Dialogue: a transcendental transformation

During the last days of the Peace Scholars program, I was reflecting on the meaning of dialogue and how I could incorporate it in my life. Having experienced Nansen in Lillehammer set the ideas of what an effective dialogue is, however, I was still wondering about how dialogue could work in our daily life. I can’t deny that I was skeptical about the effectiveness of dialogue as a tool for peace creation. I believe my Colombian background made look at dialogue based on the Peace Agreements that took place in the country, making me feel that dialogue had many limitations. Hence, it blew my mind when I realized that the point of dialogue was to create a space for understanding that could eventually lead to a state of peace. The use of dialogue was never with the intention to create peace but to provide its participants with an understanding of the experiences that have shaped peoples’ positions and beliefs. Therefore, I realized how important being dialogical is, especially with all the polarization that we are experiencing in many parts of the world.

Therefore, after experiencing a week at the Nansen center, and after having experienced the ISS in depth, I am now sure that the use of dialogue is utterly valuable for any type of communication. During class, I encountered different perspectives that projected collective social discourses. That is to say, I could see some of my friends held positions that, in my perspective, reflected the current political discourse that seems to be growing in the US. For me, these positions reflected various extremes that fall into the polarized discourse that we see in the US’s politics of identity. Although I agree with most of the things that were said during conversations at the Peace Scholars Seminar, I also believe that identity politics is not particularly being implemented dialogically. Hence, I was able to better understand how dialogue aims to break the polarization identity politics perpetuates, by allowing people who hold different beliefs and interpretations of reality to come together to understand why they think the way they think. By grasping how dialogue created empathy among different parties, I understood how important dialogue was to create lasting peace, and how relevant it was to have dialogue implemented in a country like the US or Colombia.

Hence, experiencing my classroom was imperatively constructive for me to realize why dialogue was important in any social setting. The way conversations around themes such as race, privilege, or ethnicity are currently taking place is not precisely dialogical, since who gets to participate in these conversations is still very polarized in the public sphere. It seems to me that we are moving towards an understanding of identity that alienates people whose ideas deviate from what is set as the norm. Although I do not disregard the importance of politics of identity, the Nansen center and the Peace Scholars seminar made me realize that what needs to be changed is the way these conversations are happening. We got to define diversity in comparison to what was regarded as the social standard, however, we are now defining identity in terms of boxes that alienate people from the conversation and the discourse around diversity. I consequently reaffirmed that society needs dialogue.

After understanding the importance of dialogue, I was pondering about my time in Lillehammer. As I mentioned, I was skeptical about the effectiveness of the dialogue process, however, I now thought that dialogue was what our society needs. Dialogue is a process that transforms individuals, and I believe that this transformation is what can lead to social change. Polarization is not the answer to politics. On the contrary, it can extrapolate into more hatredness and alienation, which does not open up a space for collective social change. Hence, I came to the conclusion that dialogue is the only way to actually understand the ideologies and beliefs that drive human behavior. I understood that a minority does not get liberated by perpetuating the same sort of discourse that has oppressed them in the past. Liberation is not exclusive to a particular social group and so it needs to take place in society as a whole. This liberation for me seems to only be possible through dialogue. It is not a matter of changing peoples’ beliefs and conceptions of life. It is a matter of getting to understand the structures that have shaped someone’s life philosophy, which does not imply a change in mindset but the capacity to understand each other’s standpoints and needs.

 

Dialogue Soup By Candace Noguchi

As we enter the last 10 days here in Oslo, Norway it seems that time has passed in a blink of an eye. I have wondered about what I should write for my blog post and I was reminded of a discussion that our Peace Seminar class engaged in earlier this week. The questions were “Have I been dialogical” and “Have I been met in a dialogical way”. For me the answer is both no and yes.

During our intensive 7-day stay at the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue we spent 8+ hours a day learning and engaging with dialogue. In total there were 14 U.S.undergraduate students from 7 different colleges, 14 other individuals from various countries, and 3 wonderful facilitators. Truly, the diversity in the room, and most importantly, the want to be there and listen were the most important factors that allowed us to engage in dialogical processes. Having a safe space to speak with earnest and to listen to international perspectives of a single topic opened my eyes on what dialogue can accomplish. It truly showed that regardless of ethnicity, national boundaries, gender, etc. we can all connect with each other in some sort of way.

