Personal Development and Adults' Participation in Dialogue

Vicki Wiltse 1 PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ADULTS’ PARTICIPATION IN DIALOGUE 1 In my denomination, the Community of Christ, it is standard practice, at least in the United States, to have adult Sunday school classes at the same time as children’s classes. However, these adult religious education classes frequently are not safe places conducive to adults’ spiritual and theological growth and development. Even if the topic of a class would seem designed to lead people into new paths of understanding, the forces pulling toward conservation and group uniformity are always at work, holding people back from sharing thoughts and ideas that might distinguish them from the group or suggest that they or others need to change. In addition, as Carol Lakey Hess (1997) points out in her book, Caretakers of Our Common House, “Honest and deep conversation is easily thwarted in communities of faith, sometimes by harsh adversarial argumentation that silences some voices, other times by polite affirming discussion that keeps conversation on a surface level” (p. 183). The latter statement comes from Hess’s chapter, “Women and Conversational Education: Hard Dialogue and Deep Connections in Communities of Faith.” In this chapter, Hess (1997) advocates for “conversational education” in faith communities, which means “getting people to engage one another in honest and deep ways” in order to “probe beneath the surface” and “question the way things are” (pp. 182-183). “To be a community of inquiry,” Hess asserts, “means that in conversation people seek truth together, question unexamined assumptions, and challenge one another to go deeply into the search” (p. 190). Hess’s concept of hard dialogue sounds similar to what adult education theorist Jack Mezirow calls “critical-dialectical 1 This is a revised version of a paper presented Nov. 2007 at the Religious Education Association meeting in Boston, Massachusetts. A section of this paper was published as “Critical, Constructive Dialogue in Faith Communities and Issues of Personal Development” in Harmonic: A Newsletter of the Allen J. Moore Multicultural Resource & Research Center. Spring 2008: 6-7. Vicki Wiltse 2 discourse,”2 which plays a key role in his theory of transformative learning. One difference between the two concepts, though, is that Hess addresses the context of faith communities, while Mezirow is concerned with adult education in general. Through my research, I have been striving to develop an understanding of how transformative learning (based on Mezirow’s theory) might be facilitated in Christian congregations among adults who may not have college educations, much less graduate theological educations. In this regard, one major question in my mind has been: How does a religious educator engage persons at various levels of understanding and development in constructive conversations related to matters of belief and faith? To begin to answer this question, this paper considers how persons’ levels of development may influence the ways they participate in discussions designed to invoke critical thinking and reflection. I will also offer a model for guided discussion that may help develop skills for critical dialogue and build relationships and environments of trust that will ground and encourage a greater number of deep conversations in communities of faith. Before addressing these topics, I will explain what critical-dialectical discourse is for Mezirow, what he understands its prerequisites to be, and how these definitions relate to personal development. Prerequisites for Critical-Dialectical Discourse Transformative learning, according to Mezirow (1991), is a form of development in adulthood, but it “does not follow clearly defined steps or stages” (p. 152). Rather, it is about transforming “problematic” meaning perspectives or frames of reference, which are sets of orienting assumptions and expectations, into ones that are more inclusive, discriminating, integrative of experience, open to alternative perspectives, reflective, and emotionally capable of Mezirow has used the terms “rational discourse” and “reflective discourse” in the past, but “critical-dialectical discourse” appears to be his most recent terminology for this process (2003, 2004). 