Page 382 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

“Heart stories, hurt stories” generated different levels of understanding and responses

around and within the dialogue circle. There is no greater way to challenge deeply held points of

view than through witnessing the emotion of one or more group members relayed through

storytelling or recounting of an experience that evokes and forces new insights perspectives on the

part of the listener/receiver. Some of the responses were empathetic, other comments came across

in ways that suggested a disconnect in feeling and understanding, and yet others seemed to discount

the stories as irrelevant or lacking justification. In particular, two White males, after hearing stories

of racial discrimination by African Americans in the group offered comments and stories of their

own that reflected rather a privileged position and seemed to discount or totally ignore the

preceding heartfelt accounts from others in the group. The comments of these two men came across

(as described by interview respondents) as boastful and dismissive.

Those appearing disconnected from the heart stories and the perspectives the stories

conveyed were described by the group’s associated facilitator as White males displaying and

perpetuating “everyday racism” (Essed, 1991). The dialogues on race cultivated an environment

of safety that allowed attendees and facilitators to risk, display a range of emotions, engage in

storytelling and practice active and attentive listening to members of the dialogue group as they

shared experiences, thoughts and perspectives based on their aware experiences and position in

the community and larger society. The elements of the “heart stories, hurt stories” proposition that

emerged most prominently from the research include risk, emotion, storytelling and listening. Each

explains a particular significant aspect of the theoretical proposition.

It takes various levels of risking to engage in public dialogue and deliberation. In

Habermas’ view of the public sphere risk is minimized by the presumption of communicative

reasoning in which an ideal condition of freedom and equality exists (Thomassen, 2010).

363