Coming to the International Summer School was a bit of a culture shock. Coming from Lillehammer I was expecting to engage with others in the same way that I did at Nansen, openness and understanding. However, Nansen and ISS are totally different. At Nansen everyone was on the same level, at the ISS the power dynamics were very present within the classrooms. There are people here whom are ignorant and have the refusal to listen. As we learned at the Nansen Center dialogue is an open-way street for communication, but in order for this to be achieved all parties will need to be openminded towards other’s beliefs and their own as well. Dialogue is not a debate, but our societies seem to be stuck in the toxic belief that one’s truth is the truth for others as well. Dialogue it seemed was not possible in the competitive nature of academia.

However, unbeknownst to everyone dialogue occurs everyday. The biggest take way from my stay at Nansen is that “dialogue is a way of life”.  Dialogue could occur during lunch or in walks to class. Whenever individuals are engaging in an open, honest conversation were all parties are actively listening they are engaging in dialogue. To me dialogue is like a soup. The more ingredients (voices, opinions, truth, experiences, etc.) that is added, blended, and mixed into the base (you) it becomes richer everyday.

Can dialogue be possible at a larger scale? Will the Hawaiʻi government illegally put into place by U.S. military forces in the occupied Kingdom of Hawaiʻi finally be willing to listen to the voices and needs of the Native Hawaiʻian people? Can dialogue stop the desecration of sacred land of the indigenous peoples? How can we engage in dialogue when the system we live in refuses to listen to people without power and at the same time collects the power within a selective group?  These are the questions that I still remains with me.

Regardless of the logistics of if dialogue can be implemented on a wide scale, interpersonal dialogue happens every day. The more we engage in dialogical processes of openess and understanding the richer our individual soup becomes. We must continue to engage in dialogue so that those with water bowls can someday have a rich, bountiful bowl of soup. In this way maybe dialogue can be a way towards universal understanding.

 

A Glimpse into Kristy’s Summer

An 8am class every single day is not exactly how I pictured spending my summer in Norway.  Nor did I imagine meeting such incredible people from multiple different countries. We spent a week in Lillihammer, Norway eating meals next to a beautiful fjord and dialoguing about dialoguing at the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue.

Week 2, we moved to Oslo where I started learning about the Vikings in my Norwegian History course. And before I knew it, I was hiking mountains at Jotunheimen National Park. Next, I was swimming in the Széchenyi Thermal Baths in Budapest, Hungry.

I can honestly say that the Peace Scholar program has given the opportunity to learn how Norwegian Refugee Council works, visit the Nobel Peace Center, and see unimaginable places with my own two-eyes. The friends I made here are among some of the most intelligent, honest, and kind.

I feel extremely grateful and privileged to be given this opportunity. I only hope to be able to bring my experience back Augsburg University to share with future Peace Scholars.

See ya later,

Kristy Ornelas

Democracy and Dialogue by Ryan Solberg

Much hand-wringing is often done by political pundits, particularly in the West over the fragile state of liberal democracies around the world. Rather than accepting the supposedly inevitable triumph of capitalist democracy over other suboptimal ways of organizing a society, electorates have flocked around authoritarian strongmen and xenophobic populists who promise to vanquish their enemies, restore national greatness, and return power to its rightful owners, the people.

Those who still believe in a tolerant, open, and free world would do well by learning the importance of two key qualities of good dialogue: equality and trust. On the face of it, both of these traits seem to be fairly obvious prerequisites for a healthy democracy. However, it appears just as obvious that both are missing from most democracies today. Equal political rights are supposed to be the cornerstone of any liberal society, granted to all citizens regardless of race, religion, or class. However, were you to ask a Yellow Vest protestor in France or a Black Lives Matter activist in the United States whether they felt that they were treated as equals by their fellow citizens and their government, you would likely be answered with a resounding “No!” A look at any poll taken over the past several decades would show that trust in government and fellow citizens is stunningly low all across the free world.

