Conceptual Framework: Emerging Orienting Sensitivities for Relationships and 概念框架：新興的關係導向敏感性
Conversations that Invite Transformation and Possibility 邀請轉變和可能性的對話
Harlene Anderson
The conceptual framework of collaborative-dialogic practice (C-D) and its core assumptions owe a great debt to the work of many philosophers, social scientists, linguists, and other scholars involved in the evolution of social constructionism and postmodernism. In sum, these scholars critique an assemblage of taken-for-granted notions and suggest alternative perspectives. To mention a few: 合作對話實踐（C-D）的概念框架及其核心假設深受許多哲學家、社會科學家、語言學家和其他參與社會建構主義和後現代主義演變的學者的影響。總之，這些學者批評了一系列被視為理所當然的觀念，並提出替代的觀點。舉幾個例子：
language as formative rather than representative; 語言作為形成性的而非代表性的；
knowledge as a communal achievement rather than an individual one; 知識作為共同的成就而非個人的成就；
the observer as participant in creating what is experienced or observed rather than an objective description; and 觀察者作為參與者，創造所經歷或觀察的事物，而非客觀描述；
self as a dynamic, relational social construct rather than a static individual contained entity. 自我作為一個動態的、關係性的社會建構，而非一個靜態的個體封閉實體。
These notions thread through postmodernism, social constructionism, hermeneutics, and various perspectives on language and dialogue. None suggest a defined historical era, but rather a transcendent and pragmatic value. That is, we are invited to recapture our humanness in our individual, collective, and institutional engagements-all within a context of the tension between the familiar and unfamiliar. I place these and related assumptions under the term postmodernism. 這些概念貫穿後現代主義、社會建構主義、詮釋學以及對語言和對話的各種觀點。這些概念並不暗示一個明確的歷史時期，而是具有超越性和實用價值。也就是說，我們被邀請在個人、集體和機構的互動中重新找回我們的人性——這一切都在熟悉與不熟悉之間的緊張關係中進行。我將這些及相關的假設歸納為後現代主義。
Postmodernism is not marked by temporality, nor is it circumscribed by pre-established rules. It is preceded by modernism, yet is not a specific challenge to modernism nor all the philosophical and knowledge traditions that came before it. Rather, postmodernism is a philosophical movement that calls for skepticism and re-examination of these totalizing inherited truths and reality traditions. In the assemblage of its various versions-which, each in its own way, began as a challenge to the perceived constraints of classical and modern science-postmodernism first became associated with architecture and art and later the social sciences. 後現代主義並不以時間性為標誌，也不受預先確定的規則所限制。它是在現代主義之後出現的，但並不是對現代主義或之前所有哲學和知識傳統的具體挑戰。相反，後現代主義是一種哲學運動，呼籲對這些總體的繼承真理和現實傳統進行懷疑和重新檢視。在其各種版本的組合中——每一種都以自己的方式開始挑戰古典和現代科學的感知限制——後現代主義最初與建築和藝術相關聯，後來則與社會科學相關聯。
Postmodernism is simply one perspective among many. It is not a meta-perspective with a privileged position, but simply an alternative perspective offered for consideration, and places itself under the same skeptical scrutiny that it suggests for well-established knowledge discourses. It also emphasizes the deterritorialization of academic and disciplinary borders. This is a call to come out of our monophonic homogenized silos and to carefully step into a heterogeneous, polyphonic space. 後現代主義僅僅是眾多觀點中的一種。它並不是一種具有特權地位的元觀點，而僅僅是一種提供考慮的替代觀點，並且將自己置於它所建議的對於既有知識話語的懷疑審視之下。它還強調學術和學科邊界的去領土化。這是一個呼籲，讓我們走出單音化的同質化孤島，謹慎地步入一個異質的、多聲部的空間。
Some traditions transcend the present moment and can be thought of as intellectual heirlooms that span cultures, contexts, and disciplines. Postmodernism emerged as a categorization of a set of abstract assumptions that do not call for the abandonment of traditions that precede it, but rather appeal for the emergence of shifts in our discourses that can allow for spontaneous responsiveness relevant to contemporary life.’ Lyotard (1979), who is credited with introducing the term postmodernism, roughly defined it as “incredulity toward metanarratives” and the power their legitimacy gains-a call for a move away from consensus toward a sensitivity for differences (p. xxiv). 一些傳統超越當前時刻，可以被視為跨越文化、背景和學科的智識傳承。後現代主義作為一組抽象假設的分類而出現，並不要求放棄其之前的傳統，而是呼籲在我們的話語中出現變化，以便能夠對當代生活的自發反應。萊奧塔（Lyotard，1979）被認為是引入後現代主義這一術語的人，他大致將其定義為“對元敘事的不信任”，以及它們的合法性所獲得的權力——這是一個呼籲，要求從共識轉向對差異的敏感性（第 xxiv 頁）。
An in-depth discussion of these assumptions and their historical trajectory is beyond the scope of this book. My aim here is provide a straightforward overview of these ideas. However, there are significant contributions that are well worth reading. For a detailed discussion, which will also shine light on the over-time emergence of the framework, please see the Suggested Reading List above the References at the end of this section. 對這些假設及其歷史軌跡的深入討論超出了本書的範疇。我的目的是提供這些思想的簡單概述。然而，有一些重要的貢獻非常值得閱讀。欲了解詳細討論，並且能夠照亮該框架隨時間的出現，請參見本節末尾參考文獻上方的建議閱讀清單。
Conceptual Framework: Key Concepts 概念框架：關鍵概念
Three key concepts are discussed below: language, knowledge, and ways of being and becoming in relationship. They are followed by a discussion of dialogue. Combined, they support a view of humans as linguistic, dialogic beings who together create knowledge. 以下討論三個關鍵概念：語言、知識，以及在關係中存在和成為的方式。接下來是對話的討論。這些概念結合在一起，支持人類作為語言性、對話性存在的觀點，並共同創造知識。
Language 語言
Humans are linguistic beings. As Bakhtin (Holquist, 1990) says, we are dialogic beings or more precisely co-beings. We are born, live, love, work, and co-be in language. Language-or languaging, which is being in language or language in action-is how we construct and make sense of our world. Language includes any means through which we engage in communicative action: that is, express, articulate, and communicate with ourselves and others. This includes outloud speech, silent inner talk, written words and symbols, and bodily expression, and does not refer to the structure or style of language. Bodily expression does not only refer to how our bodies can communicate something to others, but also the ways in which our bodies also speak to us. We interactively generate meaning through any communicative action. 人類是語言生物。正如巴赫金（霍爾奎斯特，1990）所說，我們是對話的存在，或者更準確地說是共存。我們在語言中出生、生活、愛、工作和共存。語言或語言化，即在語言中存在或語言的行動，是我們構建和理解世界的方式。語言包括我們參與交際行動的任何手段：即表達、闡明和與自己及他人交流。這包括大聲說話、內心的沉默對話、書面文字和符號，以及身體表達，並不涉及語言的結構或風格。身體表達不僅指我們的身體如何能夠向他人傳達某些信息，還指我們的身體如何與我們對話。我們通過任何交際行動互動地生成意義。
Language is alive, not dead or static. It is our means for communicating, for creating and recreating our meanings. Language is therefore dialogical. Our language, our expressions, our utterances are always in response to something. Our histories, cultures, values, and so forth influence how we hear and how we understand what we respond to. These influence our interpretations and what we think is implied in what we think we hear. That is, our realities and truths are created in language and serve as filters that risk ‘interpretation verification’. The reality and truth are in how we use words not in the words themselves. Said differently, language and words do not mirror or capture but create. 語言是活的，而不是死的或靜態的。它是我們溝通的手段，是創造和重塑我們意義的方式。因此，語言是對話性的。我們的語言、表達和言辭總是對某些事物的回應。我們的歷史、文化、價值觀等等影響著我們如何聆聽以及如何理解我們所回應的事物。這些影響著我們的詮釋以及我們認為在我們所聽到的內容中隱含的意義。也就是說，我們的現實和真理是在語言中創造的，並作為過濾器，冒著“詮釋驗證”的風險。現實和真理在於我們如何使用詞語，而不在於詞語本身。換句話說，語言和詞語並不是反映或捕捉，而是創造。