2 Vicki Wiltse 3 change. Sharan Merriam (2004) points out that many studies have demonstrated that development can be an outcome of transformative learning. She goes on to argue, however, that a certain level of development is necessary to engage in transformative learning, particularly the components of critical reflection and rational discourse. In relation to critical-dialectical discourse, Merriam states that engagement in it “assumes the ability to examine alternative perspectives, withhold premature judgment, and basically to think dialectically, a characteristic of mature cognitive development” (p. 61). Mezirow (2004) agrees with Merriam that persons do need to be at a certain level of development, specifically cognitive development, in order to be able to engage in transformative learning. He asserts that “what needs to be learned for transformative learning is critical reflection on assimilated epistemic assumptions and critical dialectical judgment to validate new assumptions” (pp. 69-70). In other words, to participate in these aspects of the transformative learning process, one must have developed the ability to do so. Before considering this issue further, let us look at what discourse is and what it entails for Mezirow. Critical-dialectical discourse is the process by which person’s beliefs or frames of reference are discussed and evaluated. Mezirow (2000) defines it as that specialized use of dialogue devoted to searching for a common understanding and assessment of the justification of an interpretation or belief. This involves assessing reasons advanced by weighing the supporting evidence and arguments and by examining alternative perspectives. Reflective discourse involves a critical assessment of assumptions. It leads toward a clearer understanding by tapping collective experience to arrive at a tentative best judgment (pp. 10-11). Mezirow draws heavily on Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action for his understanding of critical-dialectical discourse and the optimal conditions for participation in it. Hess (1997) also finds Habermas’s norms for rational and valid discourse useful in pointing to the skills and guidelines needed for undistorted, deep conversation, although she points to the Vicki Wiltse 4 limitations of his model as well (p. 240). For Mezirow (2000), the ideal conditions of discourse, which allow persons to “freely and fully participate,” are that participants have the following:        More accurate and complete information Freedom from coercion and distorting self-deception Openness to alternative points of view: empathy and concern about how others think and feel The ability to weigh evidence and assess arguments objectively Greater awareness of the context of ideas and, more critically, reflectiveness of assumptions, including their own An equal opportunity to participate in the various roles of discourse [questioning, reflecting, challenging, refuting, and hearing others do the same (1991, p. 78)] Willingness to seek understanding and agreement and to accept a resulting best judgment as a test of validity until new perspectives, evidence, or arguments are encountered and validated through discourse as yielding a better judgment (pp. 13-14). Over the years, Mezirow has acknowledged that these conditions have their own prerequisites. They “constitute a principle; they are never fully realized in practice” (2000, p. 14). He notes that emotional maturity, or what Daniel Goleman (1995) calls “emotional intelligence,” and having found one’s voice are prerequisites for “free full participation” in discourse (2000, p. 11). Mezirow (2003) also asserts that critical-dialectical discourse requires people to have developed the level of epistemic cognition characteristic of the highest stage (Stage 7) of King and Kitchener’s (1994) reflective judgment model. Essentially, this means that persons conceive of knowledge and justification of beliefs in the same way that Mezirow does: “Knowledge is the outcome of a process of reasonable inquiry”; and “beliefs are justified probabilistically on the basis of a variety of interpretive considerations” (King & Kitchener, 1994, pp. 15-16). In addition, persons at this stage remain open to revising their understandings as new evidence, approaches, or perspectives become available. The problem, as Merriam points out, is that, according to various studies, “Many adults do not operate at higher levels of cognitive functioning” (2004, 63). Kitchener and King (1990) admit that reasoning at their Stage 7 level Vicki Wiltse 5 “is a rarity even in graduate students, although it is found in some educated adults as they mature into their thirties and beyond” (p. 166). It is also obvious that not all adults have equal degrees of emotional maturity. The development of voice is a topic that will be partially addressed later in this article, with the awareness that when it comes to the expression of voice, other issues, such as cultural and power dynamics, are involved that are outside the scope of this essay. From this brief discussion, it is clear that Mezirow’s critical-dialectical discourse is limited to developmentally mature adults who are generally at least thirty years old and highly educated (see Figure 1). So what are religious educators who want to engage adults in hard dialogue to do? Before addressing this question, let us consider how people in various phases of cognitive development or in different epistemological positions might approach criticaldialectical discourse or hard dialogue in faith communities. 