MARY WATKINS

INVISIBLE GUESTSThe Development of Imaginal Dialogues

SPRING PUBLICATIONS

WOODSTOCK, CONNECTICUT

2000

(COPYRIGHT 2016 MARY WATKINS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED)

Epilogue and Afterword from:

EPILOGUE

T he very din o f imaginai voices in adulthood— as they sound in th ough t and m em ory, in poetry, dram a, novels and m ovies, in speech, dream s, fantasy and prayer— has led us to question the efficacy o f con tem porary developm ental theories for fully under­standing imaginai dialogues. T hese theories would lead us to believe

that the imaginai dialogues o f children’s early speech and play are largely subsum ed by the dialogues o f social discourse and the m o n o ­logues o f abstract thought. W here they persist in to adu lthood they are m ost often seen either as pathological o r as a m eans o f rehearsing and rehashing social interaction (i.e., in service to shared reality). While no t denying that imaginai dialogues play roles in the child’s developm ent o f self-regulation o f behavior, abstract thought, and language skills, and th a t imaginai dialogues supplem ent a deficient “reality” which often falls sho rt o f wish, we have questioned w hether these are their only functions.

I t has b een su g g ested th a t th ese d ia logues n o t only re flec t, d is to rt or p repare for the com m on reality o f social in teraction, bu t th a t they are creative o f im aginai worlds and im aginai relations as well. T hese can be valued n o t just as subordinate to social reality, bu t as a reality as intrinsic to hum an existence as the literally social. T he value and pow er o f this im aginai reality has been severely circum ­scribed, and at tim es castrated, by the presuppositions o f the m odern sc ien tific o u tlo o k w hich o u r d ev e lo p m en ta l p sycho logy shares. D evelopm ental psychology has lent its weight to prevailing social conventions that dictate the perm issib le and im perm issible fo rm s o f speaking with and th rough imaginai figures. T hus to reawaken a sense

178 INVISIBLE GUESTSo f value fo r im aginai dialogues we have o f necessity gone outside the bounds o f this scientific ou tlook to literature, mythology, and religion— regions w here these dialogues have n o t had a peripheral significance, b u t a central one.

H ere we do n o t find th a t im aginai dialogues disappear in time, as they are converted o r subsum ed in to higher form s o f thought. T he characters do no t becom e less multiple, less articulated, less autonom ous, o r m ore silent. O ne line o f developm ent suggested by literature, m ythology, and religion is that im aginai figures becom e m ore released from the dom inion o f the self (i.e., m ore autonom ous), m ore articu­lated, and m ore differen tia ted th rough their multiplicity. In teractions w ith these im aginai figures develop from m onologue to dialogue— to relations w hich are reciprocal, w here the in tegrity o f each party is m aintained. O u r unearth ing o f this o ther developm ental fate should n o t be taken as a rigid prescribing o f teloi, bu t as an alternative way o f approaching im aginai dialogues w hich liberates them , particularly those o f adu lthood , from a place o f censure. W hen the spontaneous dialogues o f th ou gh t are approached from this po in t o f view they flow er in to dram a, poetry, or prayer. Far from revealing them selves as a prim itive form o f thought, these dialogues reveal the com plexity o f th o u g h t as it struggles betw een differen t perspectives, refusing to be sim plified and narrow ed to a single standpoint.

A lthough our focus has been unremittingly on “imaginai dialogues,” the sub tex t o f this discussion has been an exam ination o f the effect o f developm ental and scientific theory on our conceptions o f the im ag inai in general. To th o se w ho value th e im aginai th e w ord “ dev elo pm ent” has com e to have the face o f an enemy, o f one w ho derogates, belittles, explains away, calls nam es. F rom a position o f respect, b o th fo r w hat the concept o f developm ent can m ean and for the experience o f the im aginai, I have tried to show w here they may begin to m eet, such th a t a developm ental approach to the imaginai need n o t elim inate its very subject.