Language, and thus meaning-making, is a dynamic social process. In this process we create our worlds, and the meanings and understandings we attribute to it. Importantly, in this process we create what we call “knowledge.” In other words, language, in one form or another, is the vehicle 語言，因此意義的建構，是一個動態的社會過程。在這個過程中，我們創造了我們的世界，以及我們賦予它的意義和理解。重要的是，在這個過程中，我們創造了我們所稱之為“知識”的東西。換句話說，語言以某種形式是知識的載體。
through which knowledge is formulated. This leaves important questions for us to consider: “How do I construct my world?” and “What distinctions am I making in doing so?” Responses to these questions, as to any question, are linguistic interpretations of something that is not static but rather in the process of becoming in our responding. Language is the primary vehicle for dialogue, which will be discussed at the end of this section. 透過知識的形成。我們需要考慮的重要問題是：「我如何構建我的世界？」以及「我在這樣做時做出了什麼區別？」對這些問題的回答，與任何問題一樣，都是對某種非靜態的事物的語言詮釋，而這種事物在我們的回應中不斷變化。語言是對話的主要載體，這將在本節結尾進行討論。
Knowledge 知識
Knowledge - whether called facts, truths, values, or morals-is socially constructed as we are in language with ourselves and others. The construction or creation of knowledge is situated in historical, cultural, social, environmental, and language contexts, among so many others. These contexts influence shared culturally and traditionally derived and supported knowledge, its sustainability, and its transformation. 知識——無論稱之為事實、真理、價值或道德——都是社會建構的，因為我們與自己和他人之間存在語言的互動。知識的建構或創造是根植於歷史、文化、社會、環境和語言等多種背景中。這些背景影響著共享的文化和傳統所衍生和支持的知識、其可持續性及其轉變。
Like language, knowledge is alive and dynamic. As a person or group of people explore and interact, and as they participate within a particular knowledge discourse, the interaction itself influences a change in the knowledge, for instance, its understanding and use. As a social creation, knowledge is multi-authored and ever-shifting. That is, knowledge in its transmission and reception inevitably changes; or, in other words, knowledge changes as it is shared. This dynamic view contrasts with a view of knowledge as something created out there by someone else and then given to us. As Chilean biologist Humbert Maturana (1978) suggests, there is no such thing as instructive interaction. Knowledge is not simply put into our heads or minds. We interact with knowledge offered to us and can easily absorb it unwittingly or take it for granted. A caveat: I am not referring to knowledge strictly in the academic sense but also knowledge we create with each other on an everyday basis and with relevance to our everyday lives, our more “local” knowledge, specific to us. 像語言一樣，知識是活的和動態的。當一個人或一群人探索和互動，並參與特定的知識話語時，互動本身會影響知識的變化，例如其理解和使用。作為一種社會創造，知識是多作者的，並且不斷變化。也就是說，知識在其傳遞和接收中不可避免地會改變；換句話說，知識在分享的過程中會改變。這種動態觀點與將知識視為由他人創造並交給我們的東西的觀點形成對比。正如智利生物學家洪伯特·馬圖拉納（Humbert Maturana）所建議的，沒有所謂的指導性互動。知識並不是簡單地放進我們的腦海或心靈中。我們與提供給我們的知識互動，並且可以輕易地不知不覺地吸收它或視其為理所當然。需要注意的是：我所指的知識並不僅限於學術意義上的知識，還包括我們在日常生活中彼此創造的知識，與我們的日常生活相關的，更“地方性”的知識，特定於我們。
Our own knowledge, history, culture, language, values, and so forth are the background that influences our interaction with the introduction of new knowledge, heard or read. Through this 我們自己的知識、歷史、文化、語言、價值觀等，都是影響我們與新知識（無論是聽到的還是讀到的）互動的背景。通過這種互動
interaction we sometimes notice a newness-a shift in meaning-and find relevance for the newness. We participate in the creation of the newness and make it ours. For instance, when we read a book related to our profession and hope to learn something new, we are in conversation with the author and ourselves. We are constantly interpreting, questioning, ignoring, or agreeing with what the author says. We cannot, however, put the author’s ideas or knowledge into our heads and duplicate it. Again, this is impossible. Knowledge, and language, are much too complex and dynamic for that. What is created in this process is influenced by what we bring to the reading (our distinct knowledges) and can often be surprising. 我們有時會注意到一種新鮮感——意義的轉變——並找到這種新鮮感的相關性。我們參與了新鮮感的創造，並使其成為我們的。例如，當我們閱讀與我們的職業相關的書籍並希望學到一些新東西時，我們與作者和自己進行對話。我們不斷地解釋、質疑、忽視或同意作者所說的內容。然而，我們無法將作者的思想或知識放入我們的腦中並複製它。這再次是不可能的。知識和語言過於複雜和動態，因此在這個過程中創造的東西受到我們閱讀時所帶來的（我們獨特的知識）的影響，並且往往會令人驚訝。
Collaborative-Dialogic (C-D) practitioners are more interested in “how to” knowledge: knowledge that is learned in the doing and, therefore, ever-emerging rather than static. They also value the assumptions that influence the “how to.” This contrasts with traditional conceptions of “knowing” justified beliefs and evidenced truths. I suggest that social psychologist John Shotter’s (2016) words about about writing apply to knowledge as well. That is, client and therapist continuously co-explore the focus of the client’s life situation for which they seek consultation, continually being open to the newness as it emerges. 協作對話（C-D）實踐者更關心“如何”的知識：這種知識是在實踐中學習的，因此是持續出現的，而非靜態的。他們也重視影響“如何”的假設。這與傳統的“知識”觀念形成對比，後者是基於信念和證據的真理。我建議社會心理學家約翰·肖特（John Shotter，2016）關於寫作的話語同樣適用於知識。也就是說，客戶和治療師不斷共同探索客戶尋求諮詢的生活情境的焦點，始終對新事物的出現保持開放。
My aim in my writing is to hear it, or to read it, not as offering the end or outcome of a philosophical deliberations, or as an explanation that we can put to use instrumentally, but instead - by reading it in accord with its hesitation-producing punctuation (aimed at undermining its seeming fact claiming nature) - the writing will be read as the beginning of a philosophical investigation, and will invite further investigation of our circumstances out in the worlds around us. p. 21 我寫作的目的是聆聽它，或閱讀它，而不是將其視為哲學思考的結局或結果，或作為我們可以工具性地使用的解釋，而是——通過根據其產生猶豫的標點符號來閱讀（旨在削弱其看似的事實主張性）——這篇寫作將被視為哲學調查的開始，並邀請我們進一步調查我們周圍世界的情況。第 21 頁
There are three things to keep in mind about knowledge. 關於知識，有三件事需要記住。
Be a critical and informed consumer of knowledge. Know why a particular body of knowledge, discourse, or practice method appeals to you. What is its value for you, and how might it enhance or have a negative impact on your practice? Maintain a 成為一個批判性和知情的知識消費者。了解為什麼某一特定的知識體系、話語或實踐方法對你有吸引力。它對你有什麼價值，以及它可能如何增強或對你的實踐產生負面影響？保持一種
willingness to continually inquire, question, and reflect on invisible grand narratives and dominant discourses and their truths. 持續詢問、質疑和反思隱形的宏大敘事和主導話語及其真理的意願。
A client brings their expertise on their life and situation to the encounter. This expertise is a valuable resource for the emergence of the kind of relationships and conversations presented in this book. Focusing on local knowledge moves us away from the abyss of a habitual application of theory-driven explanation and methods, or “outsider” knowledge. Said differently, there is a distinction between insider and outsider knowledge. Most importantly, what is produced in dialogue will be produced by both the client and the professional, and thus will have local relevancy. Appreciate, acknowledge, and use the local or “inner” knowledge - that is, the client’s competence, language, values, customs, and their sense of self and self-agency such as their reality of self and capability. 客戶在會面中帶來他們對自己生活和情況的專業知識。這種專業知識是本書中所呈現的關係和對話出現的重要資源。專注於地方知識使我們遠離對理論驅動的解釋和方法或“外部”知識的習慣性應用。換句話說，內部知識和外部知識之間存在區別。最重要的是，在對話中產生的內容將由客戶和專業人士共同產生，因此將具有地方相關性。欣賞、承認並利用地方或“內在”知識——即客戶的能力、語言、價值觀、習俗，以及他們的自我感和自我能動性，例如他們的自我現實和能力。