3 Approaches to Dialogue Based on Developmental Locations Both Mezirow (2000) and Hess (1997) mention that what Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) call “real talk” is closely related to their ideals for discourse/dialogue. “Really talking” is dialectic rather than didactic; it requires careful listening; and “it implies a mutually shared agreement that together you are creating the optimum setting so that half-baked or emergent ideas can grow” (Belenky et al., p. 144). This type of “talk” is characteristic of women who have acquired the way of knowing Belenky and her associates call “constructive knowing.” 3 I would like to note that the purpose of this paper is neither to support nor to critique Mezirow’s theory, but to consider some possible hindrances to its implementation. Likewise, many critiques have been levied against the developmental theories I reference, but my intent is to use them as tools for understanding, not to imply their universal validity. Vicki Wiltse, 6 Figure 1: JACK MEZIROW’S IDEAL CONDITIONS FOR DISCOURSE AND DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES Ideal Conditions for Discourse Freedom from distorting selfdeception (awareness of one’s feelings and beliefs) Ability to bracket immediate emotional reactions and to suspend judgments Openness to alternative perspectives; acceptance of difference Women’s Ways of Knowing Subjectivists: aware of personal beliefs and feelings. Constructivists: aware of moods, desires, thoughts, and judgments. Subjectivists: keep thoughts and feelings to themselves. Procedural Knowers: try not to jump to conclusions; assume others have something good to say. Subjectivists: all people have a right to their own opinions; may not be open to others’ ideas. Procedural: consider others’ perspectives. Subjectivists: empathic with those with whom share similarities. Connected Knowers. Constructivists: connect despite great differences. Ability to be Procedural, especially objective in Separate Knowers: seek assessing evidence to be objective, critical, and arguments analytical, and systematic. Perry’s Epistemological Development Kegan’s “Evolving Self” Stage 2-3 Transition: become aware of own feelings. King & Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Stage 7: aware that time, experience, and new data may lead to new knowledge that replaces the old Stage 4: become critically reflective of one’s beliefs. Institutional Balance (Stage 4): regulate feelings. Stage 7: open to having current judgments challenged and changing them Stage 5: seek to know other on its own terms before making judgments Multiplicity: all people have a right to their own opinions, but want others to share mine. Full relativism: truth is relative. Interpersonal Balance (Stage 3): open, but don’t separate own point of view from others’. Interindividual Balance (Stage 5): recognize and affirm distinct identities. Interpersonal: identify with or immersed in others – no boundaries. Inter-individual: mature empathy. Stage 4: all points of view are idiosyncratic so tolerant of alternative perspectives. Stage 5: different views may be legitimate interpretations of issues. Stage 4: relativity, objectivity and differentiation lead to tolerance. Stage 5: recognize that truth is multidimensional and need others’ perspectives. Stage 5: seek to understand others from their points of view Relativism Subordinate: analytical, evaluative. Interindividual Stage 6: able to evaluate some perspectives as better than others. Stage 3: formal operational thought -step outside of self and one’s stories. Empathy Fowler’s Stages of Faith Vicki Wiltse, 7 Conditions Awareness of cultural and contextual influences on ideas WWK Constructivists: recognize that everyone constructs knowledge and contexts and culture influence this. Perry Full Relativism: meaning depends on context and knower’s framework. Ability to reflect on assumptions, one’s own and others’ Procedural: develop methods of analyzing ideas; focused on how persons have formed beliefs. Subjectivists: have, but don’t express voice. Procedural: inner voice is critical, so think first and speak carefully, if at all. Constructivists: voice is developed and expressed. Procedural: only argue if relationships not at risk. Constructivists: these are part of “real talk.” Constructivists: high tolerance for, even challenged by, ambiguity and contradiction; appreciate complexity. Full Relativism: realize knowledge is constructed Having and being able to express one’s personal voice Challenge, question, and refute others Ability to deal with ambiguity and paradox Willing to seek agreement and accept group’s consensus Procedural Connected: collaborative, join visions. Constructivists: this is an aspect of “real talk.” Kegan King & Kitchener Stage 5: knowledge is contextual and subjective. Stage 6: recognize that knowledge is constructed. Stages 5 and 6: see above. Stage 7: apply methods of criticism and evaluation to self and others Fowler Stage 4: recognize social influences on constructions of ideologies. Stage 5: critical awareness of one’s “social unconscious.” Stage 4: reflect critically on one’s assumptions and value