Why Socratic dialogue should become our business card | Sira Abenoza | TEDxESADE

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

Do we really know how to dialogue? Listen to the Founder of the Institute for Socratic Dialogue and Professor at ESADE Business and Law School explaining how and why to engage in real dialogue.

Sira Abenoza is a professor on Sustainability, Business Ethics and Socratic Dialogue at ESADE Business and Law School, as well as Visiting Professor at the Jesuit Universities in Central America. She is founder of the Institute for Socratic Dialogue, an organization aimed at spreading true dialogue as a tool for companies to engage with its stakeholders; for governments to promote peace and strengthen democracy; and for NGO and civil organizations to give voice to the voiceless.

Don't worry,

I did not go blank, it was planned,

because today I want
to talk to you about dialogue.

Although it's a bit ironic to be talking
about dialogue while doing a monologue,

but I still haven't figured out
how to do a TEDx talk while dialoguing,

so I'll have to leave that one
for the next time.

So, today, I'm going
to talk to you about dialogue,

and that's why I started with a silence,

because dialogue
starts or grows out of silence.

Dialogue starts by looking at the people
that we have in front of us

and trying to understand

what is it that they're already sharing
without speaking.

I started my professional journey
with deep concern.

I had spent my years in college
divided into two worlds:

I spent mornings surrounded
by business students at a business school

where their main concern was

to make as much money as possible
by the time they would turn 30 or 40.

And I would spend afternoons
in the Faculty of Philosophy

surrounded by classmates

who would engage in endless conversations
on how to make the world a better place,

how to make it more just,
how to make it more liveable.

So, by the time I graduated,
I had something very clear:

there was something that had to be done,

or I desperately wanted
to do something about it,

because those classmates

that were doing
their studies in management

were the ones who would have
power in the future,

were the ones who would actually have
the chance to decide

what the world
would look like in the future.

And back then the only thing
they had in mind was to make money,

whereas my classmates in philosophy,

they did have great ideas
on how to make the world a better place,

but I somehow knew that they would never
have the power to make that real.

So then, my idea was,

"OK, so what if I tried
to bring philosophy,

and the concern
for society and for justice,

to management schools
to raise that awareness

among people who would have
power in the future?"

So that's how I started working

on corporate social responsibility,
business ethics, teaching, doing research,

and also consulting
with companies, with governments.

I spent a few years preaching
this idea that you all know,

which is that responsible management

is management that incorporates

the concern for all stakeholders.

So responsible management
is not only answering to our shareholders,

but it is trying to understand

what is it that our stakeholders need,
expect, what are their interests,

and that implies necessarily
engaging in real dialogue with them.

So, I was preaching that for a while,
and then after a while I thought,

"Well, this isn't working.

I mean, people seem
to agree with the idea,

but the truth is

that when they have to put it into
practice, they're actually not doing it."

And then I suddenly had
the breakthrough, and it was like,

"Yeah, of course, they're not doing it,
because they don't know how to dialogue."

And let's be honest,
do you think we know how to dialogue?

Politicians enter a TV set
having a certain idea,

and leave the TV set
thinking exactly the same.

They entered the TV set as a gladiator
that is about to win a battle

against an opponent
that is there at the TV set.

It's the same for people
who are in roundtables, talk shows;

all of them engage verbally

not trying to understand
what the others are about to say,

not trying to learn and to grow
from what the others are saying,

but in order to win a battle.

That's actually the kind of message
of that we're told all the time:

we live in a competitive society,

life is a zero-sum up game,

you win or you lose,
and you have to go about fighting.

You can bid with your business,

but you also compete individually
when you engage with someone,

because you have to show the world

that you're smart,
and that you can convince others.

That, which is a debate mentality,

is exactly the opposite
of what dialogue is.

So at the end of the day,

if our role models today
are the people that we see on TV,

we're not having role models
on how to dialogue.

So then my idea was,

"OK, if I want to make
future managers more responsible,

I will have to help them
relearn how to dialogue."

Because I think that it's not
that we never knew how to,

it's that we have forgotten,
we've lost the habit on how to.

Then the question obviously was,

"Yeah, great, you have to teach
how to dialogue,

but the question is how."

Because, yeah, great,
it sounds great, but how -

if no one is teaching us?

Then I remembered about this guy
that I used to read a lot about,

you know him, he was called
the father of philosophy - Socrates.

Socrates spent all his life

walking around and engaging in dialogue
with the citizens from Athens.

So much so, that when he was sent to trial

accused of trying to pervert
the minds of young people,

and he was given the chance
to save his life if he stopped dialoguing,

he said, "No, guys, I'd rather die
than stop dialoguing,

than stop engaging
with others in dialogue."

So, I thought, he's our guy.

We need to reread,
relearn, or listen to his messages.

One of his main messages is
that all of us know more than we know,

meaning: the society has made us believe

that we're almost like empty recipients
that need to be told, that need to be fed

on what we have to learn,
we have to do, etc.

Socrates saw us, saw the human being,

as, I would say, almost the opposite.

All of us here have a great,
amazing knowledge inside of us.

The thing is that we need others
to help us give birth to that knowledge,

unravel those ideas
that we have inside of us.

So, in that sense, if we want to dialogue,

we will have to see the other as somebody
who has that potential in them.

And dialogue will be about collaborating,

it'll be about teamwork,

it will be about helping each other

to give birth to those ideas,
to that knowledge

that we have without knowing.

So, first of all, talking about the how,

the first thing
we have to bear in mind is:

we have that knowledge inside,

and we're not going to compete
to become aware of that knowledge,

we have to collaborate,

and we're going to help each other
to become more aware of that knowledge.

