suspend their assumptions, the resulting freedom opens up a space for creative and novel thought to appear in unexpected directions. Dialogue is a developmental process that requires building trust. Although this trust may not be there at the beginning, the facilitator can help it germinate. Perhaps Dialogue, the organization, belongs in this position of ``transparent facilitator.''

In my opinion, Dialogue has been far afield of such a position this year. The ``Polaroid Issue'' was most offensive, devoting large swaths of prime page real estate to photos taken almost exclusively by staff. The inside cover featured even more candid staff photos that evoked a feeling of missing-the-party in the reader. Furthermore, most of the remaining space was taken up by questionably meritorious staff art. Perhaps the seemingly elitist issue was actually hampered by its theme. Kennerk claims that the photos reflect openness - but the Polaroid Project was done within the restrictively chosen staff and friend participants and the issue follows a theme that was not communicated more broadly beforehand. Such decisions ostracize potential contributors and create a self-feeding spiral where on-campus artists are progressively more discouraged to contribute.

Filippini claims that ``being able to draw your own cover'' for the second issue of Dialogue was part of the theme of ``reconstruction.'' What he fails to mention is that almost no one had this privilege. Rather than encouraging an interactive drawing activity upon distribution or developing a fun draw-for-trade policy, Dialogue staff and friends drew the covers beforehand. The result is a feeling of extreme non-participation as the reader encounters meaningless inside jokes and someone else's art on their own cover. The issue also included an interview with Dynamite Gallery and attendant photos. Initially, it may seem like a good idea to broaden students' horizons beyond Calvin, but it also seems inappropriate to take up page space that could be showcasing on-campus art in favor of interviewing friends of staff.

The third issue, which is again restricted to a theme that only Dialogue staff know about beforehand, will contain drawings by Dynamite Gallery members who are not at Calvin. A fourth issue, currently in planning, may contain several pieces by Calvin alumni.

In general, it would be helpful if the issues contained more editorial or explanation of their purpose. This includes not only discussion of ideas such as ``representation'' or ``reconstruction,'' but also the goal of fostering dialogue itself. The current staff-only judging policy also hinders broader dialogical goals, and this process could certainly be made more open. A more predictable schedule and clearer publication of goals would encourage submissions and readership. The co-editors have an elementary idea of creating dialogue on campus, but this cannot be done without a fostering environment, common ground, and a facilitator that is not interested in its own self-gratification.

In light of these objections, Dialogue's 2001-2002 budget is entirely inappropriate. At nearly $25,000, it trumps almost all others. Given that very few students feel included in this organization, it seems better-spent elsewhere. It would be fun to buy a motor scooter for every student organization on campus, or, more stewardly, to give each organization an extra $500. This would more than double the budget of many organizations that have been struggling financially as overall funds have recently become stretched. Of course, I'm not advocating this extreme. Dialogue has the potential to serve a vital purpose in facilitating true dialogue on campus.

The Dialogue staff claims that there is simply not enough support from students and faculty. While students and faculty also bear responsibility for recent poor showings, Dialogue must realize that this is the silence of people stuck at frustrated odds. Staff members must understand that the role of facilitator is not passive. In this case, Dialogue must take a serious look at how to pull itself out of a self-enclosing spiral that threatens to end dialogue itself.

In addition to more openness at all stages of the process, Dialogue would do well to move beyond its unilateral focus on the publication itself. The editors mentioned a lecture series, which is a good step but far from sufficient. Dialogue needs to become more accessible to students and faculty overall. It would help to have a web page, for example. In fact, the online medium opens up very exciting possibilities for dialogue that cannot occur in physical space. It may be invaluable to have a more dynamic web site with discussion boards or a non-restrictive submission and comment section accessible by all. This is just one of many possibilities.

There is truly a need for dialogue about art on campus. Dialogue, the organization, has the opportunity to fill this need. The question is, will Dialogue stand for fostering facilitation or artsy elitism?