AFTERWORD

On “Holding Holy Converse” with the Stranger:The Development o f the Capacity fo r Dialogue

Buber teaches us that in the H asidic apprehension o f reality “ a divine spark lives in every th ing and being, bu t each such spark is enclosed by an isolating shell. O nly m an can liberate it and re-join it w ith the Origin: by holding holy converse w ith the th ing and using it in a holy m anner” (1970, 5-6). As I read back over Invis­

ible Guests, now fourteen years since its initial publication, I can hear my ow n attem pts to describe a m anner o f relating to the o ther th a t I could call “holy.” For in the end, the developm ental path I prescribed aims at the allowing o f the o ther to freely arise, to allow the o ther to ex ist au to n o m o u sly from m yself, to p a tien tly w ait fo r re la tio n to occur in this open horizon, to move toward difference no t with denial or rejection b u t w ith tolerance, curiosity, and a clear sense th a t it is in the encoun ter w ith otherness and m ultiplicity th a t deeper m eanings can emerge. It is th rough this m anner o f dialogue w ith the stranger th a t liberation and re-jo in ing can occur.

I came to this sensibility through a sustained gaze on the unfolding o f im aginai relations, particularly w hat I w ould call dialogical ones. N ow , fo u rte e n years la ter, I w an t to u n d e rsco re w h at is m ainly im p lic it in th is tex t. N am ely, th a t th is m an n er o f ho ly converse describes equally as well our relations w ith others, as it does our relations w ith ourselves, imaginai others, the beings o f nature and earth, and that which we take to be divine. Relationships with imaginai

180 IN ]'ISIBLE GUESTSo thers th a t are d ialog ical— in the ways defin ed h e re— are, in tru th , a su b -tex t o f “holy converse” m ore generally.

W hen we emphasize this frame there are a number o f develop­mental theorists whose work bespeaks the interpenetration o f these dom ains in term s o f the developm ent o f dialogical capacity: for example, the peer therapy of Robert Selman; the work with adoles­cent girls o f Carol Gilligan and her colleagues; the work with women’s ways o f knowing o f Mary Belenky and her colleagues; the large group dialogue work o f David Bohm and Patrick de Mare; and, finally, the liberational pedagogy o f Paulo Freire. I will turn to these as exemplars to help us see some o f the developm ental threads that crisscross between dialogical domains, and to establish signposts beyond this text for those who wish to pursue the cultivation of dialogue.

The Capacity to Play and the Capacity to be a Friend: Differentiating and Coordinating the Perspectives o f S e lf and Other

K lein and W innicott, am ong others, no ted th a t som e disturbed children have an incapacity to play, w hich psychotherapy m ust address. In W inn ico tt’s words: “ ...w here playing is n o t possible then

the w o rk do n e by th e th e ra p is t is d irec ted tow ards b rin g in g th e pa tien t from a state o f n o t being able to play to a state o f being able to play” (1971, 138). Selm an and Schultz, w orking with the in terper­sonal relations o f em otionally d istu rbed children, have no ted that interactive fantasy play is m arkedly absen t in the h istory o f children whose interpersonal understanding is at primitive levels. These children do n o t un derstan d th a t self and o ther can in te rp re t the sam e event d ifferen tly ; i.e., th e o th e r is n o t u n d e rs to o d to have an in te rio rity d iffe ren t from my own. T hey are unable to differentiate betw een an un in ten tional act o f ano th er and an in ten tional one (the action is equated w ith the in ten t). N either do they differentiate physical from psychological characteristics o f the person (i.e., if the person is deem ed pretty then she is a good person). In sho rt, they are unable to “differ­entiate and in tegrate the se lf’s and the o th e r’s po in ts o f view th rough an understanding o f the relation betw een the thoughts, feelings, and wishes o f each p e rso n ” (1990, 6).

