Abandoning Conversation
When problems arise, we often deploy a familiar tool: conversation. And there are many versions of it:
Yet, with all these types and all the resources designed to support them, we rarely ask a fundamental question: What if conversation itself is the problem, not the solution?
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that communication is the problem. Rather, it’s this particular form of communication we call conversation that may be problematic.
Etymologically, conversation comes from con (with) and versare (to turn). The aim of a conversation is to turn—often to turn someone else. We enter conversations hoping the other person will turn to see something differently: perhaps to admit they were wrong, or to recognize that we are right. Sometimes we converse in hopes of turning ourselves, to see our own blind spots or errors. But this assumption—that someone must turn, and that someone is usually not me—is what makes conversations so fraught.
We talk about conversations being tough, difficult, authentic, and even fierce, precisely because they’re set up as confrontations. They often carry an adversarial undercurrent and, as a result, they frequently fail.
What if, instead of conversation, we turned to another form of communication: dialogue?
Etymologically, dialogue combines dia (through) and logos (word). A dialogue is about talking through things. The aim is not to turn anyone—not the other, not even oneself. Dialogue creates space for each participant to fully express their perspective, without the expectation that anyone will change their mind. It's not adversarial. In fact, true dialogue requires helping each other articulate and clarify their thoughts. The goal isn’t to turn, but to speak through.
Ironically, because dialogue lowers defenses, it creates the greatest opportunity for genuine change. People are more likely to see where the other is right, to recognize their own blind spots, and to shift their views—not because they’re pressured, but because they’re free to explore without threat. Unlike conversations, which often entangle identity and ego, dialogue allows for openness.
Perhaps that’s why we don’t hear about crucial, fierce, difficult, or authentic dialogues—because dialogue, by nature, doesn’t need to be any of those things. Dialogues require us to be curious for the sake of clarity and relationships. Not to turn anyone.