Generalized knowledge risks masking the complexities of human life. We are drawn to the familiar and can miss the unfamiliar or uniqueness of a person and their situation. Generalized knowledge can seduce us into seeing and hearing in terms of categories of people and problems. It can result in finding what you are looking for or confirming your pre-knowing. Be careful of generalizing so-called knowledge. 一般化的知識掩蓋了人類生活的複雜性。我們被熟悉的事物所吸引，可能會錯過一個人及其情況的陌生或獨特性。一般化的知識可能會誘惑我們以人和問題的類別來看待和聽取。這可能導致找到你所尋找的東西或確認你的先前認知。要小心所謂知識的一般化。
The above ideas about knowledge and language are important in the conceptualization of dialogue as a living, natural, and spontaneous relationship and process. But first, some words about ways of being and becoming. 上述關於知識和語言的觀點在將對話概念化為一種活生生的、自然的和自發的關係和過程中是重要的。但首先，談談存在和成為的方式。
Ways of Being and Becoming: Self in Relationship 存在與成為的方式：關係中的自我
“Human” being is the step for “human” becoming in the next step. “人”是“人”在下一步中成為的基礎。
Tom Andersen, 2007 湯姆·安德森，2007
A shift in the notion of self is also an important influence in C-D practice, and it based in the growing change in the Western psychological concept of self. The shift is from the self (or person) 自我概念的轉變也是 C-D 實踐中的一個重要影響，這基於西方心理學中自我概念的日益變化。這種轉變是從自我（或個人）
as fixed and autonomous with an inner core to a linguistic narrative view of self as relational (Gergen, 2009). That is, the self is created and understood in language, in relationship. This turns (or returns) to a renewed sense of an individual as not an isolated autonomous person but to a dynamic person in relationship. This further suggests a connection with notions of change or transformation: a person is not a subject of change nor a subject of a professional but is an active participant in the relationship and in the change. Additionally, there is no one-way unilateral causality. I cannot change another person nor can they change me. For an extended discussion of self, narrative, identity, and agency, see Anderson (1997) pp. 211-234 and Anderson and Goolishian (2002,pp. 217-228) in the bibliography below. 作為固定和自主的內在核心，轉向自我作為關係的語言敘事觀（Gergen，2009）。也就是說，自我是通過語言和關係來創造和理解的。這使得個體不再被視為孤立的自主個體，而是作為一個在關係中動態的人。這進一步暗示了與變化或轉型概念的聯繫：一個人不是變化的主體，也不是專業人士的主體，而是在關係和變化中積極參與者。此外，沒有單向的單邊因果關係。我無法改變另一個人，他們也無法改變我。關於自我、敘事、身份和能動性的擴展討論，請參見安德森（1997）第 211-234 頁和安德森與古利希安（2002，第 217-228 頁）在下面的參考書目中。
Our views and others’ views of us shift. Past, present, and future are an intertwined reflexive process, and thus so are our and others’ narratives about ourselves. Looping back to language, each view is the outcome of the human process of social relational meaning-making. We are always in a state of transformation or “becoming.” This happens in relationship. I try to remember that as a person-in-relationship, when the “I” speaks it is the “we” that speaks. 我們對自己和他人對我們的看法會隨著時間而變化。過去、現在和未來是一個交織的反思過程，因此我們和他人對自己的敘事也是如此。回到語言，每一種看法都是人類社會關係意義建構過程的結果。我們總是在變化或“成為”的狀態中。這發生在關係中。我試著記住，作為一個在關係中的人，當“我”發言時，其實是“我們”在發言。
I have passion for my practice and philosophical framework that orients me. I find it gives me a hopeful view of life and allows me to see the extraordinariness in ordinary people. A hope I have for this book is that it invites you, the reader, to sense the liberatory potential of this mindset shift. It gives us hope for our contemporary society and its future when we find ourselves easily slipping into thinking “things will never change” and “I have no voice in decisions and policies that effect my life.” 我對我的實踐和指導我的哲學框架充滿熱情。我發現這讓我對生活有了充滿希望的看法，並使我能夠在普通人身上看到非凡之處。我對這本書的希望是，它能邀請你，讀者，去感受這種心態轉變的解放潛力。當我們發現自己輕易地陷入“事情永遠不會改變”和“我在影響我生活的決策和政策中沒有發言權”的思維時，這給了我們對當代社會及其未來的希望。
I invite you to pause, step-back, and reflect on your practice and the conceptual framework that guides it. I encourage you to ask yourself these questions: Why do I do what I do? Do I contribute to polarizing positions? What informs the doing? And, to ask yourself, as I ask myself, what can I do from where I am to make a small difference in the world? Remember you can 我邀請你暫停、退後一步，反思你的實踐和指導它的概念框架。我鼓勵你問自己這些問題：我為什麼要做我所做的事情？我是否助長了兩極化的立場？是什麼影響了我的行動？還有，像我問自己的一樣，從我所在的位置，我能做些什麼來讓世界變得更好？記住，你可以
change yourself, but not another person. You have the potential to make a difference no matter the scale. It is important in our world today to be hopeful and use your voice. 改變自己，但不能改變他人。無論規模大小，你都有潛力去改變。今天在我們的世界中，保持希望並使用你的聲音是很重要的。
Pausing Reflection 暫停反思
I hope that experienced practitioners will be warmed and invigorated by meeting and revisiting these key concepts. For those new to this world, these ideas may be truly thrilling-or, they may seem a little strange. I hope that readers will take a moment to pause and reflect on how the application of these ideas may open new possibilities in your current context. 我希望有經驗的從業者在重溫這些關鍵概念時能感到溫暖和振奮。對於那些新進入這個領域的人來說，這些想法可能會讓人感到真正的興奮，或者它們可能看起來有些奇怪。我希望讀者能花點時間暫停並反思這些想法的應用如何在你當前的情境中開啟新的可能性。
The ideas discussed above led me, and countless other scholars and practitioners, to explore the possibilities of dialogue. In some ways, dialogue may appear so simple and small, and so local and ordinary. Every one of us engages in dialogue all of the time, without any guidance or training. And yet, as the next section shows, this ordinariness and everydayness is part of what makes dialogue-and collaborative-dialogic practice-so powerful. 上述討論的觀點促使我和無數其他學者及實踐者探索對話的可能性。在某些方面，對話看起來可能是如此簡單和微小，如此地方性和普通。我們每個人都在不斷地進行對話，沒有任何指導或訓練。然而，正如下一節所示，這種平常和日常性正是使對話和協作對話實踐如此強大的部分原因。
Collaborative Dialogue: What does it Invite? 協作對話：它邀請了什麼？
"Artistic form, correctly understood does not shape already prepared and found content, but rather permits content to be found and seen for the first 正確理解的藝術形式並不是塑造已經準備好和發現的內容，而是允許內容被發現和看見的第一步。
Artisans in Dialogue with Nature 與自然對話的工匠
Artisans-people who make things with their hands-respond to what a material is telling them to do with it and to how a tool reveals its potential uses. One summer, I met two weavers from an Indigenous rural community in Mexico. After their weaving demonstration, they graciously answered questions about their process. I curiously asked how they decided what to weave. They said the materials they find in nature tell them. Curiously, I said, “Please say more.” They talked about how what is available in nature changes with the seasons. When it’s time to weave, they explore what nature is offering and begin to have an idea about what they 工匠——那些用手製作物品的人——會根據材料告訴他們該怎麼做，以及工具如何揭示其潛在用途來進行創作。某個夏天，我遇到了來自墨西哥一個土著農村社區的兩位織布工。在他們的織布示範後，他們欣然回答了有關他們過程的問題。我好奇地問他們是如何決定織什麼的。他們說，來自自然的材料告訴他們。好奇之下，我說：“請多說一些。”他們談到自然中可用的材料隨著季節的變化而變化。當織布的時候，他們會探索自然所提供的材料，並開始對他們要織的東西有一個想法。
Harlene Anderson 2021 哈琳·安德森 2021
