1

本月朝邦基金會的會訊，特別訪問湯斐力先生(Philip Thomas) – 也就是即將於11月4-6日於台北展開的《對話力國際工作坊：用對話擁抱群眾，發揮改變的綜效》進行引導的引導師。在此誠摯邀情您加入，可於本基金會網站進行報名: www.cpyen.org。 這次工作坊的目標是打造一個空間，讓參與者學會在社會中不同的族群、甚至敵對的族群中建立與執行『對話的流程』，促成合作的關係。這次的新訊息希望透過湯斐力先生專訪內容，說明多方利益相關者進行對話的價值。

問：您個人如何對這種『與多方利益相關者對話，促成改變』感到有興趣？

我來自門諾教派的背景，非常重視和平相處。我的工作生涯始於在拉丁美洲從事社會運動。因此，我很清楚權力不均衡的這種現狀，還有大家想要改變、卻不知如何做起的挑戰。我也很快發現，無論是什麼樣的議題：可能是人權、勞工與政府的關係，都有足夠的人在倡議；但是真正缺乏的是，讓人們願意走出來，維持一個足夠的空間，讓所有人可以匯集在一起。不管你喜不喜歡，你都必須讓敵對的另一方參與。所以我對於『對話』感到非常振奮。

問：您從不同國家與社會，觀察到人們為社會變革的奮鬥過程中，有哪些趨勢？

20-30年前一般人的假設是，政府、民間社會和企業應該自己克服面對的挑戰。而今大家已經體認到，這是需要跨領域來克服。

趨勢一：越來越能體認到彼此相互依存。 如果要提升參與的品質，就需要新的參與科技。目前我們不缺乏溝通，但是卻缺乏彼此的瞭解。挑戰一：許多流程都是以「專家」為導向，但是現在我們面臨的挑戰卻無法靠專家就找到答案，原因

是 挑戰二：難解度Complexity。 「複雜」的議題可以透過解答的方式來解決，好比「如何將火箭送到月球」的問題，科學家可以找到解答，再複製答案。「難解」的議題，像是「如何養育兒女？」這類型的問題。這類型的問題之所以難解是因為涵蓋許多的變數，沒有單一的答案，必須投注心力，透過行動，在一個不斷演化改變的情況下學習、促進改變。湯斐力的同事，同時也是社

會變革引導者Adam Kahane就表示：「如果你不是解決方案的一部分，你就是問題的一部分。」

因此，身為引導者，我們需要一種語言來討論成果、思考、人際關係以及流程與社會變革的關係。引導者也需要一些可以促成不同變革面向的流程。也因為如

此，對話與審議(deliberation)獲聯合國認可成為促成社會變革的重要流程。

趨勢二：各領域間的失能關係。 真正問題並不是出在議題本身，而是人與人之間的關係。我們必須體認到，如果你和「對方」無法建立功能正常的關係，就無法解決問題。

問：有哪些經驗真正讓您對『與多方利益相關者對話，促成改變』的流程有更深的體悟？

舉例來說，薩爾瓦多的內戰是游擊隊與政府的抗爭。那時有一個私人舉辦的對話活動，邀請雙方在客廳裡對話，談論他們唯一的共識：降低暴力。對話活動進行了九個月後，有一天街頭發生罷工事件，警察打了參與對話的成員之一。參與這場對話的一位官員表示，參加對話之前，聽到這種事時，他當下的反應一定是稱讚這位警員，但是參與對話活動之後他的反應

卻是「事情不應該這樣處理!」。在個人的層面上，透過對話出現轉機，特別是如果當事人是一個有影響力的人，他們的改變就可能促成更大層面的轉變。對話就能促成這樣的轉變。

另一個例子就是在美國的墮胎議題。公共對談計畫

(Public Conversations Project)舉行的私人對話，邀請贊成與反對墮胎的人士參與討論，這計畫持續了超過十五年之久。對談計畫的一個規定，就是兩方不要企圖說服對方，因此讓他們能夠維持自己的立場，然後尋找可以合作的方案。

我們需要安全的環境來交談。舉例來說，我們在瓜地馬拉的優格店裡舉辦人民咖啡館，當地人都知道，每個星期四他們可以來討論重要的社會議題─那不是做決策的空間，只是讓大家來談事情。這個活動非常成功，每星期都有好幾百人到場。

2011年 10 月份 朝邦文教基金會 對話新訊息

朝 邦 文 教 基 金 會

用對話擁抱群眾發揮改變的綜效~專訪湯斐力引導師

問：那麼對話後的成果又是如何？

戰後我們舉辦了「願景瓜地馬拉Vision Guatemala」，當時瓜地馬拉的人們沒有時間或空間來和敵方對話，但是透過對話，人們跨越深層的隔閡，建立深層友誼。結果，七年之後，當政黨變得更暴力，參與該對話的人士當中，有人打電話給另一邊，說：「你看你們的人在做什麼，打給你的朋友，我們一起介入，一起防範暴力。」因為這段友誼，讓他們有效防止許多人受傷，從對話層面來說，這是很大的勝利。