systems. Multiplicity: have own opinions and voice them. Institutional: have individual voice. Interindividual: not afraid to express voice. Stage 4: authority is within the self. Multiplicity: try to persuade others to take one’s perspective. Full Relativism Interindividual: no longer take critique personally. Stage 4: critical of persons’ reasoning. Interindividual: can tolerate emotional conflict within the self and not threatened by contradictions outside the self. Stage 4: accept that knowing involves ambiguity. Stage 5: finds truth in paradox. Stage 7: can support claims to having arrived at a better or best solution to a problem. Stage 5: ready to engage in interfaith dialogue; open to being changed by others’ truths. Vicki Wiltse, 8 Constructivists have the most fully developed strategies for knowing. 4 If adult learners have not developed constructivist strategies for knowing, then how will they participate in dialogue? Persons who are in the position of “Silence” are often afraid to talk, because their speech has, in the past, led to punishment. They have survived by remaining silent, and therefore, they have not developed an awareness of the power of language, including the language of interior dialogue, to express thoughts, feelings, and insights. Their ways of knowing are limited to concrete, actual experiences or behaviors in the present. In a discourse situation, then, they would be passive, afraid to speak, not knowing what to say, because they basically do not have their own thoughts. They would feel like they could not understand what was being said because they feel unable to learn from language. In their experience, words are usually used as weapons, not as tools for communicating meaning. Received Knowers learn by listening; they soak up information. They do not believe themselves capable of generating original ideas – truth comes from others, particularly authorities, so they just reproduce knowledge gained from external sources. In a group context, then, they will tend to conform to the beliefs and ideas of the group. If asked for their own opinion, they will feel confused, even frustrated, and incapable of giving an answer; in their minds, the authority should have the answer already. They are intolerant of ambiguity and seek clear, precise answers to dilemmas. The highest authority or the one with the most support is the one they consider to be correct. Therefore, “Mezirow’s idea of critically examining the assumptions used by authorities and others would baffle a Received Knower . . . Who is she to 4 While Belenky and her colleagues have been reluctant to state that their model consists of stages of development, they have acknowledged that “more fully developed individuals have a broader repertoire of knowing strategies to choose among in response to different situations; those with less developed capacities have fewer options, even in situations that warrant more flexible response” (Taylor, Marienau, and Fiddler 2000, p. 345). Vicki Wiltse, 9 question authority? Why would anyone think their ideas could be wrong? Many Received Knowers have even been taught that it is immoral to question authority” (Belenky and Stanton, 2000, p. 84). Received Knowers are similar to persons in the dualism stage in William Perry’s (1970) model of epistemological development. Both view the world in terms of absolute dichotomies: right-wrong, good-bad, black-white, we-they. There is only one correct answer to each question, so all others are automatically wrong. Again, authorities are the ones who have the right answers. However, dualists (usually males) will tend to identify with the authorities and expect to gain the knowledge from them that will eventually turn them into authorities. This identification leads them to mimic authorities and, in contrast to Received Knowers, to lecture more than listen. The third strategy in Women’s Ways of Knowing is Subjective Knowing. Persons who have developed this strategy rely on intuition, or their inner voice, and their own experience and the experience of others like them for knowledge. Truth is personal; therefore, what is true for me is “just my opinion,” and other persons have a right to their opinions. In Belenky et al.’s (1986) study of 135 women, almost half of them relied predominantly on this way of knowing. Subjective Knowers share characteristics with Perry’s multiplists.5 Like them, they emphasize personal truth and consider all opinions equally valid. However, multiplists will tend to be more vocal about their views, insisting that their opinions are as good as the authority’s (“I have a right to my opinion”) and challenging others to argue with their positions. Their beliefs and perspectives distinguish them from others, and they let them know it. Subjective Knowers, on the other hand, may function as “hidden multiplists.” They will keep their views to themselves, According to Merriam (2004), one study has found the majority of adults to be in Perry’s dualism stage, while another study found the majority to be in positions three or four of multiplicity. 