want to weave. The leaves in the fall, the berries in the summer, and the flowers in spring tell them what colors to use. Each kind of grass, leaf, bark, cloth, fiber, and animal fur vary in flexibility and durability and absorb the season’s dyes differently. As they gather materials, they notice them in their natural habitat, picking them up, touching them, and smelling them as their ideas about what to weave form. It is not unusual for the weavers (or any artisan) to change their minds about what they thought they would weave (create) as they and nature (their material) intertwine their expertise and engage in dialogue with each other. 想要編織。秋天的葉子、夏天的漿果和春天的花朵告訴他們該使用什麼顏色。每種草、葉子、樹皮、布料、纖維和動物毛皮在柔韌性和耐用性上各有不同，並且對季節的染料吸收也各異。在他們收集材料的過程中，他們注意到這些材料在自然棲息地中的樣子，撿起它們、觸摸它們、嗅聞它們，隨著他們對編織的想法形成。對於編織者（或任何工匠）來說，隨著他們與自然（他們的材料）交織他們的專業知識並彼此進行對話，改變他們原本認為會編織（創造）的想法並不罕見。
Professionals in Dialogue about Dialogue 專業人士對話的對話
Interest in dialogue is growing. Practitioners in psychology, education, organizations, communities, business leadership, management, and government are increasingly curious about dialogue. This curiosity is welcome, and yet, it often pulls people in the wrong direction. Thrilled by the transformational potential of dialogue, many immediately seek out the “best” formulas or steps for it. 對話的興趣正在增長。心理學、教育、組織、社區、商業領導、管理和政府的從業者對對話越來越感到好奇。這種好奇心是受歡迎的，但它往往會將人們引向錯誤的方向。許多人因為對對話的轉變潛力感到興奮，立即尋求“最佳”公式或步驟。
We often forget that current ideas of dialogue echo the early Greeks’ conception of dialogue, which is historically associated with Socrates and Plato. Dialogue was part of the Greeks’ continuous pursuit and love for knowledge. For the early Greeks, engendering space and process for dialogue invited the creativity and change that flowed through words. The space and process were more important than the product, solution, or consensus produced. Space for the Greeks could be a literal or metaphorical space in which people could connect, engage, and talk with each other. It was a space for dynamic generative interchange, a process in which new meanings and understandings-and new knowledge - could emerge. The newness emerges in the process of dialogue, and can present in terms of thought, word, emotion, action, and bodily sensation. Said simply, for the early Greeks, dialogue was having a meaningful and productive conversation. 我們常常忘記，當前的對話理念回響著早期希臘人對對話的概念，這在歷史上與蘇格拉底和柏拉圖有關。對話是希臘人持續追求和熱愛知識的一部分。對於早期希臘人來說，創造對話的空間和過程邀請了通過言語流動的創造力和變化。空間和過程比產出、解決方案或達成的共識更為重要。對於希臘人來說，空間可以是人們可以連接、參與和互相交談的字面或隱喻空間。這是一個動態生成交流的空間，一個新意義和理解——以及新知識——可以出現的過程。新意義在對話的過程中出現，並可以以思想、言語、情感、行動和身體感受的形式呈現。簡而言之，對於早期希臘人來說，對話就是進行有意義和富有成效的交談。
Theories about dialogue have been elaborated by scholar practitioners such as David Bohm (1996), William Issacs (1996) and Peter Senge (1990) and their practical applications can be found in the fields of education (Minor & McGauley, 1988; Shore & Freire, 1987; Wells & Arauz (2006) as well as management, organization and leadership development, and communications (Graybill & Easton, 2015; Reitz, 2015; Shields & Edwards, 2005). The focus is usually practical and pragmatic. By practical and pragmatic, I refer to methods and guides such as formulas with instructions and steps and other pre-arranged structures to follow. People want step-by-step recipes for how to do dialogue, and many practitioners have been happy to deliver them. 對話的理論由學者實踐者如大衛·博姆（David Bohm，1996 年）、威廉·艾薩克斯（William Issacs，1996 年）和彼得·聖吉（Peter Senge，1990 年）詳細闡述，其實際應用可見於教育（Minor & McGauley，1988 年；Shore & Freire，1987 年；Wells & Arauz，2006 年）以及管理、組織和領導力發展及溝通（Graybill & Easton，2015 年；Reitz，2015 年；Shields & Edwards，2005 年）。重點通常是實用和務實的。所謂實用和務實，是指像是帶有指示和步驟的公式以及其他預先安排的結構等方法和指南。人們希望獲得逐步的對話操作指南，許多實踐者也樂於提供這些。
An alternative perspective of dialogue as a concept, orientation, or stance also emerged and weaves throughout the work of philosophers and critical thinkers from the seventeenth century to the present day, such a Mikhail Bakhtin, Jean François Lyotard, Maurice MerleauPonty, Giambattista Vico, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and John Shotter. Their writings focus on understanding human beings as dialogical beings and on understanding their everyday lives from a relational-withness viewpoint. Relational-withness refers to interaction with another person that involves encountering their living being, utterances, words, and bodily expressions (Shotter, 2014). People act and think dialogically in relationship with others and themselves. 對話作為一種概念、取向或立場的另一種視角也出現了，並貫穿了從十七世紀到今天的哲學家和批判性思想家的作品，如米哈伊爾·巴赫金、讓-弗朗索瓦·利奧塔、莫里斯·梅洛-龐蒂、詹巴蒂斯塔·維科、路德維希·維根斯坦和約翰·肖特。他們的著作專注於理解人類作為對話存在，並從關係共在的視角理解他們的日常生活。關係共在指的是與另一個人的互動，涉及到遇見他們的生命存在、言語、話語和身體表達（肖特，2014）。人們在與他人和自己建立關係時以對話的方式行動和思考。
Dialogue as a concept, orientation, or stance requires a mindset shift that gives us the freedom to uniquely interact and respond with each other in ways congruent with the person and the occasion, that is, the reason for talking and being with each other. This perspective of dialogue invites us to thoughtfully consider ways of being with our clients and our colleagues that can invite and enhance the opportunity for generativity, for newness in thinking and acting. 對話作為一種概念、取向或立場，需要一種心態的轉變，使我們能夠以獨特的方式互動和回應彼此，這種方式與個人和場合相一致，即與彼此交談和相處的原因。這種對話的視角邀請我們深思熟慮地考慮與客戶和同事相處的方式，這可以邀請並增強產生性、新思維和行動的機會。
My interest in dialogue emerged from my early experiences in family therapy examining language and its use. This interest coincided with an awareness of developments in philosophy 我對對話的興趣源於我在家庭治療中的早期經歷，研究語言及其使用。這種興趣與對哲學發展的認識相吻合。
and the social sciences where dialogue as a formulaic method was challenged by an alternative mentioned above. Along with other clinical scholars, I began to write about dialogue as an idea about human beings and their interaction with each other, rather than focusing on an expert position of what it should look like (Andersen, 1987; 2007; Anderson 1997, 2012; Anderson & Gehart, 207; Anderson & Goolishian, 1988; Hoffman 2007; and Seikkula, 1993). 在社會科學中，對話作為一種公式化的方法受到上述替代方案的挑戰。與其他臨床學者一起，我開始撰寫關於對話的文章，將其視為人類及其相互作用的理念，而不是專注於應該是什麼樣子的專家立場（Andersen, 1987; 2007; Anderson 1997, 2012; Anderson & Gehart, 207; Anderson & Goolishian, 1988; Hoffman 2007; 和 Seikkula, 1993）。
I stress, as those I referenced above suggest, that dialogue does not only refer to words. Words are not enough. We must reach beyond words and keep relationship and context in mind. In a simplistic everyday understanding, I think of how animals in nature relate to and communicate with each other, what the Mona Lisa’s smile says, or the language of a handshake. We must move beyond words to expand our view of language as any means through which we try to communicate with others and with ourselves. 我強調，如同我之前提到的，對話不僅僅是指言語。言語是不夠的。我們必須超越言語，並保持關係和背景在心中。在一個簡單的日常理解中，我想到的是自然界中的動物如何彼此關聯和交流，蒙娜麗莎的微笑所傳達的意義，或是握手的語言。我們必須超越言語，擴展我們對語言的看法，將其視為我們試圖與他人和自己交流的任何手段。
As human beings, we are continually in a process of searching for meaning and understanding, and for how to continue in our lives in general or in a specific situation, as we search for and try to realize our futures. Life is too complex to think that there is a formula for this search. 作為人類，我們不斷地在尋找意義和理解的過程中，尋求如何在生活中繼續前行，無論是一般情況還是特定情境，因為我們尋找並試圖實現我們的未來。生活太複雜，無法認為這個尋找有公式可循。
What is Collaborative Dialogue? 什麼是協作對話？
