Was Ist Eine Dialoggruppe

8/8/2019 Was Ist Eine Dialoggruppe

1/5

Gnther Gettinger Seite 1 15.09.2010

Was ist eine freie Dialoggruppe?

Das Denken tut etwas und sagt dann: ich war es nicht.Diese folgenreicheEinsicht in eine spezifische Funktionsweise von Denkprozessen hat denQuantenphysiker David Bohm vor ca. 1 Jahrzehnten veranlasst, dasmenschliche Denken und seine mgliche Selbstwahrnehmung(Propriozeption) intensiv zu erforschen. Zu seiner eigenen berraschungentdeckte Bohm, dass eine solche Untersuchung nur in DIALOGFORM mglichist.

Diese Entdeckung gab den Ansto zu vielfltigen Forschungsprozessen und

Anwendungen. Alle diese Formen gehen aber auf ein ursprngliches Experimentzurck, welches nachtrglich freie DIALOGGRUPPE genannt worden ist.

Ziel einer freien d.h. spielerischen, weil von uerlich vorgegeben Zweckenfreien - Dialoggruppe ist dieSelbsterforschung der Denkprozesse durch die

Denkenden selber.

Das Denken tut etwas und sagt dann: ich war es nicht.Im Alltag gehen wir zumeist davon aus, dass unsere Wahrnehmungen, Gefhle und Gedanken

ungebrochen die ganze Wirklichkeit erfassen. Dem ist aber nicht so. Unser Wahrnehmen, Denken, Fhlen und Handeln ist konstruktiv und selektiv wir merken das aber im Moment einer Wahrnehmung, einer gedanklichenuerung, einer Handlung nicht.

In einer Dialoggruppe jedoch erfahren wir ganz unmittelbar die Relativitt(relative Gltigkeit) unseres Denkens und Fhlens. Was fr unsselbstverstndlich und notwendig ist, das wird fr andere meist gar nicht so sein.In gewhnlichen Gesprchen versucht dann jeder den anderen von der Richtigkeit der eigenen Sichtweise zu berzeugen dieses strategische Ringenum die richtige Sichtweise hat einen Namen: Diskussion.

Die blichen Diskussionen fhren daher nur ganz selten zur Selbstwahrnehmungder gerade ablaufenden Denkvorgnge. Damit dieser Prozess berhaupt in Gangkommen kann, muss etwas zwischen den Gesprchspartnern wirksam sein, dasman gewhnlich mit den Worten Wohlwollen und Freundlichkeit undVertrauensvorschuss bezeichnet. Also etwas, das alle Gesprchspartner verbindet und durchstrmt. Das istder tragende Grund einer Dialoggruppe.

Jedes Gesprch setzt diesen tragenden Grund bis zu einem gewissen Gradohnehinvoraus, andernfalls wre und wird Verstndigung unter Menschenunmglich. In einer Dialoggruppe aber erkunden die Dialogpartner, wie weit


2/5


diese Fhigkeit zur Mit-teilung von Gefhlen, Gedanken undKrperempfindungen gehen kann. Ohne diesen Mitteilungsimpuls ( = sich offenund behutsam mit all seinen Eigenheiten vor den anderen darstellen wollen), undohne diese Bereitschaft zu intensivem Mitempfinden ( = Zuhren) ist

Selbsterforschung des Denkens unmglich.Dialog ist also die ffnung des je eigenen Denkens auf das Denken der Anderenhin, die feinfhlige berwindung der Egozentrik des Denkenden. Dialog ist dieeinzige Form von Vergesellschaftung, die letztlich nicht auf Gewalt undWillkr, also auf unhinterfragbare Autoritt hinausluft (womit auch klar ist,warum diese Fhigkeit allgemein so unterentwickelt ist).

Dialog ist Luterung, stndige Erneuerung des Denkens vom seinem Ursprungher (und damit subversiv, hinterfragend).

Dialog ist ber weite Strecken mhsam und anstrengend. Solange wir in unserenGedankengngen reflexartig kreisen, verfehlen wir einander - wir versteheneinander nicht, weil wir uns selbst nicht verstehen. Gedankliche und emotionaleFixierungen sind Ausdruck sozialer Prgungen. Sie blockieren das freie Hin-und Herpendeln zwischen unterschiedlichen Perspektiven. Diese Hemmungenwerden in einer freien Dialoggruppe unverflscht erlebbar, was einemmanchmal bis an den Rand der Verzweiflung fhren kann.

Aber erst dieses volle Erleben und aufmerksame Aushalten der enttuschendenBlockierungen - also die Einsicht in diese Blockaden befreit das Denken vonseinen illusionren und damit isolierenden Annahmen ber die Wirklichkeit.

