Page 370 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

Several dialogue participants commented that during or after the dialogue, they

experienced a better understanding about issues or comments related to race. Certainly not all

participant volunteers expressed greater understanding resulting from the dialogues talking about

bias or race. Levels of understanding ranged from acknowledgement that listening must occur by

the one who inflicted the pain and the one feeling the pain, the role of post-dialogue reflections to

the painful awareness of the remaining vestiges of dual systems of treatment that still exist.

“There was a desire to be heard and be understood and to listen to others in order to gain

new insights. You have to be willing to listen and understand in order to have other people

listen and gain an understanding from you.” (P14FAA)

“Fast forward later that week or early the next week I thought about that the dialogue gave

me a little bit more understanding about different things that she has said to me over the

years. After having conversations and after being at this talk and hearing people say how

racism has affected them, I now have a better understanding.” (P05MW)

“I don’t know why we don’t hear about it, why we haven’t heard more about those very

concrete examples of disadvantage. I now know there was this double system.” (P04FW)

Evidence of shared understanding illuminates how dialogue participants experienced

varying degrees of acceptance of other members in the group and perhaps the experiences of others

in the local community. Shared understanding in part comes through listening and then being able

to identify with what is being shared based issues that are important to the listener.

Wheatley (2007) explained that in spaces of public listening we do not need to interpret

events or issues the same, rather we have to “share a sense of what is significant” (p. 53).

351