This capacity to differentiate and integrate the self’s and the other’s points of view is at the core o f dialogical capacity. As Selman and

AFTERWORD 181Schultz po in t out, a deficit in this ability shows b o th in prob lem atic in terpersonal relating and in an absence o f the dialogues o f p re tend play. H ow ever, he also describes how the seeds fo r in te rp e rso n a l dialogue can be p lan ted in the dialogues o f play. In his pair therapy w ork w ith children w ho are isolated by their own patte rn s o f w ith ­drawal or aggression, he pairs a subm issive, w ithdraw n child (self­transform ing style) w ith a child w ho is overcontro lling, som etim es dow nright bullying (o ther-transform ing style). Initially they each cling to his or her own style, making impossible a deepening o f relationship. Selm an and Schultz share an im age from a session w ith two such boys w here one traps the o ther in the up position on the seesaw. T here is no m ovem ent! In pretend play these two boys initially replicate their roles on the seesaw:

Andy initiated a fantasy in which he was the te lev ision / comic book character “T he Hulk,” a large, pow erful, fear­some m utan t w ho is good inside, bu t who cannot control his feelings to let the good direct him. Paul then took a part as “M ini-M an,” a being o f his own creation who is smaller than anything else in the world and can hide in flow ers... T he play was a fantasy in which one boy had the pow er to control the thoughts and will o f the o ther by virtue o f a psychological “ force-field. (169-170).

W ith these roles personified, however, each boy is as though seduced in to w anting to em body each o f the available roles. Paul experim ents w ith pu tting up his force-field and then w ith “zapping” his partner, just as Andy relaxes his grip on pow er and enjoys the subm issive position o f “M ini-M an.”

Theoretically speaking we believe that this switching o f roles in play is a key therapeutic process, in effect a way to share experience. Andy was able to relax his defenses and express the message that part of him was happy to be or even needed to be controlled, taken care of, told what to do. He could abandon for the moment the tenderly held goals for which he generally fought so fiercely... And Paul, often too frightened to take the ini­tiative in actual interactions, was able to take steps to­ward assuming the control that he felt was too risky in real life, despite its practical and emotional attractions...W hen it is just play, children can dress rehearse for changing roles on the stage o f real-life interaction. (171)

182 INVISIBLE GUESTSHere we see the interrelation between the dialogues o f play and

those o f social discourse. Now, rather than “inner speech” being the internalization o f actual social discourse, as in Vygotsky’s theory, we see the dialogues o f play as the seed that travels up into the soil o f friendship and collaboration. Indeed, in Selman’s third year o f work with these boys, we see them able to withstand the storm o f each other’s emotions, to venture into different roles with one another, and to begin to share around the deepest area o f each boy’s concern.

Sustaining One’s Voice Am ongst Others

For authentic dialogue to occur it is not enough for one to be able to differentiate one’s perspective from the other and to allow the other a voice. One must also be able to maintain one’s own voice

amidst the fray o f relationship. In Chapter Eleven this was addressed in the domain of imaginai dialogues in the treatment of hallucinatory experience where, too often, the most disturbing aspect o f hallucina­tory experience is not a confusion o f perception with image but a disavowal of the ego’s point o f view as it is swamped by the voice(s) of the other. The other’s command becomes the self’s action.

Carol Gilligan and her colleagues, in turning their attention to normative development in preadolescent and adolescent American girls, unfortunately found that not all the changes they witnessed in girls were ideal. One the one hand, they found that:

As these girls grow older they become less dependent on external authorities, less egocentric or locked in their own experience or point o f view, more differentiated from others in the sense of being able to distinguish their feelings and thoughts from those of other people, more autonomous in the sense o f being able to rely on or take responsibility for themselves, more appreciative of the complex inter­play of voices and perspectives in any relationship, more aware o f the diversity of human experience and the dif­ferences between societal and cultural groups.