I consider collaborative dialogue as a way of thinking about and understanding human beings and their quests to address their daily lives and move forward toward their future. It is multi-dimensional and entails a multiplicity of voices, including voices of those not present. Each encounter, relationship, and conversation is part of past, present, and future ones. 我認為協作對話是一種思考和理解人類及其在日常生活中應對挑戰、向未來邁進的方式。它是多維的，包含多種聲音，包括那些不在場的聲音。每一次相遇、關係和對話都是過去、現在和未來的一部分。
Context is the important backdrop for dialogue. This includes historical, cultural, organizational, and relational contexts, which we must remember are ever-shifting from moment-to-moment. Because the contexts in which dialogue occurs are ever-shifting, dialogue must always be natural and spontaneous. As a natural process, dialogue cannot be orchestrated or 背景是對話的重要背景。這包括歷史、文化、組織和關係背景，我們必須記住這些背景是隨時變化的。由於對話發生的背景不斷變化，對話必須始終是自然和自發的。作為一個自然的過程，對話不能被精心安排或管理。
managed. It is sporadic and will make its own way, sometimes with surprising twists, turns, detours, and pauses. 它是偶發的，會自我發展，有時會出現驚人的轉折、變化、繞道和暫停。
In other words, we must be open to where the dialogue takes us. There is no one entryway or starting point for dialogue, and none is more correct than another. Dialogue is not necessarily continuous, but it must be sustainable. It can pause and start again, but the starting point will not be where the dialogic partners left off. We cannot assume that we will resume where we paused. 換句話說，我們必須對對話帶我們去的地方保持開放。對話沒有一個唯一的進入點或起點，沒有一個比另一個更正確。對話不一定是連續的，但必須是可持續的。它可以暫停並再次開始，但起點不會是對話夥伴上次停下的地方。我們不能假設我們會在暫停的地方重新開始。
For me, the activity of dialogue is a particular kind or form of talk in which we engage in a mutual/shared inquiry or exploration about the focus of the conversation or topic. I tend to think conversation and dialogue are synonymous. That is, if you think as I do, that in conversation what I have mentioned so far applies or can apply. If so, why use a strange word like dialogue? I am sure there are many reasons why a person would prefer the term dialogue over conversation. Perhaps dialogue is viewed as having more depth and gravity than conversation. Perhaps conversation risks being misunderstood as too-informal or non-serious talk, or evokes the casualness of when someone says, “I had a conversation.” 對我來說，對話的活動是一種特定的談話形式，我們在其中進行相互/共享的探究或探索，關於對話的焦點或主題。我傾向於認為對話和談話是同義的。也就是說，如果你和我一樣認為，在談話中我所提到的內容適用或可以適用。如果是這樣，為什麼要使用像對話這樣奇怪的詞呢？我相信有很多原因使得某人更喜歡使用對話這個術語而不是談話。也許對話被視為比談話更有深度和嚴肅性。也許談話有被誤解為過於非正式或不嚴肅的風險，或者喚起某人說“我有過一次談話”時的隨意感。
An important difference between conversation and dialogue can be the intent with which we enter. For some, the term dialogue serves as a necessary reminder to enter with intention regarding the process, whereas conversations merely “happen.” For instance, I may want to talk about my vacation with a friend who has been to the same destination. We’re still dialogical beings and newness may not be what we are looking for, but it can occur. Importantly, though, either can be a generative or transforming experience. Being in dialogue (whether in out loud or silent talk) always has the potential of being transformational. This transformation does not necessarily happen in the moments of our engagement with each other. In other words, the process generates dynamic sustainability. 對話和談話之間的一個重要區別可能在於我們進入時的意圖。對某些人來說，對話這個術語是進入過程時需要的提醒，而談話則僅僅是“發生”。例如，我可能想和一位去過同一目的地的朋友談談我的假期。我們仍然是對話的存在，新鮮感可能不是我們所尋求的，但它可能會發生。重要的是，無論哪種情況都可以是產生性或轉變性的經歷。進行對話（無論是大聲還是靜默的交談）總是有潛力成為轉變的。這種轉變不一定發生在我們彼此互動的瞬間。換句話說，這個過程產生了動態的可持續性。
Dynamic sustainability is a term I offer to refer to the difficult-to-understand transformational process of dialogue. The term emerged from my practice experience as clients reported the changes in their thinking, attitudes, and behaviors during the process of our dialogues/conversations but also as they continued their everyday lives. Dialogue as an emergent process has the capacity to maintain itself once we have paused our engagement. By maintain I do not mean duplicate; dialogue takes on a unique and fluid life of its own through people and circumstances. It’s like dialogue is a force that stimulates change, transformation, and progress. The process proves to have transferability in helping people adapt and respond to future life situations. It makes me think that dialogue is boundaryless. 動態可持續性是一個我提出的術語，用來指代對話這一難以理解的轉型過程。這個術語源於我的實踐經驗，因為客戶在我們的對話/交談過程中以及在他們日常生活中報告了思維、態度和行為的變化。對話作為一個新興的過程，具有在我們暫停參與後仍能維持自身的能力。這裡的維持並不意味著重複；對話通過人和情境獲得獨特而流動的生命。就像對話是一種刺激變化、轉型和進步的力量。這一過程證明在幫助人們適應和應對未來生活情境方面具有可轉移性。這讓我想到對話是無邊界的。
In sum, dialogue refers to two intertwined ideas that are important for a mindset shift: 總之，對話指的是兩個相互交織的觀念，這對於心態轉變非常重要：
Humans are dialogic beings. 人類是對話的存在。
People live, love, work, and co-explore with each other through language. 人們通過語言生活、愛、工作和共同探索。
The professional’s aim is to establish a space and dynamic process for dialogic exploration to occur, with the belief something new or different will emerge. Space, relationship, and process are critical for dialogue, and thus, for newness to emerge. 專業人士的目標是建立一個空間和動態過程，以便進行對話探索，並相信會有新的或不同的事物出現。空間、關係和過程對於對話至關重要，因此對於新事物的出現也是如此。
Space refers to both a physical and metaphorical space. In my training and writing, I sometimes refer to the Japanese word bab a to describe the kind of space and relationship I am referring to. BaB a is an interactional shared space and process that is a foundation for knowledge. The quality of the relationships among the participants is critical to the knowledge-creating process. This quality can be thought of as a feeling of connectedness and trust. This focus on the relationship is different from the early Greeks, who didn’t talk about relationships as far as I ascertain. 空間既指物理空間，也指隱喻空間。在我的訓練和寫作中，我有時會提到日語中的 bab a 來描述我所指的那種空間和關係。 BaB a 是一種互動的共享空間和過程，是知識的基礎。參與者之間關係的質量對於創造知識的過程至關重要。這種質量可以被視為一種連結感和信任感。這種對關係的重視與早期希臘人不同，據我所知，他們並沒有談論關係。
Usually, a physical space with an opportunity for face-to-face experiences is key to the relationship and conversation. In the pandemic era, this was not possible, and people had to meet 通常，擁有面對面經驗的物理空間對於關係和對話至關重要。在疫情時代，這變得不可能，人們不得不在線上會面。
virtually. I was pleasantly surprised, however, to learn that people found ways to create connections and engage in dialogue electronically. This moment highlighted the critical role of the facilitator in preparing for and facilitating relationships and conversations. Without physical space and literal face-to-face interaction, the facilitator must be even more thoughtful and creative in cultivating bab a. 然而，我感到驚喜的是，人們找到方法在電子上建立聯繫並進行對話。這一時刻突顯了促進者在準備和促進關係及對話中的關鍵角色。在沒有實體空間和面對面互動的情況下，促進者必須更加深思熟慮和富有創意地培養 bab a 。
Newness can be knowledge or a clarification (an altered understanding, idea, or action). The newness may not be immediately discernable or fully formulated, because dialogue, like language, is alive and dynamic. The newness may appear later, and often does. The present dialogue may pause, but it will often continue elsewhere as inner talk with oneself of out-loud talk with another. Outside the formal talk is where the newness sometimes occurs as people continue to talk with themselves and perhaps others. This continuing is the dynamic sustainable aspect of dialogue. 新 ness 可以是知識或澄清（改變的理解、想法或行動）。這種新 ness 可能不會立即顯現或完全形成，因為對話就像語言一樣，是活的和動態的。新 ness 可能會在稍後出現，並且經常會出現。當前的對話可能會暫停，但它通常會在其他地方繼續，作為與自己內心的對話或與他人的大聲對話。在正式的對話之外，人們繼續與自己和其他人交談的地方，有時會發生新 ness。這種持續性是對話的動態可持續性方面。