5 Vicki Wiltse, 10 afraid to take a stand in opposition to others because they fear losing relationships (they do not want to hurt others’ feelings). They are more concerned with preserving connections than with establishing their unique identities, yet they may also be closed off to alternative perspectives on a subject because they are focused on their own inner worlds. In addition, they are distrustful of analysis, logic, abstraction, and sometimes even language, so they will reject Mezirow’s approach of applying critical analysis to concepts. Conflicts are resolved through referring to one’s inner voice and experience or by searching for “what works for me” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 70). Subjective Knowers have not developed the ability to distance themselves from their ideas and reflect on them, so, instead of “having” ideas, they “are” their ideas (Belenky and Stanton, 2000, 85-86). This means that if they or others critique their ideas, it may feel like a threat to self or a judgment upon who one is. To avoid such experiences, a Subjective Knower may choose to remain silent, rather than express her thoughts. Those adults operating on the basis of Procedural Knowledge have turned to reason and the utilization of systematic procedures and criteria for obtaining, creating, and evaluating knowledge. They now believe that intuition is untrustworthy, but they have also come to a position where, through rational thought, they can know things they have never directly experienced. Because their inner voice has become critical, they fear sounding stupid, so they think before they talk and speak in measured tones, if they speak at all. They have come to realize the value of various points of view and now seek to know why people think the ways they do. There are two orientations to Procedural Knowledge: Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. Separate Knowers have learned to play the “doubting game” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 104). This involves distancing oneself from the object of knowing and examining it for weaknesses, errors, logical contradictions, or other lacks. Such knowers strive to set aside all Vicki Wiltse, 11 feelings and personal beliefs in order to be “objective.” They want to hear facts and logical arguments. Persons moving into Perry’s stage of relativism will also engage in this process of analysis and comparison of views. However, for them, arguments really are impersonal; Procedural Separate Knowers (women), on the other hand, tend to take critique personally and try to avoid it, just as Subjective Knowers do. Connected Knowers practice the “believing game.” They begin with an attitude of trust, assuming that others have something valuable to say, and then they draw upon their empathic abilities to come to understand other people on their own terms. They want to know what experiences led another person to her views, not so much what her reasoning process was. They are interested in hearing people’s stories. Belenky and Stanton (2000) state that “Procedural Knowledge provides the essential tools people must have if they are to participate in a highly reflective dialogue” (p. 86). Yet, while the doubting game of Separate Knowing fits with Mezirow’s model for critical-dialectical discourse, it “effectively shuts out immature or marginalized people” (Belenky and Stanton, 2000, p. 89). The believing game of Connected Knowing, however, is a way of engaging in dialogue that makes room for everyone to participate. Connected Knowers are sensitive to the possibility that others may need time to collect and develop their thoughts, so they give them that space and allow them to express their ideas before they come up with counterarguments. They also fear that prematurely taking a critical stance toward another’s ideas may keep them from truly understanding what the other is trying to say. As mentioned before, Connected Knowers strive to see the world through the other’s perspective by actually entering into and adopting that perspective. A community that practices Connected Knowing, therefore, creates a level playing field on which people from different backgrounds and at various places in their development can communicate as equals. Vicki Wiltse, 12 Robert Kegan’s (1982) model of human development offers some additional insights into the ways in which persons might engage in critical-dialectical discourse. A person in his “Imperial Balance” (stage two) sees others in terms of how they can fulfill her needs or wishes, so this person may be experienced as being manipulative as she seeks to control others in order to be able to predict their behavior in relation to her own actions. Persons at this stage understand that they need to take turns for their own benefit, but they are unable to empathize with others’ points of view and may be argumentative in maintaining and defending their own beliefs. Transitioning from the Imperial Balance to