If dialogue has taught me anything, it is that democracy is not simply a mode of government that allows society to recycle its leadership every few years; it is a lifestyle. Equal rights are not enough to secure real political equality. In dialogue, facilitators and participants lay ground rules and go to great lengths to make sure that everyone feels comfortable voicing their opinion and feels listened to and valued. Power imbalances are corrected as much as possible. The end result is a welcoming environment where people learn, and even become eager to, engage with one another and peacefully accept their disagreements. Trust naturally follows, and the two become mutually reinforcing. The greater the sense of equality, the more we trust others to respect us and our opinions; the greater the sense of trust, the more we regard our peers as true equals worthy of support and esteem.

Whether dialogue is applicable to an entire society is debatable (and yes, I do get the irony of this statement). However, those who have learned dialogue should seek to utilize its basic tenements and cultivate them in others. By promoting equality and trust, those schooled in dialogue can help prevent democracies from entering into death spirals of partisanship and xenophobia that only lead to tyranny.

Nina Tran’s Blog Post

Before arriving in Norway, I thought I knew a lot about the country. Norway has consistently topped many world’s rankings on standards of living, gender equality, social mobility, environmental sustainability, human happiness, among others. Norway is in charge of the Nobel Peace Prize, and it takes the lead when it comes to human rights and humanitarian work. Norway is extremely rich, and it has the biggest Sovereign Wealth Fund in the world. As the rampant debate on social policies has never ceased, the U.S. media sometimes refers to Nordic countries like Norway as a goal, an admirable model of the welfare regime, where health care and education are (almost) free. My perception of Norway was further shaped by my Vietnamese background: after the Vietnam War, Vietnam’s relationship with many Western countries has been that between a beneficiary and the givers, and Norway — the country that took in Vietnamese refugees after the war and where now almost 23,000 people of Vietnamese origin reside — is collectively looked up to by the Vietnamese as a righteous and peace nation.

It was not until I started my first week at the Nansen Dialogue Center in Lillehammer, Norway, and then during the Norwegian Welfare State and Peace Scholars Seminar courses at the Oslo International Summer School, that I learned how ignorant I had been, not only about this country but also about the way I thought of peace. Through amazingly insightful dialogues with perhaps some of the most amazingly insightful people I had met — whom I now have the great pleasure to call friends, my simplistic perceptions were deeply questioned. Yes, Norway surpasses many others in different areas, but it is not without problems. Racism and xenophobia are of noticeable presence in Norway, as they have historically been, and are reflected in the country’s surveys, immigration policies, and political discourse. Norway is wealthy, but a large proportion of its wealth is gained from oil and gas — the two major sources of pollution that causes global warming. Ironically, while the country pushes for environmental sustainability, a portion of its wealth is used to buy carbon emissions quota from other countries. Being renowned as a central actor in peace-building on global scale, the “Norwegian model” and its questionable “Norwegianness” could easily produce white savior complex, a syndrome which I and my Peace Scholar fellows have had the chance to encounter.

Can we call Norway a Peace Nation, as the way it has been often time promoted? When is Peace? How should we reify the concept of “nation”? As I listened, and looked evermore deeper into these questions, I came to realize that there is no Utopia on Earth. Nor is there a peace nation when the world has flung itself into an omnipresent man-made net of conflicts and violence. Take climate change and poverty as some prevalent examples: as the earthly fate of our humankind is bonded, not even the most privileged person on Earth can escape these crises without a scratch. It’s just that it’s always more comfortable to stay inside our confined perceptual bubbles, which is why dialogue is so imperatively important.

With that, I am grateful for the constant learning process in the last few weeks, and for the new thoughts and viewpoints that this process gave birth to. Acknowledging the bad does not mean we can cross out the good. During my short time in Norway I have had the privilege to meet with, and be wholeheartedly inspired by, the ordinary persons who are doing extraordinary work to make this world a better place. Peace is a process: it is not without violence, but the overcoming of it.

By Khanh Ngoc Tran (Nina)

A Testament to Dialogue By Elly Schaefer

As I write this blog post, I am sitting at the train station in Åndalsnes, Norway. I just finished a quick two hour hike up a mountain overlooking Åndalsnes, which is surrounded by beautiful blue fjords and stunning green valleys. At the viewpoint at the end of the hike, I just kept thinking, “I am so fortunate to be here.” In a few hours the train will come to take me back to Oslo – back to the International Summer School.