What Does Collaborative Dialogue Look Like? 協作對話看起來是什麼樣的？
This is a challenging question because it depends on the participants and their relationship, and the context and agenda. This is one of those questions that invites me to pause and consider how to respond. 這是一個具有挑戰性的問題，因為它取決於參與者及其關係，以及上下文和議程。這是那些邀請我暫停並考慮如何回應的問題之一。
It is better to show rather than to tell. Thus, in my workshops, I often offer to have a conversation with someone to show one example of dialogue. Hopefully, I have the opportunity for two or more conversations to show that each dialogic relationship and process is unique. A living dialogue demonstration invites an opportunity afterwards to hear descriptions of the relationship and process from the person I am speaking with and from the observers and listeners as well. I share my experience after others have shared theirs. Despite the uniqueness of each dialogue, if you are looking for some identifiable features that invite dialogue, then you will find them. 展示比告訴更好。因此，在我的工作坊中，我經常提供與某人進行對話的機會，以展示一個對話的例子。希望我有機會進行兩次或更多次對話，以展示每個對話關係和過程的獨特性。生動的對話示範之後，邀請聽眾和觀察者聽取我所交談的人的關於關係和過程的描述。我在其他人分享他們的經驗之後分享我的經驗。儘管每個對話都是獨特的，但如果你在尋找一些可識別的特徵來邀請對話，那麼你會找到它們。
What Does Collaborative Dialogue Invite? 協作對話邀請什麼？
Dialogue as a concept, orientation, or stance (and not as a method) invites a shift in orientation or mindset. I next review eight invitations dialogue offers. 對話作為一個概念、取向或立場（而不是方法）邀請思維或心態的轉變。我接下來回顧對話所提供的八個邀請。
Dialogue invites the reflexive, intricately intra-twined actions of speaking, listening, responding, hearing, and understanding. I speak to invite the other person to speak so that I can listen to them. I want to listen attentively, carefully, and with an attitude of interest. I respond to what is said with comments, questions, and bodily movements-this helps me know if I am hearing and understanding their meanings. I want my response to signal that I am interested in what they said and learning more about it. 對話邀請反思性、錯綜複雜的言語、聆聽、回應、聽見和理解的行動。我說話是為了邀請對方說話，以便我能夠聆聽他們。我希望能夠專心、仔細地聆聽，並帶著興趣的態度。我對所說的內容做出回應，通過評論、問題和身體動作來確認我是否聽懂了他們的意思。我希望我的回應能夠表明我對他們所說的內容感興趣，並想要了解更多。
Dialogue provides the opportunity for people to speak and to listen to themselves uninterrupted, without judgment-perhaps as they have not been able to do before. 對話提供了人們有機會不受打擾地說出和聆聽自己的想法，而不受評判——也許這是他們之前無法做到的。
Dialogue invites responsive understanding. Responsive understanding refers to active understanding. Understanding is not a passive activity. It involves checking to see if you have understood or heard what the other hoped you would hear. Checking is not paraphrasing or parroting back the client’s words. We must use other words for comparison and contrast to see if our understanding is close or not. Responsive understanding is a critical feature of dialogue. You are responding from within the relationship, as a partner in the conversation rather than as an outside expert or judge. Responsive understanding invites words and phrases that are spontaneously, fittingly, and uniquely specific to the client and their language, life situation, and circumstances. It is important to keep in mind that responding from within the relationship is always on the background of invisible, inherited, and taken-for-granted sociocultural influences. 對話邀請響應性的理解。響應性的理解指的是主動的理解。理解不是一種被動的活動。它涉及檢查你是否理解或聽到了對方希望你聽到的內容。檢查並不是簡單地重述或復述客戶的話。我們必須使用其他詞語進行比較和對比，以查看我們的理解是否接近或不接近。響應性的理解是對話的一個關鍵特徵。你是從關係中回應，作為對話中的夥伴，而不是作為外部的專家或評判者。響應性的理解邀請使用自發、恰當且獨特地符合客戶及其語言、生活情境和環境的詞語和短語。重要的是要記住，從關係中回應始終是在看不見的、繼承的和被視為理所當然的社會文化影響的背景下進行的。
Dialogue invites trust and openness, especially to the other and their difference, and assumes that we, the professionals, can be questioned, critiqued, and not agreed with by the other. 對話邀請信任和開放，特別是對他人及其差異的信任，並假設我們這些專業人士可以被質疑、批評，並且不被他人認同。
Dialogue invites carefulness to not assume you know what the other person means and to not fill in the blanks or details of the other person’s story. We want to understand from the other’s sense-making/logic map and check to make sure we understand the other’s perspective as best we can. 對話邀請我們小心，不要假設你知道對方的意思，也不要填補對方故事中的空白或細節。我們希望從對方的意義建構/邏輯圖中理解，並檢查我們是否能夠盡可能地理解對方的觀點。
Dialogue invites asking curious questions to learn more, which invites the other to clarify and expand. Curious questions are not asked to gather facts and data. Curious questions invite a rethinking, reflecting, and reflexive process that is part of beginning to think and act differently. In the process of your learning more, the other can clarify, rethink, and reflect-which is integral to the transformational process of dialogue. 對話邀請提出好奇的問題以了解更多，這使對方能夠澄清和擴展。好奇的問題不是為了收集事實和數據而提出的。好奇的問題邀請重新思考、反思和反身的過程，這是開始以不同方式思考和行動的一部分。在你學習更多的過程中，對方可以澄清、重新思考和反思，這對於對話的轉變過程至關重要。
Dialogue invites and welcomes pauses and silences in out-loud talk, which provide opportunities for all participants to access and be aware of their inner thoughts. Pauses and silences are not only okay, they are important. We all need time to think about what we’ve heard and consider how we want to respond to what we think we want to say. 對話邀請並歡迎在口頭交流中暫停和沉默，這為所有參與者提供了機會來接觸和意識到他們內心的想法。暫停和沉默不僅是可以的，它們是重要的。我們都需要時間來思考我們所聽到的內容，並考慮我們想要如何回應我們認為想要說的話。
Dialogue invites a collaborative sensitivity that informs the ways of being in the relationship - one in which you want to create a sense of togetherness, including a sense of participating, contributing, and sharing responsibility. Collaborative sensitivity invites collaborative design. Think of collaborative design like deciding to take a walk with someone, together deciding where to go, when to pause, and where to detour. Collaborative design is part of the co-being, the being with, and the process of cogenerating newness in meaning, understanding, and action. 對話邀請一種協作的敏感性，這種敏感性影響著關係中的存在方式——一種你想要創造共同感的方式，包括參與、貢獻和分享責任的感覺。協作敏感性邀請協作設計。想像協作設計就像是與某人一起散步，大家共同決定去哪裡、何時停下來以及何時繞道。協作設計是共存的一部分，是與他人同在的過程，以及共同生成新意義、理解和行動的過程。
Some Actions Do Not Invite Dialogue 某些行動不邀請對話
Trying to persuade the other to agree with you or trying to lead them to an opinion or solution. This can lead to resistance. 嘗試說服對方同意你的觀點或試圖引導他們達成某種意見或解決方案。這可能會導致抵抗。
Asking a question that you think you know the answer to, or to get the answer you want. Both are usually an attempt to confirm your knowing. 提出一個你認為自己知道答案的問題，或者是為了得到你想要的答案。這兩者通常都是試圖確認你的認知。
Continually asking for details and data that you think are important, but the other person may not. This can be annoying or interpreted as not listening to the other. 不斷要求你認為重要的細節和數據，但對方可能並不在意。這可能會讓人感到煩惱或被解讀為不在聽對方的話。
Being in monologue with the self or other; that is, perseverating on the same idea. For example, you may create a picture of the person you are in dialogue with (or in other words, put them into a box or category), and base your questions and comments on this preconceived picture. 與自我或他人進行獨白；也就是說，對同一個想法反覆思考。例如，你可能會對與你對話的人形成一個印象（換句話說，把他們放進一個框框或類別），並根據這個先入為主的印象來提出問題和評論。
