Article published Mar 12, 2008

We can talk! Discourse session yields interesting results

Several times in the past few weeks on this page we've asked the question: Can we talk?

We asked it in the run-up to a conference last week in Great Falls in which about 100 participants learned about and discussed what is meant by the term "civil discourse" — including whether it is disappearing from the public arena.

They then learned about the relatively simple Gracious Space approach to talking about divisive issues — public or private. The approach allows for calm, respectful discussion and, it is hoped, eventually resolution.

The Gracious Spacetechnique involves details such as an attitude, or spirit, of willingness to listen; a setting that is not threatening or uncomfortable; openness to different ideas; and a willingness to admit new information.

The principles may seem like common sense, but in an age of nasty, anonymous writings and misleading political rhetoric, the concept also can seem like an alien world.

The term "Gracious Space" comes from the Center for Ethical Research in Seattle, and is the headline title of a book by Patricia Hughes, who facilitated a big portion of last Thursday's conference.

She explained the principles of Gracious Spacein the afternoon, then a smaller group sought to apply the principles during an evening session.

The evening group took part in an exercise wherein each participant talked, uninterrupted, with one other participant about what he or she "personally cares most about with regard to Great Falls' energy future."

That topic had been selected earlier by conference organizers after Tribune readers suggested subjects over the previous two or three weeks.

Hughes collected a list of values based on those uninterrupted conversations, and they included:

A clean and healthful environment (if that term sounds familiar, it might be because the right to it is the first "inalienable right" in Montana's state Constitution); growth; jobs; secure; reliable and responsible; maintains community's quality of life; diversity of sources; control over price; conservation of resources; self-reliance; heritage; and local control.

Then larger groups of five or six people were asked to formulate "The Question" that the community should ask itself, incorporating the values of the participants.

Tomorrow, we'll list the questions the groups of participants developed, as well as what Hughes called "take-aways," or things from the conference that we would find useful in future discussions — at home, at work and in the community.