To say that I have had a good time at the International Summer School would be an understatement. It has been wonderful. The International Summer School has provided so many great opportunities to me and the rest of my classmates, such as structured excursions, free time for us to pursue our own interests, like my little trip to Åndalsnes, and interesting classes. I actually brought my two Norwegian text books on my hike with me today – I think my professor, Kari, would be proud! Most importantly, however, the International Summer School has provided the opportunity to make some very special friendships. I’d like to focus this blog post around these friendships, in particular those that I have made with the amazing group from the Nansen Center.

I spent my first week in Norway at the Nansen Center for Peace in Dialogue in Lillehammer, Norway. I was joined there by 13 students who are also studying in the United States, as well as 13 other students from various countries around the world. The 27 of us spent the week at the Nansen Center participating in a dialogue training seminar. It’s really challenging to put into words the effect of the experience at the Nansen Center, but hopefully this captures at least a small aspect of what I have experienced here in Norway.

In the beginning, there was skepticism expressed in our group about the effectiveness of dialogue as a tool for conflict resolution and community building. However, as I reflect on the week we spent in Lillehammer, I think our group is a perfect testament to how powerful of a tool dialogue is. Simply put, this is the first time where I have been in a program with this many people where I can say that I genuinely really like every member of the group, and I don’t think this is a coincidence. The bond of our group goes beyond merely getting along with each other. To be completely honest we don’t always get along with each other – and that’s okay! Rather, it seems to me that the bonds between all of us from the Nansen Center are built on a mutual understanding and respect that is quite rare in friendships today. At the end of the day, we still gather around the dinner table together and talk openly as friends. I think the strength of our collective relationship is a unique outcome of the dialogues that we experienced together at the Nansen Center, after all, the program was basically a full week of intentionally cultivating mutual understanding. Our group is a testament to how powerful of an experience the Nansen Center provides.

Just like the feeling I had at the top of the hike today, I can’t stop thinking about how fortunate I am to be a Peace Scholar. I have learned valuable lessons about how to be in relationship with the people around me. These dialogue tools will be important to me in everything that I do from here on out. Building meaningful and lasting connections with those around me has always been important to me, but now I feel more prepared to attempt building these connections in all circumstances.

I also consider myself to be incredibly fortunate to have met all the other amazing individuals from the Nansen Center. While I believe that we were able to build these great friendships due to the dialogue tools that we learned, I don’t think this would have worked if we hadn’t all been so willing to learn these experiences. I have learned an unprecedented amount from each of these new friends in these last four weeks, and I’ll cherish the remaining three weeks at the International Summer School continuing to get to know each of them.

My Thoughts on Dialogue

My time at the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue can only be described as life changing. I had absolutely no idea what I was getting myself into before I arrived in Lillehammer, Norway but at the end of my time there I could not have been more grateful for all I learned and for the opportunity to meet such a passionate and empathetic group of people.

Trying to explain what “dialogue” is can be tough. There aren’t any solid representations of dialogue in the world around us. When people talk they’re either too high-strung to truly listen to each other, too egocentric, or too impatient and the process just turns into a debate.

            I thought I would include the 5 most important tips I learned at the Nansen Center for creating positive dialogue:

–       Establish ground rules and make sure everyone participating is willing and ready to enforce them. Rules like “No interrupting each other” might seem simple but it is crucial to the dialogue process to create a safe and respectful environment.

–       Understand that active listening requires a lot of work. Do not listen just to form a response back. Listen to understand. Listen to ask questions. Believe in people and give them the space to talk. Humans need recognition.

–       Be aware of your prejudices. Before beginning the dialogue process, you must understand your intentions, your real experiences, and where you’re coming from. Understand what might hinder or help you in regards to understanding someone with an opposite opinion or different life experience than you.

–       Whatever someone says meet them with openness and humility. We have all been socialized in extremely different ways. Take the time to understand why someone feels and thinks a certain way rather than immediately challenging them.

–       Do not rush to fill quiet/empty space. This means think before you speak which is another simple step yet extremely difficult for people who come into a dialogue with a lot of passion or pain about a certain situation.

–       Trying to explain what “dialogue” is can be tough. There aren’t any solid representations of dialogue in the world around us. When people talk they’re either too high-strung to truly listen to each other, too egocentric, or too impatient and the process just turns into a debate.