對話是必然的條件，但如果要促成變革仍有不足，因為要導致變革，還需要經費與行動。所以，引導者必須有效管理大家的期許。即使對話正式結束，我們還是要繼續培養彼此的關係，以便未來繼續合作。就如同你和你的配偶的關係─你永遠無法覺得你已經「到達」終點，因為雙方的關係不斷演化。引導者必須為參與者建構能力，讓他們在沒有引導者的情況下繼續做該做的事。每一次有特定的進度時可以慶祝，但是不要期待會有終點。

問：您是如何做評估的？評估的要素是什麼？

我本身評估的是大家敘述的故事。工作坊的第一天，先開始會問大家：「你如何評估轉變？」每個人都有不同的說法。

對話當中有很多的細節是不會被注意到的。所以評估的時候，你重視的只是最後的和平協議，還是注意到不同的趨勢，像是越來越多人一起說話，或是他們更有包容性、沒有包容性？

注意一些無形的細節很重要。愛因斯坦曾說：「並不是所有可以計算的東西才是有意義的，也不是每一件有意義的事情都可以算出來的。」換句話說，看不見的也很重要，看見的東西也可能不重要。因此，辨認出哪些人有社會資本，因為他們的轉變，也會牽動著其他人的轉變。

最終，我們畢竟是一個人際關係的網絡，人與人的關係是不會結束的。在民主的對話中這就很明顯─我們想要解決的重大問題絕不是任何一個政府任期內可以解決的。

以下的圖表提供一些步驟，做為參考對話流程中行為模式的基本原則、目標、特質和準則。(資料來源: 民主的對話:使用者手冊，49頁)

對話式做法( The Dialogue Approach)的要素：

基本原則 目標 特質 行為模式

包容性的 共有的所有權 學習 人道 長期的觀點

讓系統的所有層面都參與以重要議題為基礎，打造可以促

進轉變的條件

促進學習：引導更深層的理解

創造出敞開心扉所需要的安全感

引導承諾，創造可永續的轉變

尊重

透明

開放

同理

真誠

耐心

彈性

提出問題，讓自己學習

分享你所知道的

以同理的態度聆聽

根據聽到的內容做出反應

探討深層的假設 - 你的假設和他人的假設除了想法和意見之外，也要認定情緒

根據新的學習或理解而調整做法

Pruitt, B. and Thomas, P. (2007) Democratic Dialogue-A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: OAS, International IDEA, and UNDP, p49.

湯斐力(Philip Thomas)創辦「創生性變革社群」(Generative Change Community)。這是一個學習平台，協助個人及組織培養『多方利益相關者參與流程』的能力，使這種流程成為社會變革的策略之一。這個平台在2005啟動，是一個國際發展實務工作者的全球社群，致力於透過對話流程提升我們集體解決難解議題的能力。

The CP Yen Foundation invites you participate in Philip’s workshop on November 4-6, 2011, 9am-5pm. Visit www.cpyen.org to register.

This October issue of CPYF’s Dialogue Newsletter is an interview with Philip Thomas - facilitator of the multi-stakeholder dialogic change process workshop to be held in Taipei on November 4-6, 2011. You are welcome to join & register at www.cpyen.org. This event aims to create a space for participants to learn design and implementation of processes that build collaborative relationships within and across different, and even adversarial, groups in society. This newsletter is intended to convey the value of multi-stakeholder dialogic processes through Philip’s own words.

Q: How did you personally become interested in multi-stakeholder dialogic change processes?

I come from a Mennonite background which emphasizes peace, and I started my career as an activist in Latin America; so I’m aware of the reality of power imbalance and the challenge of wanting change but not knowing how to do it. I quickly became aware that for any issue - whether it’s human rights, labor & government - there’s enough advocates, but what’s really lacking is people willing to step out of that and hold a space for people to come together. Like it or not, we’ve got to engage the enemy. So I got really excited about dialogue.

Q: What patterns have you observed across nations and communities of people’s struggle with social change?

20-30 years ago an assumption was popularly held that governments, civil society & businesses ought to deal with challenges on their own. Today there’s a greater awareness that this requires crossing sectoral lines.

Pattern 1: Increasing awareness of interdependence. New participatory methodologies are needed to raise the quality of participation. There’s no lack of communication today, but there is a lack of understanding.Challenge 1: Processes are “expert” driven, and today’s issues cannot be deferred to experts because of Challenge 2: Complexity. “Complicated” issues can be resolved through problem solving, like the question “how to send a rocket to the moon” scientists can solve that problem and replicate it. “Complex” issues however are analogous to the question “how do you parent a child?” Complexity involves so many variables that there’s no one answer to it; complexity requires paying attention and learning by doing to continue working for change in a context that’s always evolving.

