A conversation about intergroup dialogue

This past academic year, I had the pleasure of working with Mount Holyoke College Professor of Sociology and Critical Race and Political Economy and Director of the Intergroup Dialogue Center Kristie A. Ford. This gave me the opportunity to converse with people I would otherwise not even have met. One of those amazing people is the University of Vermont’s Senior Director for Intergroup Dialogue and Inclusive Excellence Erika Lala, who is a member of the Advisory Committee for Mount Holyoke’s Intergroup Dialogue Center.

My conversations have made me think about what dialogue really means. In general, it is respectful conversation between people who are trying to understand and explore different perspectives. Specifically, intergroup dialogue (IGD) is a structured, facilitated process aimed at understanding across social identities and critical reflection. It invites each participant to be aware of their identity and speak from a first-person perspective about how that identity shapes the way they communicate with other people.

In one of my conversations, Erika and I discussed our respective journeys in IGD and our concrete takeaways from engaging with it. We talked about how IGD is a unique method of teaching and facilitation. This conversation made me realize that my favorite thing about the IGD process is how it changes the way we talk and interact with each other and reflect on our own communication habits. IGD also provides a space for vulnerability. Being in meaningful communication with others means we must be open and aware of the possibility for miscommunication.

Erika and I talked about the high levels of curiosity and vulnerability that are required to make IGD work and noted that people are often unwilling or afraid to engage in this way. To highlight this point, Erika said studying IGD facilitation has “fundamentally changed the way [she] thinks before [she] speaks and the way [she] reflects on what [she] says.”

Erika told me that she sees IGD as both a response to conflict and a tool to build skills, develop critical self-reflection and sustain change within herself and the community. She explained that the things that make IGD so powerful are its retrospective method and its proactive and action planning model.

Erika observed that the need for openness and vulnerability makes people hesitant about taking part in this type of dialogue. I found this to be remarkably relatable and true to my experience.

She sees this discomfort as a potential barrier to fully engaging in dialogue. “There are ways to have dialogue across identities that are not intergroup dialogue, and the difference is the commitment and the orientation of how you are going to be in dialogue with people,” Erika said.

In our conversation, we explored what makes IGD different from other ways of exchanging ideas. Erika put it in a way that I hadn’t considered before. She said that “in dialogue, you are seeking to understand. There’s still a concept of consciousness-raising.”

Consciousness-raising is the process of heightening one’s awareness of personal and social issues. She said consciousness-raising is a core outcome of IGD that can also result from other types of dialogue. IGD’s structured approach and intentional focus on identity set it apart from other dialogical methods. Hearing this made me reflect on how easy it is to conflate IGD with other types of dialogue.

Fundamental aspects of IGD are being practiced under the umbrella of dialogue, and yet the lack of structure and the free flow of the conversation can sometimes lead to more surface-level engagement. This has made me reconsider how much of a distinction I make between IGD and general dialogue.

As we wrapped up our conversation, Erika mentioned something about the beginning of her IGD journey that has stuck with me. She said that, for her, IGD “wasn’t necessarily an application for a critical incident but to let me build up a repertoire, a skill-building thing. As somebody who has conflict resolution skills, mediation skills, I follow adrienne maree brown’s ‘Holding Change’ strategy as well as the next person.”

This reminder that IGD is not just a response but also a transformative practice affirmed my own journey and excitement about continuing to learn through dialogue and to further improve my communication skills.