Dialogue is not about immediately changing someone’s mind. It’s about helping them understand why you think a certain way in hope of creating a better understanding of each other. From that understanding trust is built and from that trust brings friendship or an alliance.

Natalie Zavoral

Kristina Quanbeck’s blog post

 We arrived at the Oslo airport on Sunday, June 16th greeted cheerfully by our leaders Chro Borhan and Christiane Seehausen. We were on our way to the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue to engage in an intensive week filled with vulnerability and understanding. We were a group of almost 30 people from all over the world, with the majority of group not knowing anyone else. To eliminate this divide between us, we began with an activity that allowed us to listen to one another. The activity forced us to thoughtfully evaluate our own lives, answering the question, “What are the forces that have shaped your life?” Each individual had around ten minutes to talk about themselves in small groups without interruptions. It was difficult to reveal personal, and possibly traumatic experiences in our lives, but that initial openness established a safe environment for the remainder of our time. I believe that this activity was extremely important in allowing people feeling comfortable participating in dialogues, understanding conflicts, and facilitating challenging situations.

I feel very privileged to have had the opportunity to participate in this week at the Nansen Center and so lucky to have built relationships with each person in this group. I have learned valuable information about how to be an active listener, examine our truths, and use dialogue in times of strife. Overall, I felt a bit sad to leave Lillehammer and come to Oslo because our time together was extremely special. I have enjoyed having friends to rely on and continue having dialogical conversation with at the Summer School. I am excited to utilize my knowledge from the Nansen Center and begin my research for the Peace Scholars Program.

Thanks again to Chro, Christiane, Anita, Alfredo, Steinar, and everyone else!

Sarah Hamid’s first blog

This summer, I was lucky enough to be selected as a Peace Scholar at the University of Oslo’s International Summer School, and embark on a new journey to Norway! Myself, along with 13 other Peace Scholars, and about 15 other amazing folks from all around the world, were chosen to attend a 1 week intensive dialogue session at the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue, and then later continue our summer studies for 6 weeks at the University of Oslo’s International Summer School. We began in Lillehammer, a small skiing town North of Oslo, full of charm, Winter Olympic energy, and of course the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue. Here, we began an intensive week long dialogue training, which completely transformed the ways in which I view myself, and others. After such an intense week, I felt challenged and prepared in many ways, but I also felt that there was more to come. Hint, there most certainly was. Transitiong to the busy and bustling city life of Oslo was a very different experience from the sweet ski town of Lillehammer, but because of this, Oslo also presented new opportunities for adventure. My first adventure began immediately after registration and check in, and took place in downtown Oslo. Filled with rainbows, glitter, and lots of love, Oslo Pride was an experience that I will never forget, and a perfect start to my time in Oslo. Then came classes, one of the main excitements of the International Summer School. Entering my Peace Scholars Seminar Course, a room filled with people I had already connected and bonded with, felt as though I was walking into an academic family. When tasked with a research project relating in some way to Norway, I knew that I wanted to work on a project that addressed land, and the rights of the Sámi, or the Indigenous people of Norway. Coming from Hawaiʻi, a wonderful chain of islands full of aloha ʻāina, Indigenous leaders, and strength, I know the power that Indigenous people hold, and how their stories are often untold, suppressed, and written out of history. Living in Hawaiʻi, I witness such atrocities first hand, and in the present, whether it be ongoing settler colonialism, the desecration of Mauna a Wākea (#AOLETMT), or rampant militarism. When looking into contemporary Sámi issues, I came across many news articles detailing the proposed Arctic Railway, and the vehement Sámi opposition. In addition to my Peace Scholars Seminar Course, I am also taking an International Politics/Relations course, where we discuss many issues in Norway, as well as Indigenous issues. I couldn’t believe that we hadn’t discussed the Sámi or Arctic Railway at all. To me, this highlighted the absolute lack of regard for Indigenous issues, as well as sustainable land practices, which troubled me deeply. For these reasons, I have decided to focus my research project for the Peace Scholars Seminar on the erasure of Sámi narratives relating to the Arctic Railway. I feel so grateful to have these opportunities to learn more about Indingeous communities worldwide, who are relentlessly resisting colonialism, imperialism, land degradation. As I continue my journey throughout the ISS and Peace Scholars Seminar course and research, I look forward to standing in solidarity with the Sámi people, and supporting them in their fight against the Arctic Railway! Following in the line of thinking of many wonderful people, activists, and scholars who came before me, there cannot be peace without justice, so let our fight towards justice continue! Justice for the Sámi people, peace for the world! P.S. The statues in Oslo are super awesome! 🙂