The risk in these examples is that each blocks your ability to be fully present and attentive and to really hear the other person’s words. This leads to the risk of losing your connection with the other person. 這些例子的風險在於，每一種情況都會阻礙你完全專注和注意，真正聆聽對方的話。這會導致失去與對方的聯繫的風險。
It is easy to slip out of dialogue with others and with ourselves, and thus to interrupt our connection. We all do it. Think about what might alert you and make you aware that any of these disconnections are happening. For some of us, we lose patience, look at the time, think about the traffic or our next meeting, or feel bored. Keep in mind, that sometimes our bodies tell us when we are falling out of step with our intentions. Our bodies talk to us. Once you are aware that you are slipping out of dialogue, you can try to slip back into it. Pause, take a deep breath, and start over. 與他人及自己進行對話是很容易滑出來的，因此會中斷我們的連結。我們都會這樣做。想想什麼可能會提醒你，讓你意識到這些斷連的情況正在發生。對於我們中的一些人來說，我們會失去耐心，查看時間，想到交通或下一個會議，或者感到無聊。請記住，有時我們的身體會告訴我們，當我們與自己的意圖脫節時。我們的身體會與我們對話。一旦你意識到自己正在滑出對話，你可以嘗試重新回到對話中。暫停，深呼吸，然後重新開始。
Five Things to Consider in Approaching Dialogue 進行對話時需要考慮的五件事
Attempts to trace back to a starting point or a significant moment are merely observer punctuations. It is seductive to think there was a time when real dialogue began or try to pin-point an aha h-ha moment. 嘗試追溯到一個起點或一個重要時刻僅僅是觀察者的標記。認為有一個時刻是真正對話開始的時候，或者試圖確定一個 aha h -哈的時刻是很誘人的。
Each person in the dialogue will have their unique interpretation of what is said, words used, and their meanings. 對話中的每個人對所說的話、使用的詞語及其意義都有自己獨特的解釋。
Dialogues are not always harmonious. Differences are inherent because of the multidimensionality of dialogue. Differences introduce the tension of non-clarity, 對話並不總是和諧的。由於對話的多維性，差異是固有的。差異引入了不清晰的緊張感，
Harlene Anderson 2021 哈琳·安德森 2021
ambiguity, incoherency, uncertainty, and misunderstanding that naturally inhabit dialogue because they are part of everyday life. Differences and the tension they create are a resource for dialogue and shared exploration. 模糊性、不連貫性、不確定性和誤解自然存在於對話中，因為它們是日常生活的一部分。差異及其所產生的緊張感是對話和共同探索的資源。
4. We can never fully understand another person; we can only approximate understanding and have some degree of agreement. For instance, when a client tells us about a conflict with their superior, their description is all we must work with, and that is why our curiosity is important-to continue to develop our and their understandings. 我們永遠無法完全理解另一個人；我們只能近似理解並達成某種程度的共識。例如，當客戶告訴我們他們與上司之間的衝突時，他們的描述就是我們所能依賴的全部，這就是為什麼我們的好奇心很重要——以持續發展我們和他們的理解。
5. As an inviter of dialogue, my intent is to invite and engage the other and myself in creating a process of dynamic sustainability. To accomplish this, I must be able to let go of any intent I may come with regarding change and outcome. I must let my intent be challenged, and to be able to challenge it myself. 5. 作為對話的邀請者，我的意圖是邀請並讓自己與他人共同創造一個動態可持續的過程。為了實現這一點，我必須能夠放下任何我可能帶來的關於變化和結果的意圖。我必須讓我的意圖受到挑戰，並能夠自己挑戰它。
Why is dialogue important in this era? 為什麼在這個時代對話如此重要？
The world is rapidly changing. Fiery civil wars and societal conflicts escalate and blow up. People migrate, borders collapse, and customs, traditions, and cultural artifacts are quickly altered or destroyed. The beliefs, ideas, and icons that hold up our identities feel increasingly lost or at risk, and people are quick to defend (and sometimes even willing to die for) those that remain. People walk out of meetings, raise their voice level, or stay silent when feel they are not heard or understood. It is easy for them to respond to others in ways that escalate the situation and perceive it as something they did rather than as something we did. This can be a polarizing trap. Thinking dialogically can help us avoid or minimize such traps and find meaningful ways to move forward. 世界正在迅速變化。激烈的內戰和社會衝突不斷升級並爆發。人們遷徙，邊界崩潰，習俗、傳統和文化遺產迅速改變或被摧毀。支撐我們身份的信仰、觀念和象徵感覺越來越失落或面臨風險，人們很快就會為那些仍然存在的東西辯護（有時甚至願意為之犧牲）。當人們感覺自己沒有被聽到或理解時，他們會走出會議、提高聲音，或保持沉默。對他人的反應很容易以升級局勢的方式進行，並將其視為他們的錯，而不是我們的錯。這可能是一個兩極化的陷阱。以對話的方式思考可以幫助我們避免或最小化這些陷阱，並找到有意義的前進方式。
Nowhere is dialogue and acceptance of the other more important than today in this incredibly sensitive and uncertain time we live in, with the intense visibility of the tragic stories of inhumane racism, violence, and natural disasters. Keep in mind that the organizations and 在這個極其敏感和不確定的時代，對話和接受他人的重要性比以往任何時候都更為突出，尤其是在不人道的種族主義、暴力和自然災害的悲劇故事被強烈曝光的情況下。請記住，我們所工作的組織和
businesses we work in are micro-systems within our larger global and national macro-systems. 企業是我們更大全球和國家宏觀系統中的微系統。
Each of us can make a difference in these systems, both micro and macro. Remember that dialogue is a living thing that can continue after we have left a particular dialogue. If part of what we are trying to do is to help a person successfully address a difficult situation and their desired future, that can (and indeed, often does) help them make a difference in their smaller or broader world. As Kenneth Gergen has suggested, each of us can be an agent of changing futures. 我們每個人都可以在這些系統中發揮作用，無論是微觀還是宏觀。請記住，對話是一種活的事物，即使在我們離開特定對話後，它仍然可以繼續。如果我們所嘗試做的部分是幫助一個人成功應對困難情況和他們所期望的未來，那麼這可以（而且確實經常會）幫助他們在他們的小世界或更廣泛的世界中產生變化。正如肯尼斯·格根所建議的，我們每個人都可以成為改變未來的代理人。
I think dialogue can support an ethical position with the other, not only in our relationships with clients, but also with colleagues, family, and friends, as well as others like the salespersons we meet when we shop or the stranger on the street. Because when you truly embrace dialogue, you don’t restrict it to specific settings, circumstances, or individuals. Dialogue becomes an orientation, a stance-a mode of being. As Tom Andersen (2007) wrote, “‘Human’ being is the step for ‘human’ becoming in the next step.” It allows us to be a human being with another human being. I repeat, it allows us to be a human being with another human being. 我認為對話可以支持與他人的倫理立場，不僅在我們與客戶的關係中，也在與同事、家人和朋友的關係中，以及在我們購物時遇到的銷售人員或街上的陌生人等其他人之間。因為當你真正擁抱對話時，你不會將其限制在特定的環境、情況或個體中。對話成為一種取向、一種立場——一種存在的方式。正如湯姆·安德森（2007 年）所寫的：“‘人’的存在是‘人’在下一步中成為的基礎。”它使我們能夠與另一個人類存在。我重申，它使我們能夠與另一個人類存在。
Suggested Readings 建議閱讀
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge. 博姆，D.（1996）。《對話》。紐約：勞特利奇。
Graybill & Easton (2015, April). The Art of Dialogue. Communication Skills for Leaders, 72(7). 格雷比爾與伊斯頓（2015 年 4 月）。《對話的藝術》。領導者的溝通技巧，72(7)。 http://www.ased.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr15/vol72/num07/toc.aspx. Isaacs, W. (1996). Dialogue: The art of thinking together. New York: Double Day. http://www.ased.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr15/vol72/num07/toc.aspx。伊薩克斯，W.（1996）。對話：共同思考的藝術。紐約：雙日出版社。
MacGregor, R., Ritchie, A. M., Serrano, A. C., Shuster, E. C., McDanald, E. C. & Goolishian, H.A. (1964). Multiple impact therapy with families. New York: McGraw-Hill. 麥克格雷戈，R.，里奇，A. M.，塞拉諾，A. C.，舒斯特，E. C.，麥克丹尼爾，E. C. 和古利希安，H.A.（1964）。與家庭的多重影響療法。紐約：麥格勞-希爾出版社。
Minor, N. & McGauley, L. (1988). A different approach: dialogue in education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 2(1), 127-140. 邁諾，N. 和麥高利，L.（1988）。不同的方法：教育中的對話。《社會工作教學期刊》，2(1)，127-140。
