Rag-e Harf 6: How Not to Avoid Dialogue Through Dialogue

“Your discussion is not deep”
How not to avoid dialogue through dialogue

It may have happened to you too: when you enter into a dialogue with someone, the other person immediately slaps the label “your discussion is not deep” or “you haven’t understood these things” on the forehead of the discussion, and when you say, “Good heavens! Show us the depth of the discussion and make us understand the misunderstood point, may God bless you,” it turns out that: “Well, I will speak on this matter in due time.” So we sit waiting for that promised time to arrive, which very often it does not. And sometimes when it does arrive, we scan the lines up and down, we strain our ears, but we see that the viewpoint of our interlocutor, at best, in terms of length, breadth, depth, and height, is no different from our own discussion: neither is the original claim entirely clear and thus free of disruptive ambiguity, nor has a clear argument (or any argument at all) been advanced in its favor, nor is there complete (or any) awareness of alternative claims, or if they are aware, they articulate those claims patiently and correctly. In fact, such a person, by engaging in this kind of dialogue, avoids dialogue.

Come down and let’s discuss together!

This time I want to pitch my tent in the vein of this common phrase in everyday dialogues, “your discussion is not deep,” or its equivalents, and show how, in a serious and genuine dialogue, one must avoid such statements. In other words, I want to suggest ways of how not to avoid dialogue through dialogue.

In my view, a serious and genuine dialogue must have at least these characteristics:

1- Only and solely the “content” of the dialogue, and that too in a subtle manner, should convey that the other party to the dialogue has not understood something, or their understanding of the subject is not precise, or is fundamentally wrong; and in no way should the tone of the discussion, nor the explicit statement of the other party’s failure to understand, rub their lack of understanding in their face (not to mention that the ultimate goal of a genuine and serious dialogue is fundamentally to discover our own errors through dialogue, and not necessarily to point out the errors of the other party to the dialogue).

2- The original claim must, as far as possible, be free of disruptive ambiguity; otherwise, we have in fact said nothing substantial or satisfying and have merely consumed words.

3- Normally (and this qualification is important), if you cannot argue in favor of your claim right now as you are making it, do not make the claim at all, and postpone making the claim to a time when you can argue in its favor; not that you announce the headline of the discussion now and defer the discussion itself “to the appropriate time.” A serious and genuine dialogue is not like a television series whose trailer you broadcast now and the series itself on Sundays after the national news!

4- When you make a specific claim, you must have a clear picture of alternative claims; in other words, you must be aware, at least to the necessary extent, of the diversity of opinions in the discussion you are having, and if you do not have such a picture, you should state this explicitly in the dialogue, or at least not demonstrate the contrary.

How about we just don’t engage in dialogue at all?

I said all of this, but if someone draws purism in dialogue from these points, I have not achieved my purpose. By “purism in dialogue” I mean that in a discussion, someone very quickly takes the stance of: “You are not discussing properly, therefore I will not discuss with you.” What I have written (if it is correct and defensible) attempts to outline the ideal space of a dialogue so that those interested in serious and genuine dialogue may approach it or not stray too far from it, but this in no way means: “As long as the space for an ideal dialogue is not provided, I will not engage in dialogue.” One who adopts purism ends up with an empty set of dialogues, and an empty set of dialogues does not bring us closer to an ideal dialogue.

For an example in which the parties to a dialogue speak with each other in order not to have spoken, watch the film “The Glass Agency” directed by Ebrahim Hatamikia (1997) and pay particular attention to the dialogues between Haj Kazem on one side and Salahshour (the representative of the disciplinary forces) on the other.

Yaser Mirdamadi / Rag-e Harf 6