On the other hand they found:that this developmental progress goes hand in hand with evidence of a loss of voice, a struggle to authorize or take seriously their own experience— to listen to their own voices in conversation and respond to their feelings and

AFTERWORD 183thoughts— increased confusion, sometimes defensiveness, as well as evidence for the replacement of real with inau­thentic or idealized relationships. If we consider respond­ing to oneself, knowing one’s feelings and thoughts, clar­ity, courage, openness, and free-flowing connections with others and the world as signs of psychological health, as we do, then these girls are in fact not developing, but are showing evidence of loss and struggle and signs of an impasse in their ability to act in the face o f conflict.(Brown and Gilligan, 1992, 6)

In o rder to m aintain the sem blance o f relationship these girls were struggling w ith “a series o f d isconnections that seem at once adaptive and psychologically w ounding, betw een psyche and body, voice and desire, thoughts and feelings, self and rela tionsh ip” (7). Too o ften girls were found stepping away from articu lating their thoughts and feelings if these would bring them in to conflict w ith others. W hat was initially conscious public disavowal o f thoughts and feelings, over time becam e unconscious disclaiming. G irls then expressed that they felt confused about w hat they though t and felt, th a t they w ere unsure . O v er tim e, m any to o k them selves o u t o f au th en tic re la tio n sh ip — w ith o th e rs and them selvesi T hey becam e unable to identify relational violations, and thus were more susceptible to abuse. Brown and Gilligan began to w onder if they were “witnessing the beginning o f psychological splits and relational struggles well docum ented in the psychology o f w om en” (106).

To encourage girls’ resistance and resilience Gilligan and her colleagues realized that it was not enough to help girls put into words for others their thoughts and feelings. For many, the fear o f how their thoughts and feelings would be received had already metamor­phosed into the girls’ not listening to themselves. And so the women working with these girls tried to find ways to help the inner ear not go deaf and to revive a capacity to listen to one’s selves, while at the same time building a group where the girls could experience that others can survive their voice(s): that authentic dialogue is possible, not just false or idealized relations.

Akin to Selm an’s m ove tow ard play, G illigan’s team m oved to ­w ard supporting the girls’ diary and journal writing, their dram atic and poetic writing, and their literally claiming their voices in their work.

184 INVISIBLE GUESTSD ialogue— in the ideal sense— necessitates bo th the capacity to

deeply receive the o th e r and the capacity to receive oneself; to allow the o th e r a voice and to allow the self voice.

Being Silenced vs. Opportunities fo r Dialogue:Voice, M ind, Relationship, and Social A ction

Belenky, Clinchy, G oldberger, and Tarule (1986), in Women’s Ways o f Knowing. The Development o f Self, Voice, and M ind, vividly de­scribe the in terpen etra tio n o f dialogical dom ains addressed here as

they study different ways o f w om en’s knowing. In one group o f w om en they studied w om en’s silence in adu lthood was linked to family expe­riences o f neglect and abuse. T hese w om en w ere passive, subdued, and subord inate in adulthood. “T he ever-present fear o f volcanic eru p tio n s and ca tastro ph ic events leaves child ren speechless and num bed, unwilling to develop their capacities for hearing and knowing” (1986, 159). T hese w om en experienced them selves as m indless and voiceless. T heir childhoods were n o t only lived in isolation from their family m em bers and others outside the family, b u t m ost often were lived w ithou t play. T he in tersection o f an absence o f dialogue w ith an absence o f play tu rn ed o u t to be particularly dam aging for these children as they grew to w om anhood.

In the ordinary course of development, the use of play metaphors gives way to language—a consensually vali­dated symbol system— allowing for more precise com­munication o f meanings between persons. Outer speech becomes increasingly internalized as it is transformed into inner speech. Impulsive behavior gives way to behavior that is guided by the actor’s own symbolic representations o f hopes, plans, and meanings. Without playing, convers­ing, listening to others, and drawing out their own voice, people fail to develop a sense that they can talk and think things through. (1986, 33).

M oreover, the w orld becom es a place o f simple d ichotom ies— g o o d / bad, b ig /little , w in /lo se— obscuring all subtlety and texture.

