Levels of dialogue

Learnings for the Future of Inter-Faith Dialogue (Part #7)

Efforts towards constructing such maps seem to have got stuck in distinguishing 'levels', and in responding to the twin challenges of 'syncretism' and 'exclusivism', vital not only from a Christian perspective but also wherever an established school of thought is concerned at the dilution or adulteration of its hard-earned truths. There is also fascination with the nature of any 'underlying unity' or of some 'common ground' (10, 13). Thus David Lochhead (13), in considering the stages of inter-faith encounter, distinguishes the following progression:

a condition of isolation (in which no alternative perspective is encountered)
a condition of hostility (in which other perspectives are demonized)
a condition of competition (in which the differences from other perspectives are stressed in order to establish their inferiority)
a condition of partnership (in which differences are perceived as secondary to similarities, stressing underlying unity)

He sees these levels as continued through a series of progressively more refined approaches to dialogue:

dialogue as a means of conversion (of the other, necessarily perceived as in need of converting), in which each essentially competes with the other
dialogue as a negotiation, in which the aim is agreement, and the search for 'common ground' (which may be reduced to a lowest common denominator, and is vulnerable to the accusation of syncretism)
dialogue as the search for mutual understanding, without necessarily seeking agreement
dialogue as integration, through which perspective is obtained on the weak points of one's own views and the strengths of the other's, with acquisition of facility in the categories of the other's framework leading to a more profound way of experiencing one's own
dialogue as activity, in which those involved together discover forms of understanding which none had known before, namely a movement 'beyond dialogue' in which there is mutual transformation.

It can be readily assumed that better dialogue would occur between those of greater matruity in their respective faiths. And indeed the above sequence bears comparison with Michael Jacobs (14) very useful review of the stages of faith as explored in a major research project by James Fowler (15), that drew upon the cognitive development work of Jean Piaget, the psycho-social development model of Erik Erikson (16), and the moral development scheme proposed by L Kohlberg (17). Fowler's scheme gives seven levels: primal faith, intuitive-projective faith, mythic-literal faith, synthetic-conventional faith, individuative-reflective faith, conjunctive faith, and universalizing faith.

Erikson's work, and those of his interpreters such as David Capps (18), see such stages as related to chronological age, although they are not necessarily age specific. It has been suggested that the ages of individual development are related to factors which can be applied more universally to the development of a mature society. To each of his ages corresponds a developmental challenge or dilemma which can be seen as related to some of the issues of dialogue noted above:

oral-sensory age: trust vs. mistrust
anal-muscular age: autonomy vs. shame
locomotor-genital age: initiative vs. guilt
latency age: industry vs. inferiority
adolescence: identity vs. role confusion
young adulthood: intimacy vs isolation
adulthood: generativity vs. stagnation
maturity: ego integrity vs. despair

Jacobs' own stages of belief is a reinterpretation of the above into: trust and dependency, authority and autonomy, cooperation and competition, complexity and simplicity.