Eine Dialoggruppe spricht also vor allem Menschen an, die ihre existentielleEinsamkeit bewusst erleben und ohne Selbsttuschung leben wollen. EineDialoggruppe hat neben dem Ziel der freien Selbsterforschung des Denkenskeine weiteren Zielsetzungen, auch keine therapeutischen, obwohl ein solcher Dialog durchaus therapeutische Wirkungen zeitigen kann. Eine freieDialoggruppe erkundet und erfindet tendenziell eine Form von sozialer Wirklichkeit, die sich in Form freier Selbstorganisation permanent erneuert:

Der Dialog beschwrt die alte/neue Vision eines gemeinschaftlichen selbstverwalteten Lebens herauf, den sich auffaltenden Prozess von kreativer Partizipation zwischenGleichgestellten. Fr viele Dialog-bende wird es dann fast nicht mehr vorstellbar, hinter diesen Ansatz zurckzugehen - eine echte Herausforderung, wenn wir in unseren Alltag zurckkehren! Eine Schulung im Dialog kann eine hohe gesellschaftspolitische Relevanzhaben und den vernetzen Zusammenhngen, in denen wir leben, angemessener sein alsindividuumszentrierte Verfahren oder andere Gruppenformen.

( Aus einem Vortrag vonChristiane Geiser an der Universitt Zrich, Mrz 2000: Der Dialog nach David Bohm. Eine Einfhrung. )


3/5


**************


4/5


Der organisatorische Rahmen einer freien Dialoggruppe

Ein Dialog lsst sich nicht erzwingen. Es lassen sich aber, wie immer beiSelbstorganisationsprozessen, frderliche Bedingungen verwirklichen. Dazugehren:

Eine Dialoggruppe braucht einen festen Rahmen: Ort, Zeit, Dauer.

Gruppengre zwischen 10 und 50 Personen.

Rollen- und Status-Eigenschaften sind fr die Dauer des Dialogs

aufgehoben. Es braucht eine gegenseitige Verpflichtung, fr eine Weile dabei zu

bleiben.

Der Zweck des Unternehmens muss klar sein: wir wollen diese Art vongemeinsamer Erkundung erproben. Der Dialog kann nicht funktionieren,wenn diese Vorgabe nicht von allen geteilt wird.

Ziel ist der freie ("generative") Dialog: d.h. es gibt kein Thema, kein Ziel,nichts Bestimmtes soll erreicht oder gelst werden, nichts vorher Festgelegtes muss herauskommen.

Eine Dialogbegleitung wird hchstens am Anfang im Sinn einer "Minimalfrderung" bentigt, sie macht sich mit der Zeit berflssig. IhreAufgabe ist es, die Teilnehmenden von Zeit zu Zeit an die dialogischenQualitten zu erinnern, wenn diese in der alltglichen Art von Umgangverlorenzugehen drohen.

Grundhaltung: alle sind Lernende und Forschende, keiner ist fertiger Dialogmeister


5/5


The Dialogue ExperimentFrom:Briggs, John and Peat, David ; Seven Life Lessons of Chaos spiritual wisdom from the science of change . Harper Perennial, New York. Copyright 1999. Reprinted with permission.Well call him Ed Brown. That isnt his real name, and were going to change some of the details of his story because he asked us to. Hisname isnt important anyway, because he says, "Part of what I realized in all this was that we place too much emphasis on someonetaking credit. The idea is that its a process. That s whats important, not who gets stroked for what."Eds story begins when he joined a "dialogue group" some years back. Around the world different groups of people are coming together to explore the nature of group relationships. These arent group therapy sessions. Theyre an attempt to understand how our individualand collective presuppositions control our interactions with each other and to explore the possibilities for collective creativity.The physicist David Bohm, who devoted his last years to the investigation of dialogue, described it this way. Dialogue is "not anexchange and its not a discussion. Discussion means batting it back and forth like a ping pong game. That has some value, but indialogue we try to go deeperto create a situation where we suspend our opinions and judgements in order to be able to listen to eachother." This suspension is often less a willful act on the part of the groups individual members than it is an effect of dialoguing itself.Because there are so many diverse points of view flying around in a dialogue, everybodys opinions and judgements can end up gettingsuspended. Another dialoguer, painter and psychiatrist David Shainberg, called dialogue an "open process of making forms."One of the major ideas of dialogue is that people are tied to what Bohm called "nonnegotiable" convictions that underlie even their mostcasual disagreements. These nonnegotiables cant be reasoned out, but they may be suspended and transformed, as Ed discovered,through the process of collective creativity.Eds group consisted of about twenty individuals who met once a month in an apartment in a major city. They agreed to have no leader,no agreed project, no set topics for discussion. This stripped away the usual props that groups rely on, laying bare the issue of howindividuals relate to the group.

