In music, painting, and dance, there is always a search for a new language—one that expresses the forms, styles, and tendencies of the present moment while hinting at what is to come.
By David Andersson and Dennis Redmond
We are all communicators. And like artists, we need discipline in how we express ourselves. We need to search for a new, universal language—one that reflects our time and our vision of the future.
In his 1993 talk “The Conditions of Dialogue,” Silo argues that genuine dialogue goes far beyond the mere exchange of words or logical arguments. While formal conditions—such as agreeing on a shared topic, assigning similar importance to it, and using common definitions—are necessary, they are not sufficient. True dialogue depends on deeper, often invisible “pre-dialogic” elements: the intentions, beliefs, values, and interests that each participant brings before any words are spoken. These underlying frameworks shape not only what is said, but what is heard, often explaining why people can understand each other’s words yet still fail to truly connect.
Silo emphasizes that these pre-dialogic conditions are rooted in broader historical and social contexts, making dialogue particularly difficult when participants operate within different worldviews or sensibilities. He notes that many ideas—especially those ahead of their time—initially encounter incomprehension or rejection because they clash with prevailing beliefs. In today’s global crisis, superficial or fragmented approaches prevent meaningful dialogue on fundamental issues, as dominant systems and assumptions remain largely unquestioned. Ultimately, Silo says, authentic dialogue is a living, human process grounded in shared transformation: it can only deepen when individuals and societies begin to move beyond inherited illusions and open themselves to new ways of understanding.
Today, we live in a fragmented and destructured world, where genuine dialogue struggles to emerge. We can see this at the international level: in conflicts involving Ukraine and Russia, Iran and Israel, Israel and Palestine, China and the United States. In many cases, as seen in recent ceasefire negotiations that collapsed before the conditions for genuine dialogue were ever established, we cannot seek outcomes without first creating those conditions. War, genocide, or sanctions cannot generate them. At times, it is not even clear whether the objectives of the talks are shared or understood.
But this fragmentation is not limited to geopolitics. It also appears in our daily lives and interpersonal relationships. The immediacy of communication has, in many ways, weakened our capacity for dialogue. It has become so easy to react—without time for reflection, study, or understanding. Video calls, social media, emails, and instant messages have replaced letters, public gatherings, and carefully constructed reporting.
Language is not neutral. The way we speak shapes how we perceive others, interpret events, and imagine what is possible. In this sense, language is itself a pre-dialogic condition—one we can actually influence. A society whose dominant language is saturated with fear, cynicism, and permanent conflict will tend to reproduce those very conditions. But when people begin speaking about reconciliation, shared futures, and human unity, new possibilities start to become imaginable. Before a new reality can be built socially, it must first find words.
This is why coherence—the alignment of what we feel, think, and do—shapes not just who we are, but how we are heard. It is what gives language credibility and force. Much of today’s deep distrust flows from the opposite: people say one thing, think another, and act in a third direction entirely. We speak of peace and generate violence. We declare shared values and live their contradiction. When this gap becomes chronic, language itself loses power—words stop building anything because no one believes they correspond to reality.
Coherence, then, is foundational to the pre-dialogic work. It cannot be performed or proclaimed. It has to be lived—in how we speak with our neighbors, our families, our colleagues; in whether “I don’t have time” means a genuine constraint or simply a lack of interest. These small dishonesties accumulate. They are the micro-conditions that make or break the possibility of genuine encounter.
This reframes what responsible action looks like today. Many who care deeply about the world’s crises, shaped by older frameworks, still call on us to take sides—to join one camp against another. But this is often less a strategic choice than a failure of imagination: when people cannot picture a world beyond existing factions, reinforcing those factions feels like the only available move. The belief that fragmentation can be overcome—that bridges can actually be built, that genuine dialogue is possible—is not naive optimism. It is a precondition for acting differently. Without it, even the most committed people find themselves reproducing the very divisions they hoped to dissolve. The more urgent task, then, is to recover and sustain that belief—and from that ground, to create the conditions in which genuine dialogue, and ultimately reconciliation, becomes possible.
The blueprint is this: that people begin to believe a different world is possible, and start examining—honestly—the intentions, assumptions, and worldviews they carry into every encounter. That is pre-dialogic work. Without it, dialogue cannot take root. And without dialogue, there is no path toward reconciliation—or toward a civilization that deserves to be called human.
Our responsibility, then, is to take part in this construction—not to wait for the conditions to appear, but to become people who help make them possible.
Dennis Redmond is a longtime nonviolence advocate, currently serving as Coordinator for the Community for Human Development in the United States and as a co-founder of the Hudson Valley Park of Study and Reflection. As Coordinator for the Community for Human Development, Redmond has played a central role in organizing and advancing initiatives that promote nonviolence, social justice, and ethical engagement in communities—most notably in events such as the New York City Walk for Nonviolence.
