A dialogue process on a controversial documentary (video)

Domain of activity
  • Animation of group
  • Educational sequence
  • Training
Objective of the tool/method In this sequence, from different points of view, we would like to focus on the importance of the neutrality (or more exactly of multipartiality) posture of the trainer and, on the other hand, to question the learners in their listening posture. In this case, the trainer acts as a mediator / moderator, and not as a transmitter ; while the group is invited to progress collectively through a dialogue, despite the discrepancies expressed. To work on this sequence, it is therefore better to choose a case which may provoke a debate. For example, one can propose a documentary that gives a very technicist reading of agro-ecology, or on the contrary a very idealistic vision. The elements below are mainly based on Geyser's experience in territorial dialogue, whose specificity is to integrate the principles of mediation into the collective management of environmental issues or territorial development.
Description of the tool From the viewing or reading of a documentary, the trainer proposes to the group to engage in a dialogue process from the point of view of each one. This approach can be divided into three key stages : __First step: building a common vision on a given topic__ The trainer proposes a tour of the different points of view. It is not a question of trying to get everyone to agree, but to ensure that the points of view of each other are heard and understood. For the trainer, it is necessary to be particularly attentive to what each formulates what is important to him (and gradually goes beyond the stage of the positions). This implies on his part an active listening (rephrase, invite to deepen ...) without making a judgment on the point of view expressed; Attention, this does not mean that he does not have an opinion on the matter, but that he detaches himself from his personal point of view to allow the expression of all the others. All the participants are also invited to adopt a posture of listening without interfering in the expression of the different points of view. Before proceeding to the next step, care should be taken to note down and share (by writing on the board, for example) all the values and needs expressed. //Examples of values and needs that can be expressed after viewing a documentary with a "divisive" vision of agroecology- For me, in the agro-ecological approach what is important is to prioritize respect for the living in all its dimensions. - For me, it is important that we leave a too idealistic approach and that we integrate the economic realities. - For me, it is important to be careful not to impose a vision of agro- ecology that would be based on rigid ecological principles.// This step also makes it possible to reveal the points of disagreement, on which, as it stands, it will be difficult to move forward and the points still to be deepened, on which the group needs more elements to move forward. //Example of disagreement point : Compatibility of the agro-ecological approach with the use of GMOs Example of point to deepen : Can we talk about agro-ecology in the context of production systems completely controlled in greenhouse ?// __Second step : formulation of major shared issues__ On the basis of the values expressed in the previous stage, the group is invited to agree on one or more shared issues; it is to formulating what makes sense for the group, which is considered important in an agro- ecological approach (what is at stake). //Example of a shared stakes : Better value the resources of a territory while respecting natural balances.// The trainer thus animates the exchanges, always on a principle of listening and mutual respect in order to favor the expression of all. Everyone is encouraged to take into account what they have heard and understood in the previous stage to foster convergence and the formulation of shared issues. __Step three : formulate shared recommendations / proposals__ It is in this last step of the sequence to project itself in proposals that respond to the stakes formulated in the previous step, taking into account the values expressed in the first step. It is a way for the group to reinforce the awareness that if we do not agree on everything, we can nevertheless find points of agreement that allow us to advance collectively, from the moment when everyone Is in the opening compared to the point of view of the other. In this stage, the trainer is always in his mediation / animation function, with the aim of fostering the creativity of the group. In order to foster the deepening of the proposals, this last step can be carried out in thematic subgroups. //Example of proposal Collect local knowledge with former farmers, allowing a better understanding of the past use of the territory and its evolution to better take into account its potentialities.//
More information __Outlook__ Such an approach, based on dialogue, is particularly suited to the approach of agro-ecological knowledge which, by definition, depends on contexts, circumstances and experiences. More broadly, it questions the posture of each, trainer and learners, in approaching the realities of a terroir. An approach favoring dialogue is particularly useful, particularly in the analysis phase of the collected knowledge. What counts in the analysis process is not to achieve their validation or to the contrary to the invalidation of certain knowledge but to allow the crossing of the looks and to take into account the different contributions. This approach promotes the hybridization of knowledge. This echoes the approach proposed for organizing and organizing a structured exchange group at the level of a small terroir region around a farmer's group (see fiche on Farmers' links / demonstration network /training).
Contact Jean-Luc Camapgne
Address 43700 CHASPINHAC
Author of the index card Marie-Laure Girault
Author structure Association Geyser