"One thing I saw right away was that we wanted somebody to be the leader. We were uncomfortable without one. But nobody wanted it,or if anybody did we wouldnt let them keep it. Also, we were all the time also looking for some structure and we couldnt agree on one. Itwas very frustrating. I think its how a lot of people feel in groups. Always wanting to be heard, wanting the group to match your sense of things and feeling that it doesnt."the group taped their sessions, and Ed learned that beneath the chaos of the frustration there was an order going on. "I saw that eventhough I felt I was never changing anybodys mind about anything, I actually was and my mind was getting changed too. It was verysubtle. If you followed the conversation around, on one level it looked chaotic, but you could also see how people would pick up eachothers words and ideas and internalize them somehow. It was pretty clear that we were all influencing each other."Sometimes you would argue with somebody and after a while youd begin to see you really didnt understand what they meant. Youwere just reacting to the words. Once you got past the words, you realized they were saying something interesting. I also saw that Ididnt really understand what I meant until people brought things out in what I said."Toward the end of the session, even though wed talked about a hundred different things, most of the people in the group would seemto come to something. It was like we had created or discovered something in common but it was different for each of us. It was verypeculiar."One of the subjects that frequently came up in the discussion was whether what was happening in dialogue had any practicalapplication. Ed decided he would test this question by getting involved in civic affairs in his suburban community and continuing thedialogue experiment in a "real, practical" setting.

Ed volunteered to work on a committee to renovate the library of his town and was selected as the committees chairman. From the firstmeeting, he realized the group was headed for trouble. There were two factions on the committee, each one backing a very differentkind of renovation solution. Some of the members of the committee were in-laws bitter toward each other from old wounds, there werealso old towners and a couple of people who had recently moved in. The committee therefore contained a fair representation of thetowns animosities and rivalries."Each of the factions wanted me to join their side. But one of the things Id gotten from the dialogue group was that I didnt need to jointhe polarity. I was taking a chance that both sides would be mad at me, but what felt right was to listen to the factions and help each sidemake the best case they could for their position. Then Id try to present one side to the other in as understandable a way as possible. Itwas more than just being neutral. There were a lot of tensions in our meetings egos and power plays. The fact that somebody in theroom wasnt taking sides and was actually interested in what people were saying confused the committee members at first but also freedthem up. After a while they started to break out of their positions and ideas started to branch out until there werent just two solutions buta whole bunch of variations. Soon even the most entrenched people were moving a little."But then we got stuck again and the old pattern re-formed. It was depressing. Things began to look really hopeless until one night oneof these more neutral people suggested a solution that was a little different from anything wed discussed before. To everybodyssurprise you could literally see we were surprised; our eyes jumped we all liked it. In retrospect, maybe this idea was something wecould have seen from the beginning but we didnt. We couldnt see it before, but now we could. Probably we could because of all themovement wed gone through. The whole context had changed. Suddenly we were unanimous and wed come up with a great solution

for the town."The solution was not a compromise. "Compromises are worse than defeat. They mean everybody feels cheated a little, or that youvegiven in to the power thing, winners and losers. This was much more exciting and interesting and satisfying to everybody than anycompromise would have been."Eds authentic interest in the merits of the two sides and his skepticism that either side had the right solution provided a "subtleinfluence" that helped his colleagues suspend their polarities and nonnegotiable convictions long enough for something new to emerge.Eds story sounds something like the way many indigenous people work.Among the Iroquois, for example, the traditional council of chiefs was required to have the complete agreement of all its members on any decision. The Iroquois did not believe in majority rule.Their council sat for as long as it took to find a solution that everyone could agree on. Discussion was often vigorous and heated.Sometimes the council lasted for days, weeks. In some cases, decisions were not made because no unanimous agreement could bereached. But when a decision was taken, it was one that everybody "owned" and felt committed to. It was their decision, both collectivelyand individually.In our complex and problem-ridden mass society, we need to develop radically new understandings about collective action. What seemsclear is that the problems of our collective world are such that no leader or system could ever resolve them. In fact, attempts to findsolutions in that tried and untrue direction will undoubtedly lead to further complications.The sad fact is that our organizations isolate and keep each of us apart. As much as they hold us together. We have assumed thatbecause individuals are essentially separate particles, collective action must be coordinated through these imposed external structures.But what if we dropped that assumption and allowed self-organization to create our communities? What if we intentionally forged our social solutions in the fires of creative chaos?

Was Ist Eine Dialoggruppe

Documents

Transcript of Was Ist Eine Dialoggruppe