The meaning of dialogue As a way of bolstering participants’ understanding of dialogue in some instances, it may be helpful to explain the roots of the term ‘dialogue’ and its meaning from both a philosophical and practitioner’s view. This can be particularly useful when training academics or students, who are normally interested in more detail on particular subjects, but this will not be relevant for community training. Below is information that the facilitator can use in explaining the concept. Theoretical input: The meaning of dialogue The word ‘dialogue’ derives from the Greek word dialogos which means ‘through (dia) the word (logo)’. Literally, it can mean any information that uses words to convey meaning. After the Cold War, the term was used to refer to a specific kind of participatory process, one that is well suited to addressing societal needs. While dialogue can be defined broadly, there is convergence on the essential elements. One of the critical elements is that participants come together in a safe space to understand each other’s viewpoints and thereby develop new options to address a commonly identified problem. There is, however, a need to define dialogue in such a way that takes into account societal settings or context. Some philosophers define dialogue as a process of arriving at the truth. For instance the Greek philosopher, Plato, described dialogue as a process of arriving at the truth through a logical sequence of inquiry and response. Practitioners, however, tend to differ in that they emphasise learning rather than the discovery of the truth. They also include the role of feelings, empathy, respect and trust, as well as the exchange of ideas and thinking, as the basis for developing a common understanding. This, therefore, lays the foundation for conflict transformation, healing and reconciliation. Differentiating dialogue from other conflict-management and conflict-resolution approaches Another way of defining dialogue is to differentiate dialogue from other forms of peace initiatives. For the purpose of this session, it is imperative to begin by giving an overview of the different peace-initiative approaches and when they are applicable. After participants have gained an understanding of the different approaches, the facilitator can zero in on the most commonly used approaches and those commonly mistaken as dialogue. Table 3: Key differences between dialogue and other conflict-management and conflict-resolution approaches Negotiation Conciliation Mediation Dialogue Arbitration Litigation Parties to conflict try to achieve the best possible outcome in relation to their positions on a particular issue A third party (conciliator) will at some point provide the parties to conflict with a non-binding settlement A third party (mediator) will assist in finding common ground between the parties A moderator assists the parties to conflict in finding common ground regarding conflicts between them A third party (arbitrator) the determines outcome of a dispute, which outcome is then binding and enforceable A court determines the outcome of the issue and mainly considers facts 34 Community Healing: A training manual for Zimbabwe