Adam Kahane, a social change facilitator and Philip’s colleague, said “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

Therefore, as facilitators we need a language that addresses how results matter, thinking matters, relationships matters, and process matters; and facilitators need processes that enable these different aspects of change. For this reason dialogue & deliberation is recognized by the UN as a key social change process.

Pattern 2: Dysfunctional relationships across sectors The real problem is not the issue, it’s the relationship. We need to recognize that if you don’t have functional relationship with the “other” you can’t solve the problem.

Q: What are some experiences that really influenced your understanding of multi-stakeholder change processes?

For example, the El Salvadorian war was a fight between guerrillas and the government. A private dialogue was held for individuals from both sides to meet over many months in a living room to talk on the one thing they share in common: minimizing violence. Nine months in to the meetings a strike occurred on the streets and the police were beating one of the people who had attended our dialogue meetings. A government official in the dialogue commented that before the dialogues he would have cheered on the police’s actions, but after the dialogues he thought: “that’s not the way to do it.” When a shift like that happens at the individual level, especially in people with influence their transformation can lead to larger sectoral transformation. Dialogue enables that to happen.

Another example is the controversy on abortion in the United States. The Public Conversations Project hosted private dialogues between pro- and anti-abortion leaders for over 15 years. A ground rule was that neither side will try to persuade the other. That allowed them to maintain their difference and to find opportunities for collaboration on projects.

We need safe environments for conversations. For example, in Guatemala we held citizen cafes at a yogurt shop where people knew that every Thursday they could talk about an important social issue - it’s not a decision making space - it’s just people talking about things, and it was hugely successful with hundreds of people showing up each week.

October 2011

C P Y E N F O U N D A T I O N

Mul$-­‐stakeholder  Dialogic  Change:

an  interview  with  Philip  Thomas

Q: What about the results after dialogue?

Vision Guatemala was held after a war where people had neither time nor space to talk with their enemies. Yet through the dialogues people created deep friendships across deep divides. The result is that seven years later when a political party became violent; people in our dialogue circles called their friends on the other side and said: “look at what your people doing, call your friends and lets intervene to prevent violence.” They prevented countless people from being injured thanks to their collaborative relationships - that’s a huge victory for dialogue.

Dialogue is always necessary and always insufficient for change to happen because it also requires budgets and actions to realize the change. So facilitators need to manage expectations. Even when a dialogue formally ends, we need to continue cultivating relationships to be able to collaborate again in the future. Just like in your relationship with your spouse - you may never feel like you’ve “arrived” - it’s always evolving. Facilitators must work to build capacity in the participants to do this work without the facilitator. We can celebrate that we’ve arrived at each point, but don’t expect an end-point.

Q: How do you evaluate? What do you evaluate?

Personally, I evaluate the stories people tell. The first day of our workshop will start with that: “How do you evaluate change?” Each person will name it differently.

Much of the work of dialogue goes unnoticed. So in evaluation are you valuing only the peace treaty or are you noticing what’s different in trends, where there’s an increased amount of people talking together, are they more inclusive or not?

Paying attention to the intangibles is important. Einstein said: “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” In other words, what you don’t see matters and what you see may not matter. So identify people who have a lot of social capital and that because of their transformation others shifts consequently happen.

At the end of the day all that we are is a network of relationships; and relationships are never finished. That’s very visible in democratic dialogue - we’re tackling big problems that don’t fit into any one government term.

The following table offers steps through which one can move from the governing principles, goals, qualities and guidelines for behaviors in a dialogic process.

The Dialogue Approach:Governing Principles

Goals Qualities Behaviors

• Inclusiveness• Joint ownership• Learning• Humanity• Long-term perspective

• Engage all parts of the system• Create the conditions for change

on the basis of important issues.• Foster learning: facilitate deeper

understanding• Create the sense of safety

required for openness• Foster commitment to achieving

sustainable change.

• Respectfulness• Transparency• Openness• Empathy

Authenticity• Patience• Flexibility

• Inquire to learn• Share what you know• Listen empathetically• Reflect back what you are hearing• Explore underlying assumptions -

yours and those of others• Acknowledge emotions as well as

ideas and opinions• Adjust course to reflect new

knowledge or undersetandingPruitt, B. and Thomas, P. (2007) Democratic Dialogue-A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: OAS, International IDEA, and UNDP, p49.

Philip Thomas founded the Generative Change Community, a learning platform for individuals and institutions seeking to create capacity for multi-stakeholder processes as a strategy for social change. It was launched in 2005 as a global community of international development practitioners focused on strengthening the world’s capacity to address complex challenges collectively through dialogic processes.

The CP Yen Foundation invites you participate in Philip’s workshop on November 4-6, 2011, 9am-5pm. Visit www.cpyen.org to register.