Reitz, M. (2015). Dialogue in organizations: Developing relational leadership. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan. 雷茨，M.（2015）。組織中的對話：發展關係領導。紐約：帕爾格雷夫/麥克米倫出版社。
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. (1990). 第五項修煉：學習型組織的藝術與實踐。紐約：Doubleday/Currency。
Shore, I. & Freire, P. (1987). Exploring dialogism and multivocality. Issues in Language Teaching, (1), 83-99. Shore, I. & Freire, P. (1987). 探索對話主義與多聲性。《語言教學問題》，(1)，83-99。
Wells, G. & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 15,3(2),83-9915,3(2), 83-99. Wells, G. & Arauz, R. M. (2006). 課堂中的對話。《學習科學期刊》。 15,3(2),83-9915,3(2), 83-99 。
References 參考文獻
Andersen, T. (2007). Human participating: Human “being” is the step for human “becoming” in the next step. Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference (pp. 81-93). New York: Routledge. 安德森，T.（2007）。人類參與：人類的“存在”是人類“成為”的下一步。協作治療：能夠改變的關係和對話（第 81-93 頁）。紐約：勞特利奇。
Andersen, T. (1987). Reflecting teams: Dialogues and meta-dialogues in clinical work. Family Process, 26, 415-428. 安德森，T.（1987）。反思團隊：臨床工作中的對話和元對話。家庭過程，26，415-428。
Anderson, H. (2020). Collaborative-dialogic practice: A relational process of inviting generativity and possibilities. In S. McNamee, M. M. Gergen, C. Camargo-Borges & E. F. Rasera (Eds.). The Sage handbook of social construction practice (pp. 131-139). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 安德森，H.（2020）。協作對話實踐：邀請生成性和可能性的關係過程。在 S. 麥克納米，M. M. 格根，C. 卡馬戈-博爾赫斯和 E. F. 拉塞拉（編）。社會建構實踐的薩奇手冊（第 131-139 頁）。加利福尼亞州千橡市：薩奇出版公司。
Anderson, H. (1997a). Conversation, language, and possibility: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York: Basic Books. (Chapters 1-6, 9 & 10). 安德森，H.（1997a）。對話、語言和可能性：一種後現代的治療方法。紐約：基本書籍。（第 1-6 章，第 9 章和第 10 章）。
Anderson H. & Gehart, Eds. (2007). Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference. New York: Routledge. (Chapters 1-5). 安德森 H. 和吉哈特編輯 (2007)。協作療法：能夠改變的關係和對話。紐約：勞特利奇出版社。（第 1-5 章）
Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. A. (2002). Narrative and self: Postmodern dilemmas for psychotherapy. In D. Fried Schnitman & J. Schnitman (Eds.), New paradigms, culture and subjectivity (pp. 217-228). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 安德森 H. 和古利希安 H. A. (2002)。敘事與自我：心理治療的後現代困境。在 D. 弗里德·施尼特曼和 J. 施尼特曼（編輯），新範式、文化與主體性（第 217-228 頁）。克雷斯基爾，新澤西州：漢普頓出版社。
Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Evolving ideas about the implications for theory and practice. Family Process, 27, 371-393. 安德森 H. 和古利希安 H. (1988)。人類系統作為語言系統：對理論和實踐的影響的演變思想。家庭過程，27，371-393。
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (Trans. C. Emerson & M Holquist; Editor Michael Holquist) Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. 巴赫金 M. M. (1981)。對話想像。（翻譯：C. 艾默森和 M. 霍爾奎斯特；編輯：邁克爾·霍爾奎斯特）德克薩斯州奧斯汀：德克薩斯大學出版社。
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1991). What is philosophy? (Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell). New York: Columbia University Press. 德勒茲, G. & 瓦特里, F. (1991). 什麼是哲學？（譯者：休·湯姆林森和格雷厄姆·伯切爾）。紐約：哥倫比亞大學出版社。
Gadamer, H-G. (1975). Truth and Method. (Trans. G. Burden & J. Cumming). New York: Seabury Press. 加達默爾, H-G. (1975). 真理與方法。（譯者：G. Burden & J. Cumming）。紐約：西伯里出版社。
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press. 格根, K. J. (2009). 關係存在：超越自我與社群。紐約：牛津大學出版社。
Goolishian, H. & Anderson, H. (2002). Narrative and self. Postmodern dilemmas for psychotherapy. In New paradigms, culture and subjectivity. D. F. Schnitman & J. Schnitman (Eds.). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. 217-228. 古利希安, H. & 安德森, H. (2002). 敘事與自我。心理治療的後現代困境。在新範式、文化與主體性。D. F. Schnitman & J. Schnitman（編輯）。新澤西州克雷斯基爾：漢普頓出版社，217-228。
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 哈金，I. (1999)。社會建構的是什麼？麻薩諸塞州劍橋：哈佛大學出版社。
Hoffman, L. (2007). The art of “withness”: A bright new edge. In H. Anderson & D. Gehart (Eds). Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference (pp. 63-79.). New York: Routledge. 霍夫曼，L. (2007)。與之共存的藝術：一個全新的邊緣。在 H. 安德森和 D. 吉哈特（編）。協作療法：能夠改變的關係和對話（第 63-79 頁）。紐約：勞特利奇。
Holquist, M. (1900). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world (Second ed.). New York: Routledge. 霍爾奎斯特，M. (1900)。對話主義：巴赫金及其世界（第二版）。紐約：勞特利奇。
Holquist, M. (Ed.). (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (Trans. C. Emerson & M Holquist) Austin, Texas: University of Austin Press. 霍爾奎斯特，M.（編）。(1981)。對話想像：巴赫金的四篇論文。（譯者 C. 艾默森和 M. 霍爾奎斯特）德克薩斯州奧斯汀：奧斯汀大學出版社。
Lyotard, J-F (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. Lyotard, J-F (1984). 後現代條件：知識報告。明尼阿波利斯，明尼蘇達州：明尼蘇達大學。
Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: Epistemology of reality. In G. Miller & E. Maturana, H. R. (1978). 語言的生物學：現實的認識論。收錄於 G. Miller & E.
Lenneberg (Eds.) Psychology and biology of language and thought (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic Press. Lenneberg (Eds.) 語言和思想的心理學與生物學 (第 27-63 頁)。紐約：學術出版社。
McNamee, S. (2015). Ethics as discursive Potential. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of McNamee, S. (2015). 作為話語潛力的倫理。澳大利亞和新西蘭期刊
Family Therapy, 36, 419-433. 家庭治療，36，419-433。
Seikkula, J. (1993). The aim of therapy is to generate dialogue: Bakhtin and Vygotsky in family session. Human systems: The journal of systemic consultation and management, 4, 33-48. Seikkula, J. (1993)。治療的目的是產生對話：巴赫金和維果茨基在家庭會議中的應用。《人類系統：系統諮詢與管理期刊》，4，33-48。
Shotter, J. (2010). Conversational realities revisited. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: The Taos Institute. Shotter, J. (2010)。重新審視對話現實。俄亥俄州查格林瀑布：陶斯研究所。
Shotter, J. (2016). Speaking, actually: Towards a new ‘fluid’ common-sense understanding of relational becomings. Farnhill, United Kingdom: Everything Connected Press. Shotter, J. (2016)。實際上在說：朝向一種新的“流動”共同常識理解關係的生成。英國法恩希爾：一切相連出版社。
Vygotsky, U.S. (1962). Thought and language. Edited and translated by E. Hanfman and G. 維果茨基，美國（1962）。思想與語言。編輯及翻譯：E. Hanfman 和 G.
Vakar. Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press. 瓦卡。麻薩諸塞州劍橋：麻省理工學院出版社。
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. (Translated by G. D. M. Anscombe). 維根斯坦，L.（1953）。哲學研究。（翻譯：G. D. M. Anscombe）。
Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle, New Jersey. 普倫蒂斯霍爾：新澤西州上薩德爾。
^(1){ }^{1} John Shotter (2016) cautions about thinking based in theoretical and conceptual formulations, like in the natural and physical sciences that correlate with an ideal reality; instead he suggests a humanifying practice SA, p. 181. He points out that theory is retrospective. It looks backwards and draws our attention away from noticing and away from the moment-to-moment happenings and to what he calls the not-as-yet-happened, the not-yet-said. That is, we work from the already fixed, our knowing, and miss what is emerging in front of us that we are participating in bringing into existence. This is what he calls a process view. (Speaking Actually, p. 12-13) 約翰·肖特（2016）警告不要基於理論和概念的形成進行思考，就像在自然和物理科學中那樣，這些理論與理想現實相關；相反，他建議一種人性化的實踐 SA，第 181 頁。他指出，理論是回顧性的。它向後看，並使我們的注意力遠離察覺和當下的發生，轉向他所稱的尚未發生的、尚未說出的。也就是說，我們從已經固定的、我們的認知出發，錯過了在我們面前出現的、我們參與創造的事物。這就是他所稱的過程觀。（實際發言，第 12-13 頁）