the “Interpersonal Balance” (stage three), persons begin to experience themselves subjectively and are able to talk about their feelings. In the Interpersonal Balance, they value relationships because they define the self. Persons in this stage cannot express anger, because this would mean declaring themselves as selves “separate from the relational context” and would mean assuming that others can survive their anger. In other words, persons in this stage assume that others, like themselves, interpret dislike, disagreement, critique, or anger as an attack on the self, so they will avoid such expressions themselves. In the transition from the Interpersonal Balance to the “Institutional Balance” (stage four), persons may experience encouragement of individual voice as “abandonment, a refusal to care, and a disorienting vacuum of expectation” (Kegan, 1982, p. 186). They are confused and troubled by demands to state what they believe and think, because their sense of having an individual perspective is just beginning to emerge. They need to feel connected and supported in this transition between stages, without becoming fused with others. In the Institutional Balance, persons develop a sense of self, self-ownership, and selfdependence. They now have relationships, rather than being possessed by them, so they can set Vicki Wiltse, 13 boundaries, and they respect, even value, differences. However, they cannot tolerate emotional conflict within themselves. “Successful internal maintenance and control” is their “ultimate concern” (Kegan, 1982, p. 213). Therefore, the transition to the next and final stage, the “Interindividual Balance,” can be quite disturbing. Persons in this transition may feel a sense of “boundary loss, impulse flooding, and, as always, the experience of not knowing. This last can speak itself in terms of felt meaninglessness” (p. 231). Self-conscious of their philosophical crisis, such persons may be cynical, having a sense that they have no morals, no standards, and that everything is relative. The Interindividual Balance (stage five), then, would be the ideal stage for persons to be in when they are engaged in critical-dialectical discourse. However, “Kegan’s (1994) longitudinal research on levels of consciousness reveals that most adults are not capable of thinking dialectically (the fourth stage) until their 40s, and few adults were found to be at the trans-systems thinking of the fifth stage” (Merriam, 2004, p. 64). Before sharing a method that is able to facilitate dialogue among persons at various stages of development, I would like to suggest that, while persons may approach the subject matter of their career specialties from one stage of development, their approach to topics related to faith and belief may evidence a different level of development. For example, adults in the phase of Received Knowing will listen to and adhere to the beliefs of traditional religious authorities in matters related to faith. However, in their areas of expertise, they may be very independent and creative in their thinking and development of ideas. Therefore, religious educators cannot assume that because a person is highly educated and is a critical thinker in her or his field that that person will also approach topics connected with religious faith and belief from a similarly critical stance. Listening Circles Vicki Wiltse, 14 “Listening Circles” are a process for dialogue developed by Diane Kyser and Sandee Gamet for the Community of Christ. This method was originally designed to engage members of this international denomination in dialogue on the issue of homosexuality in the church in order to promote understanding of various perspectives. Persons from around the world participated in Listening Circles on the topic of homosexuality at the 2004 World Conference of the Community of Christ. Listening Circles can be and have been used to discuss other difficult issues as well. The intent of Listening Circles is to bring together a small group of four to ten people with differing perspectives on a controversial issue and to engage them in conversation with one another. The process is very structured and is guided by a trained facilitator. Before participating, persons agree in writing that the information and stories shared within the circle are to be kept confidential. This is necessary to ensure a foundation of trust. The basic process is for one person to share how he came to his perspective on the issue under discussion. Then a person with an opposing position reflects back to the first person what she heard him say. The first person verifies that the second person has understood him. Next, the second person shares her story, and a person from a different perspective reflects back what she said, and so on. Persons are allowed to ask one another questions out of curiosity and in order to gain better understanding, but not to challenge one another. Each person is also admonished to speak in terms of “I,” that is, from their personal experience, not in