The Human Right to Dialogue

In a true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. We have to appreciate that truth can be received from outside of – not only within – our own group… We have to believe that by engaging in dialogue with another person, we have the possibility of making a change within ourselves, that we can become deeper.
Thich Nhat Hanh

The launch of the 29th modern Olympic Games in Beijing on
August 8th has me pondering the glaring dialogic contrasts between two ancient cultures, the Chinese and the Greeks.

The practice of dialogue stems from the Greeks, specifically Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato. Their novel concept of dialogic exposition was practiced through a series of answers and questions between individuals. This practice later evolved into the art of debate. The simple purpose of dialogue was to ascertain truth. Socrates advocated for dialogical practices that stressed the importance of reciprocal and reflective questions and conversation that supported new questions and ways of viewing and knowing the world.

China, while welcoming the world to celebrate the Olympic tradition, does not abide by the Platonic practice of dialogue as synonymous with truth. Modern China has and continues to suppress dialogue on critical issues such as Chinese human, political, environmental, and religious rights. Two glaring examples that spring to mind include the Falun Gong movement and Tibet. Anti-Chinese thoughts, dialogues and actions regarding the aforementioned examples by Chinese citizens and occassionally international protesters have resulted not only in censorship of Internet access but meaningless violence. The Chinese approach to dialogue is congruous not with truth but suppression and censorship.

As I continue to watch and marvel at the sheer strength and spirit of all Olympic participants I remain vexed by the undermining of the Greek dialogic spirit.