W ithou t play o r dialogue the child is constrained w ith in a narrow band o f reality. B oth play and dialogue allow the child to visit the perspectives o f others, as well as to dream o f th a t which has n o t yet come into reality. “W hat is” and “who one is” becom e radically widened

AFTERWORD 185

as one de-centers from the ego’s perspective and the given. T hrough the m etaphorizing o f play one leaps past the given confines o f “ se lf” and “reality.” T he dialogues o f play and the dialogues o f social in ter­action are bo th creative o f the self and the liberating the self. T hrough each em pathie leap, th rough each re-em bodim ent o f ourselves in play, we pass beyond our usual borders and exceed w hat has been. W hat “ is” is surpassed by w hat m ight be, and “w h o” I am is replaced by my tran sit beyond m yself— either th ro u g h p ro jec tio n o f th e se lf or th rough the reception o f the other. W orking an issue th rough play— expressing it, addressing it from several perspectives, taking the role o f the o thers in play— is translated in to the dialogues o f though t and those o f our everyday interactions. I t should com e as no surprise that the com plexity and subtlety o f a child’s play, her flexibility in m oving b e tw een th e dramatis personae, can be seen in h er p a r tic ip a tio n in dialogue and in her capacities for reflection.

C hildhoods th a t do n o t give op po rtun ity for p re tend play, w here families discourage dialogue and w here schools lim it the classroom experience to verbal exchanges that are unilateral and teacher initiated, make it highly unlikely that children will learn the “give and take o f dialogue” (Belenky et al., 1986, 34), giving them access to w hat lies beyond a narrow self w hich has been schooled for silence. For such children, and the adults th a t are generated from them , w ords have fo rce only w h en u tte re d violently . T h u s they “ ten d to be ac tion - orien ted , w ith little insight in to their own behaviors o r m otivations. Since they do n o t expect to be heard they expect no response, the volum e o f their voices is m ore im portan t than the conten t. They lack verbal negotiating skills and do n o t expect conflicts to be resolved th rough non-violen t m eans” (1986, 160). T ho se w ho do n o t escape silence pass the legacy o f their early hom es on to their children:

Mothers who have so little sense of their own minds and voices are unable to imagine such capacities in their children. N ot being fully aware of the power of words for communicating meaning, they expect their children to know what is on their minds without the benefit of words. These parents do not tell their children what they mean by “good”— much less why. Nor do they ask their children to explain themselves...

We observed these mothers “backhanding” their chil­dren whenever the child asked questions, even when the

186 INVISIBLE GUESTSquestions stemmed from genuine curiosity and desire for knowledge. It was as if the questions themselves were another example o f the child’s “talking back” and “disre­spect.” Such a mother finds the curious, thinking child’s questions stressful, since she does not yet see herself as an authority who has anything to say or teach. (1986, 163-164)

T hese w om en were n o t aware o f any experience w ith in th em ­selves o f dialogue w ith a self o r o f having an inner voice; n o r did their w ords express a familiarity w ith in trospection o r a sense o f their own consciousness.

T hose w om en in Belenky’s study w ho were able to em erge from silence in to adu lthood had the benefit o f a school w hich encouraged the cultivation o f m ind and an in teraction with the arts, had been able to forge significant relationships outside the hom e despite the p roh ib ition n o t to do so, or had “created such relationships for th em ­selves th rough the sheer pow er o f their im aginations, by endow ing their pets and im aginary playm ates w ith those attributes th a t nourish the hum an po ten tia l” (1986, 163).

In th e o th e r ways o f kn ow ing th a t B elenky et a l d esc rib e— received know ing , sub jective know ing , p ro ced u ra l know ing , and co n stru c ted know ing— intrapsychic and in terpersonal dialogue are intim ately related to each other, to gether form ing a sense o f flatness o r com plexity o f reality. For instance in received know ing w om en experience o thers as the authority, silencing their ow n voices to be be tte r able to im bibe the w isdom o f others. I t is n o t surprising that they seek to eliminate ambiguity from their worlds and can be described them selves as literal-m inded. O n the o ther hand, subjective know ers conceive o f all tru th arising internally, stilling their public voice, and o ften tu rn ing a “ deaf ear to o ther voices.” O ften d istrusting words, they cover disagreem ent w ith conform ity and live in the iso lation o f their ow n thoughts and inner voices.