But that there is also another thing
that is very important,

and it is about changing our mindset.

For example, we all have
this tendency to judge

whatever is being said by others.

I know you're all judging me
- that's fine, I know that -

because we all judge
each other all the time.

If we want to dialogue,
we will have to stop judging others,

and we will have to start
really paying attention

to what is being said,

and feeling compelled

to help the other build their own ideas

that are there, latent, ready to be born.

So that's going to be very important.

But it's also going to be important
to connect to that genuine curiosity

that we used to have
when we were two or three,

when we kept asking asking
why, why, why, all the time,

and our parents were like,
"Ah, ya, stop it."

So, go back to that moment
where we had that genuine curiosity,

and when we were like Alice in Wonderland,

and the world was full of wonder.

So, that's how we should relate to others:

by connecting to our genuine curiosity,
because we all have that.

Also, another tricky thing is

that we will have to stop reacting
to what others say

as if it were a threat.

Because remember,
if others are a collaborator,

someone who can help us unravel our ideas,

whatever that other is going to say,
even if that is making us wrong,

or making it obvious
that what we would we just said is silly,

instead of taking that as a threat,

we have to see that that is a tool

that will help us, let's say,
uncover all the layers of our knowledge,

and get rid of the first layers
that are usually formed by prejudices.

So, in that sense,

whenever someone says something
that initially makes us feel bad,

let's think about it,
that can be a tool that can help us;

and also let's be flexible,

because we have this tendency
to attach to our ideas

as if without them, we were nothing.

Well, ideas don't belong to anybody,

and what is interesting is to improve
and make them more sophisticated.

Also, it is important
what I told you at the beginning:

to deal with silence without going crazy,

because we have time:

if we want to dialogue,
there's no rush, we have to breathe,

and we have to be
comfortable with silence.

But, you know what?

Actually, dialogue is about practicing.

I can tell you 1,000 ideas,

but what is more important
is that you start to practice.

Start to practice

- and that I would say is relevant,
and that needs to be set -

start to practice having something
very important in mind and in your body,

which is, if you want to dialogue,
you have to trust.

The reason why we're not
being able to dialogue today

is because we don't trust each other.

That's why we judge, that's why we react,
because we're trained to debate,

we're trained to fight,
and we see others as a threat.

If we want a dialogue,

the basis, what we need to do, whatsoever,
otherwise it's not going to happen,

is trust others.

Of course, it takes courage,

because dialoguing means opening up,

means sharing your ideas
and sharing your feelings.

And we don't know
what the other is going to do

with our thoughts and with our feelings.

But, if we want to dialogue,

we'll have to admit
and have that leap of faith,

because otherwise
it's not going to happen.

And then you might say,

"Yeah, but come on,
I mean, I'm fine the way I am.

Why should I need to open up

and then expose myself
to the threat of others?

I'm fine, I'm comfortable.

I don't need to open up,
I don't need to dialogue."

Well, I'll give you two reasons
why it does make sense to dialogue.

The first one is social.

Socrates used to say
that evil always comes out of ignorance.

And I would like to qualify that idea.

To me evil comes
out of ignorance of the other.

If we're trained to debate,
which means if we're trained to fight,

we're not being able to see the other,

we're not being able to understand

what is it that the other
is feeling, experiencing,

because we're about to fight.

If we start to open up,

and see the other as a person, complex,
with feelings, and with everything,

it'll be much harder for us
to hurt, to do evil,

because we're going to be able
to put ourselves in their shoes,

and then understand or feel
the harm that we're about to provoke.

And that, at least,
is going to reduce a little bit

the evil that is caused in the world.

I've seen that in jail.

I've been, in the last years,
practicing dialogue in jail.

You cannot imagine how tough
inmates are in terms of dialoguing,

because they don't trust anybody.

They admit along the way

that they haven't been able to dialogue

not only because they don't trust anybody

but because they grew up in an environment

where there was no trust,
where nobody trusted them,

and very young, they learned
that they couldn't trust anybody.

Once they understand

- while dialoguing with law students
and with other groups -

that by opening up, engaging
in dialogue, and by trusting

they regain hope in the world,

and they understand
the harm that they created,

that creates a mental and emotional shift.

So, why to engage in dialogue?

Because if you are, if we are,
concerned about the future of the world,

and we want to reduce evil,

dialogue is a powerful tool
to reduce evil.

But I'm also going to give you
a personal, more individual reason.

I guess you all want to be happy.

Aristotle used to say
that happiness means, or is, flourishing;

meaning a happy person is a person
that has been able to flourish,

to develop all the potential
that they have inside of them.

If our life is about
competing, about debating,

we will not have the time and space

to grow the potential
that we have in ourselves,

and therefore, according to Aristotle,
we will never be able to be happy.

Hannah Arendt, the German philosopher,

had this beautiful metaphor;

she said, "Every time a baby
is born in the world,

there's hope that a new world
is going to grow."

So the idea is that not only that baby
is born in a world that is new to them,

but that those babies
have the potential to build a new world.

Those babies are only going to have
the potential, the possibility

to build that new world

if we give them the chance,
if we give them the space and the time.

If instead of growing, competing,
and being in a constant battle,

they have the chance
to engage in dialogue with each other,

and they can see others and trust others

as people who are going to help them

to grow that new world
that they have in them.

Before I leave,
I want to share a secret with you.

Every day when you wake up
in the morning,

you are that newborn.

You are that newborn that is born
in a world that is new to them.

You are the newborn
who has the power to choose

whether you want to trust,

to develop, and help others develop,

and therefore,
make the world something new,

make the world a better place.

(Applause)