Notions of Peace, Imperialism, and Norwegian Nationalism By: Barbara Nicole Gilchrist

In the Peace Scholars Seminar, the question “Is Norway a Peace Nation?” was posed as the guiding topic for that day’s discussion. Together, we reflected on various components of the question; What does “peace” mean? What does “nation” mean? What is “Norway”? Being university students, it was easy to get technical about these questions and broader themes. Peace can be positive or negative and has much to do with various forms of violence. Nation can include ethnic groups and geographic boundaries of designated groups. Norway is quite literally the Nordic country we have all come to study in as Peace Scholars. So perhaps it seems quite counter intuitive to be sitting here pondering if Norway is a “peace nation.” The seemingly obvious answer is yes. But most of us answered with a resounding no.

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre, argued that Norway has all the makings of a “peace nation” in his 2006 speech at the Nobel Peace Center. In his speech he talks of the various peace talks Norway has been apart of and organized for others to engage in. He speaks of the Norway’s systematic international agenda of peace- which benefits Norwegians and the others. As a black woman that lives in the united states, I must say that I paid special attention to the notion of an other in the Former Minister of Foreign Affairs speech. Perhaps I should expect us versus them language from someone in charge of Foreign Affairs. The job title itself argues that there is an in group that must deal with the out-group. Perhaps the real problem is that I have come to expect this kind of language from western countries. Perhaps the problem is that I don’t see Norway as a “peace nation” or in any particular position to assemble itself into one beyond its national myth.

Prior to coming to Norway, I talked with my friends about how I was excited to be coming back to Norway, but wishing that the Peace Scholars program had been attached to a different place. When I think of peace work, I think of apartheid reconciliation in South Africa, work on community building after genocide in Rwanda, the deescalation of violence after civil war in Nicaragua. I don’t think of a western country, believing itself to be homogeneously white, that has benefited from a global system of white, western domination, and that profited from building the ships that forced my ancestors to the plantations of america, and continues to sell oil while being “environmentally conscious”. I don’t think of a community where the Sami must continue to fight for basic rights and the recognition of the damages of the Boarding School program. I don’t think of a country rampant with appropriation of my Black culture and heritage because “it’s cool”. I don’t think of the country where I saw someone wearing box braids and confederate flag patch and was paralyzed with fear for my safety. But the former Minister seems to think the exact opposite. It is the Middle East that is not peaceful. It is the whole of the African continent that is not peaceful. It is the whole of South and Central America and Mexico that is not peaceful.

In class, we talked about how the notion of a peace nation became inextricably linked with Norwegian Nationalism. It comes out of a particular interpretation of history, the Nobel Peace Prize, the role of Fridtjof Nansen, and the indoctrination of children with the belief that Norway is peace. I don’t want to diminish the very real impact studying at the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue has had on me. I genuinely think that dialogue needs to be used far more often than it ever is. But to characterize Norway as a peace nation without recognizing its past, and continued, role in colonisation, its alignment with NATO, and its treatment of the Sami and immigrants, is to revise history and ignore much of Norway’s present. To claim Norway is a peace nation because it hasn’t had a war on its soil in years, is to condemn past and present colonized countries for struggling after centuries of having all their natural resources stolen and being destabilized for the benefit of white, western countries.

So is Norway a peace nation? I don’t think so. But do I think Norway currently holds all the tools to become one? No. I do however think Norway has the opportunity to grow in its relations with their designated others. And it starts with an honest interpretation of history and the acknowledgement of Norway’s role in upholding a world system that benefits the white and western, and demonize whoever doesn’t fit into that category. It starts with being honest about the treatment of the Sami and immigrants. It starts with acknowledging cultural appropriation. It starts with valuing the other, and respecting that their conception of peace may not be the Norwegian conception of peace. And it starts with creating a new national myth.