terms of “we,” or generalizations. Listening Circles teach active listening skills and guide persons to discern and reflect upon the experiences and assumptions that have led them to their current feelings and beliefs about an issue. They encourage people to withhold judgment and to practice empathy in order to understand other persons’ perspectives from their points of view. They also lead to the identification and dismantling of misperceptions about oneself and others. Listening Circles, Vicki Wiltse, 15 therefore, can be used as an educational method that teaches persons at various phases of development the skills they need to participate in critical-dialectical discourse while still achieving the goal of engaging them in some degree of “hard dialogue.” According to Belenky and Stanton (2000), bringing Silenced persons into dialogue “requires the creation of an extremely safe and caring community where people draw each other out and listen to one another with the greatest of care” (p. 83). Listening Circles create safe environments for sharing and provide a structure whereby persons are drawn out and listened to carefully. The following testimonies point to the success of this process in creating such environments: “I was initially afraid of sharing my opinions because I felt I had none. Being a part of a Listening Circle allowed me a safe place to discover and voice what my thoughts and perspectives were on several topics. It was a healing process” (Gamet, 2007, p. 32). “I found that being in a group and using paraphrasing was very freeing and safe. People were trying to understand me instead of debate with me and that allowed me to clarify my own thoughts, be creative in ideas I could express, and feel safe from judgment in doing so” (Friend, 2004). “At times, the format of the circle was frustrating because it prohibited normal back-andforth conversations. The process of paraphrasing someone else’s comments was very challenging. However, it forced you to listen—really listen—to another’s words” (Friend, 2004). Listening Circles teach people to practice Connected Knowing, because the goal is for participants to understand one another’s views, not to critique or debate ideas. The more experience a group of people has with Listening Circles, the more likely a “safe and caring community” will be created and persons will feel comfortable engaging in dialogue in this community without the formal structure of something like Listening Circles. The use of Listening Circles, therefore, may lead to the formation of a culture of discourse and hard dialogue within a congregation, and, if used extensively enough, within an entire denomination. Vicki Wiltse, 16 REFERENCES Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1986. Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Belenky, Mary Field and Ann V. Stanton. 2000. Inequality, development, and Connected Knowing. In Learning as transformation, ed. Jack Mezirow, 71-102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Community of Christ. 2004-2007. Listening Circles: Facilitated dialogue among church members and friends about difficult issues. Community of Christ. http://www.cofchrist.org/peacejustice/ listening-circles.asp (accessed April 25, 2007). Friend, Kendra. 2004. First congregational Listening Circle completed. Herald, September, http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2004/aug04/lc.asp (accessed April 25, 2007). Gamet, Sandee. 2007. Events at the Temple: Listening Circles. Herald, December. Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Hess, Carol Lakey. 1997. Caretakers of our common house: Women’s development in communities of faith. Nashville: Abingdon. Kegan, Robert. 1982. The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, Robert. 1994. In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. King, Patricia M., and Karen S. Kitchener. 1994. Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kitchener, Karen S., and Patricia M. King. 1990. The reflective judgment model: Transforming assumptions about knowing. In Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning, ed. Jack Mezirow and Associates, 159-176. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, Sharan B. 2004. The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly 55: 60-68. Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, Jack. 2000. Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of Transformation Theory. In Learning as transformation, ed. Jack Mezirow, 3-33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vicki Wiltse, 17 Mezirow, Jack. 2003. Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education 1, no. 1: 58-63. Mezirow, Jack. 2004. Forum comment on Sharan Merriam’s “The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory.” Adult Education Quarterly 55: 69-70. Perry, Jr., William G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Taylor, Kathleen, Catherine Marienau, and Morris Fiddler. 2000. Developing adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.