TALKING CIRCLE
(school counselling
home page)
A talking circle differs from the circle discussion
groups often used in college, university, and adult educational settings. Here,
I first give an overview of the talking circle, then discuss the concerns
raised with the adult educational literature on discussion circles, explore the
relevance to the talking circle format, and finally share recommendations for
addressing those concerns.
From a First Nations’ perspective, talking circles
are modeled after the cycles of the natural world (Pranis,
Stuart & Wedge, 2000) and are central to their cultural and social
processes (McCold & Wachtel,
1997). The use of a talking circle is different from our familiar adversarial
way of resolving conflict. Often part of an individual’s initial experience in
a talking circle is surprise in having to shift to a slower pace (Baldwin, 1994). This is in keeping with Bohm et al.’s (1991) conviction that dialogue requires a
slowing down of the thought process. Baldwin
(1994) suggests three forms for the talking circle: using the talking piece,
conversational mode, and silence. Pranis et al. see
the following common practices and principles at work in the talking circle:
participants act on personal values, have direct and equal opportunity to
participate, participate voluntarily, practise
respect, and design their own resolutions.
Pranis et al. (2000) also identify four stages of the
circle process: acceptance of the circle—defining the process, parties
agreeing to meet; preparation—information sharing, identifying the
participants, building familiarity with people and process, determining
timelines; gathering—sharing concerns and aspirations, building
relationships, telling the stories, finding common ground, exploring options,
building consensus, clarifying objectives; and follow-up—accountability
of participants, assessing progress, making adjustments, celebrating successes
(p. 33).
Despite the differences between talking circles and
discussion circles, some of the same cautions may apply. Fine (1997) and Brookfield (1998, 2001)
express a number of concerns with the use of discussion circles or groups. Brookfield (1998) is
concerned that the circle can “be experienced as a mandated disclosure, just as
much as it can be a chance for people to speak in an authentic voice” (p. 289).
Brookfield, (2001) challenges the notion that “any talking of the discussion
method as if it were a single, integrated approach to facilitating learning
that achieves broadly the consequences each time it is used is hopelessly naïve
and simplistic” (p. 212). A third concern is that “what counts as ‘good’
discussion springs from a particular sociopolitical milieu and represents the
values of those who have managed to lever themselves into positions as
professional gatekeepers” (p. 212). The common theme in these concerns is
power—who has it, and how is it used?
Although the context of the talking circle may
differ from the discussion groups that Brookfield
is addressing, his questions are helpful in critically reflecting on the
practice of talking circles. Brookfield
(1998) is quick to stress that he supports the use of discussion groups and is
not suggesting that “we go back to the dark days of teachers talking
uninterruptedly at rows of desks” (p. 289). His practice is to make as explicit
as possible the question of power, and to suggest openly to his students that
just being in a circle does not remove the power relations from the group. He
also invites reflection on this topic and practices a no-speech policy where
students have the freedom to speak or to remain silent.
In her discussion of talking circles, Baldwin (1994) suggests the use of three principles
concerning power questions: rotating leadership, shared responsibility, and
reliance on the spirit. She also encourages individuals to practice speaking
with intention, listening with attention and self-monitoring the impact of his
or her contributions. Pranis et al. (2000), in
keeping with the First Nations tradition, place strong responsibility on the
elder or gatekeeper of the circle and refer to the gatekeeper as the servant of
the circle process. They suggest that the gatekeeper’s qualities should include
“community respect, knowledge of the community, a reputation for fairness and
integrity, understanding of the practices and principles of peacekeeping
(talking) circles, skill in facilitating difficult conversations, empathy and
respect for others, and humility” (p. 35).