In w hat is clearly their p referred developm ental telos, Belenky and her colleagues describe those w ho experience constructed knowing. In this way o f know ing, know ledge is contextual. T here are m ultiple v iew poin ts to be had , bu t n o t all are equally adequate to revealing w hat one is trying to understand. T hese knowers are familiar with listening to the inner voice o r voices. Yet they know th a t even an inner voice may be w rong at times, for it is bu t one part o f a whole.

AFTERWORD 187They are also adept at patient listening to the voices o f others. They have a high tolerance for internal contradiction and ambiguity.

Just as the child breaks the confines o f the given through the dialogue o f play, so too may the adult who can move between per­spectives and systems o f knowing. Liberated from subservience to external authority, to any one system o f thought, and from slavish devotion to their internal voices, these knowers have the dialogical tools to break the oppressive aspects o f “reality.” Their nurture, care, and engagement with their own voices, the voices o f others, and ideas broaden out to their nurture and care o f aspects o f the world.

From Cultures o f Silence to Fibertory Dialogue:The Work o f Paulo Freire

T his connection between coming to see the context one is in, gain­ing voice in relation to this context, and being able to creatively engage in efforts to effect culture is beautifully articulated in the

work of Paulo Freire. Here silence and lack o f dialogical capacity is understood to arise through oppression, which purposely creates voice­lessness and obscures context in order to maintain power. Freire, the founder o f the literacy movement in Brazil and radical pedagogist, argues that for the disenfranchised, learning to read should involve a process of becoming able to decode the cultural and socioeconomic circumstances that shape your life and your thinking. Once able to decode these conditions one is then able to participate in the shaping of those circumstances. He called the first step in this empowering process “ conscientization,” a group process which allows one to actively engage with the structures one has previously identified with and been blind to.

In Freire’s model an “animator” helps group participants to ques­tion their day to day experience, their concerns and suffering, exploring the relation between daily life and the cultural dictates that suffuse it. Here words, much like play for the child, begin to open up the realm o f the possible, liberating “ reality” from the bonds o f the given. E fforts at change are directed not foremost to the individual level, but to wider cultural change that will, in the end, effect the participants. This change becomes possible through the second step o f Freire’s method, “annunciation.” Once a group knows how to decode the

188 INVISIBLE GUESTSdominant paradigm and its effects— through having spoken together— then they can begin to conceive of social arrangements which are more just through the process of dialogue.

Why is this process necessary? Freire says that the dominant class attempts “by means o f the power of its ideology, to make everyone believe that its ideas are the ideas o f the nation” (Freire and Faundez, 1989, 74). A dominant paradigm operates by way of the monologue, not dialogue. It requires voicelessness on the part o f the other to sustain itself. “The power of an ideology to rule,” says Freire, “lies basically in the fact that it is em bedded in the activities o f the everyday life” {Ibid., 26-27).

I t is th rough dialogue that one breaks o u t o f the “bureaucratiza­tion” o f mind, where there can be a rupture from previously established patterns. “ In fact, there is no creativity w ithou t ruptura, w ithout a break from the old, w ithou t conflict in w hich you have to make a decision” (Freire, in H o rto n and Freire, 1990, 38). For Freire true education is no t the accumulation o f inform ation placed in the student by the teacher. T rue education m ust encourage this rup tu re th rough dialogue. T eacher and s tu d en t m u st each be able to e ffec t, to com ­municate w ith, and to challenge each o ther, rather than perpetuate d o m in a tio n th ro u g h m onolog ical teach in g m e th o d s th a t fu rth e r disem pow er.

