Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

203
nities that arise for bringing it about, he or she will become a tool that
performs tasks mechanically and without critical reflection. In this case, reflections
offered by a recipient do nothing positive — they simply disturb
the mechanical process. The practitioner in this context can lose motivation
to listen to the recipient and dialogue can become almost impossible.
In the case of Ishigaki, I made a quick decision to support the idea of
hosting a forum without consulting other group members or FASID’s
administration. It was a risky decision, but I was more focused on its benefit
— it was decisive in securing the support of the Ishigaki islanders. If
FASID’s administration had not approved it, I would have been in trouble
with all parties concerned. Whether my decision was good or bad is
another issue; the point here is that the opportunity for creating a change
presented itself, and I was able to seize it, with help in the form of pressure
from the people of Ishigaki. It is important that practitioners maintain
their hope that opportunities for change exist even in a greatly constrained
environment.
From decision to commitment
When an Ishigaki islander proposed the forum, I immediately agreed to the
idea as if he was helping me out of a difficult situation. My decision to host
a forum was thus illogical in light of our research objectives, although after
I agreed to the forum, I tried to generate persuasive reasons for linking our
research to it. The Ishigaki islanders had easily seen through my scheme.
Having had many negative experiences in the past, it was natural and understandable
that they maintained a sceptical stance toward me. I think they
wanted to observe how I would actually act on the decision I made. Sharing
my decision with other group members put me in a position to commit
myself to taking risks.
Dialogue — naming the world together, as Freire characterizes it — is
dynamic. It involves processes of naming, which are more than one-shot
decisions. A decision to initiate a new course of action is important, but it is
still not enough for dialogue. The link between decision making and collaborative
processes is essential for materializing dialogue.
We realize that making a decision in favor of a recipient, and thereby
initiating change from the status quo, is not as easy a task as we often imagine.
It goes against the normal dynamics of institutional arrangements, as
institutions always prefer stability (Meyer and Zucker, 1989) and resist challenges
to established hierarchies. But a practitioner should not be satisfied
with merely reacting to a given situation so that he or she can complete
daily administrative tasks. This complacency can only contribute to maintaining
the status quo. Rather, a practitioner should be motivated to take a
proactive stance, critically analyze a given situation, and make a decision to
initiate change.