Freire connects dialogue with love:Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence o f p ro ­found love for the world and for [women and] men. The nam ing o f the w orld, w hich is an act o f c rea tion and re-creation , is no t possible if it is no t infused w ith love.Love is at the same time the foundation o f dialogue and dialogue itself. It is thus necessarily the task o f responsible subjects and canno t exist in a relation o f dom ination . D om ination reveals the pathology o f love: sadism in the dom inator and masochism in the dom inated. Because love is an act o f courage, no t o f fear, love is com m itm ent to [others]. N o m atter where the oppressed are found, the act o f love is com m itm ent to their cause— the cause o f liberation. A nd this com m itm ent, because it is loving, is dialogical... (Freire, 1970, 77-78)

AFTERWORD 189

Dialogue Across Difference: Bohm’s Large Group Dialogue

In Freire and Faundez’s w ork the concept o f culture is n o t linked to ideas o f unity bu t to diversity and tolerance. This shift tow ard the acknow ledgm ent o f diversity invites voices to speak w hich have been

marginalized by the dom inant culture and its paradigms. This m ovem ent from center to m argin requires a process o f dialogue th a t assum es difference and seeks to articulate it. T ruth is no t located in a particular perspective, it “ is to be found in the ‘becom ing’ o f dialogue” (Faundez, in Freire and Faundez, 1989, 32).

D avid Bohm , physicist and colleague o f K rishnam urti, describes a kind o f large group dialogue w here it is th rough the difference that is p resen t that one can begin to hear o n e’s own assum ptions. Bohm asks th a t once we hear these assum ptions we try to suspend them rather than using our characteristic defensive moves o f overpowering the o th e r voices, d e fen d in g o u r assu m p tio n s as the tru th . T h is acknowledgment and suspension o f assumptions is done in the service o f beg in n in g to see w h at it is one m eans. W h en we d e fen d an assumption, says Bohm , we are at the same time “pushing out whatever is n ew ... T here is a g reat deal o f violence in the opinions we are defending” (1990, 15). T h rou gh com ing to see our own and o th e rs’ assu m p tio n s we arrive at a p lace w here we can beg in to th in k together, seeing m ore o f the to tality that com prises our situation. Sam pson is careful to rem ind us th a t allowing others to speak is n o t enough if they cannot “be heard in their own way, on their own term s,” rather th an be co n s tra in ed to “ use th e vo ice o f th o se w ho have co n stru c ted th em ” (1993, 1220-1223).

H ere one is required to take a th ird -person po in t o f view tow ards oneself, reflecting on how o n e’s actions, attitudes, and assum ptions arise from particular ideologies. A nd further, how the ideologies we are identified w ith have effected the o ther, the stranger.

Like imaginai dialogues, such dialogue in a large group requires th e su sp e n s io n o f u su a l eg o ic m o d es o f o p e ra t io n : ju d g in g , condem ning , deem ing oneself superior (or inferior). T hese in terfere w ith listening deeply, w ith the radical entertain ing o f the o ther, w hich at the same m om ent can awaken us to w here we each stand.

190 INVISIBLE GUESTSCoda

In the end, the direction of this book is not inw ard.. .only. It cannot be, because imaginai dialogues do not exist separate from the other domains o f our lives. The hierarchies o f our culture, schools, family—

and thus o f mind— do not deeply invite dialogue. Neither does the voicelessness directly resulting from such hierarchies o f power. Here I am trying to underscore the interpenetration of dialogues with imagi­nai others, with dialogues with oneself, one’s neighbors, within one’s community, between communities, and with the earth and its creatures. The effort to section o ff the imaginai from this larger fabric is at best defensive and at worst wasteful o f the energies needed to work at m uch-needed reconciliations. D ep th psychology— if it is no t to become a Euro-American relic from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries— must use its energy to penetrate the depths of difference. Dialogue is the method for this hosting, penetration, and holding of difference.

For the sake o f dialogue— o f love— this book points us toward the creation o f childcare contexts where the dramatic fray of play can be delighted in, to elementary schools where the leap between self and others in a small group can be practiced, to spiritual education and practice where the voices within silence can be discerned and addressed. I t points us toward high schools and colleges where previously marginalized voices can be admitted to the mosaic, changing the underlying structure o f education from the conveyance o f dominant paradigms to one o f dialogue across difference. It turns us toward the processes o f non-violent communication and reconciliation that are needed to nurture the neighborhoods and com m unities— and ultimately nations— in which we are homed. And finally, it attempts to turn us toward the dialogue beyond words required between na­ture and humans if our actions are to finally preserve the earth.