“And what do you think?”: the dialogue workshop in Spain that challenges polarization

22 August 2026 by Manuel Nacinovich

In times of polarization, an initiative by the Igino Giordani Foundation put dialogue to the test, through a series of 4 meetings, as a tool for understanding others without trying to impose a truth.

The dictionary defines dialogue as a conversation between two or more people who, in turn, express their ideas or feelings. It is a valid definition to guide us in understanding its meaning, but on its own it is far too concise.

Talking about dialogue also means talking about a tool with enormous potential which, like any tool, will produce results depending on the way in which it is used.

The Igino Giordani Foundation, in Spain, created a workshop to explore the consequences of creating a space dedicated exclusively to bringing people together and practicing dialogue.

Here is what “And what do you think?” is: the dialogue series of the Igino Giordani Foundation

And what do you think? is a training project by the Igino Giordani Foundation that sought to reflect on some important and sensitive issues in today’s society, making dialogue a real tool for personal and social transformation. It was a series of four online meetings, organized around different topics, with a methodology and some rules for participation.

“It seemed to us that society today was very polarized, that there were many extreme points of view, for example here in Spain, right or left, and that it seemed almost impossible to talk. As soon as you address a topic, express your opinion, a conflict immediately arises: there is no way to talk,” says Susana, one of the organizers of And what do you think?

The starting point of the series was the figure of Igino Giordani (1894–1980), the Italian who gave life and his name to the foundation and who fought for the great human ideals of the 20th century: peace, freedom and social justice, as the organization emphasizes. He was an unconventional member of the Italian Parliament, “a witness to a political culture that values consistency, dialogue and the construction of peace,” marked by his experience on the front during the First World War. He was also a journalist, writer, ecumenist and librarian. He also co-founded the Focolare Movement.

“What we wanted to achieve was to dialogue without arguing, simply out of a desire to understand the other person’s position and express one’s own point of view calmly, without attacking anyone,” Susana explains. “The objective is to express and understand. It is never to find a solution or to find something that is right. That is, we are not looking for something that is right or wrong, but we are looking for points of view,” she adds.

The 4 sessions were divided into the following themes:

1. What does Igino Giordani tell us in the face of this world of ours at war?
2. Polarization and a culture of dialogue. Can we think differently without arguing?
3. Immigration: is it possible to address this issue without dividing ourselves?
4. Peace: utopia or a possible task?

Time, moderation and guidelines: the work scheme

To carry them out, the organizers established some guidelines. First of all, they believed that creating small groups, instead of large ones, would encourage greater exchange. In fact, once the workshop was over, they observed that it was clear how people conversed more freely when there were only a few of them rather than many. The more people there are, the greater the tendency to simply listen without intervening.

Then, they posed provocative questions that prepared the ground for discussing some of the topics, always with a moderator guiding the conversation.

And, fundamentally, time. Each participant had a set amount of time to speak, which was regulated with a stopwatch. During that time, only the person who had the floor could speak and the others had to listen. Once the time was over, the others could ask questions; but not to debate, rather to make sure they had understood the position expressed by the participant.

It was always made clear: each person’s position was linked to their own experience, personality, history, culture and country of origin. Therefore, nothing should be taken personally or considered definitive.

The workshop was also based on the guidelines for dialogue proposed by the Italian Lucia Fronza, former president of the International Political Movement for Unity (MPPU) (one of the partners of the United World Project).

Fronza’s approach is based on the personal willingness to move closer: “Let us imagine that, if I am in one place and the other person is in front of me, and we need to take steps to meet halfway, I must be willing to take all the steps necessary to reach the other person. Ideally, each person moves and we meet in the center, but if the other person does not move, the idea is that I move as much as necessary to reach the other person, so that that dialogue, that meeting, can take place,” Susana explains.

Once the exchange was over and each participant had had their turn to speak, the idea was to identify whether, in everything that had been said, there were any points in common. Always with the openness to the possibility that there might be none, and in that case to look for an answer to: “Why do we differ?”, “Why don’t we agree on this?”

Susana illustrates the process this way: “It is a way of talking by putting things on the table: we are not going to cook anything, but we will see what ingredients we have. The goal is to cook something, but perhaps we will not cook anything, we will simply look at what ingredients we have. The idea is that always, or almost always, it is possible to find something in common.”

Dialogue means taking risks

In this first edition, the And what do you think? series took place exclusively online. Its organizers know that, in the future, being able to do it in person would significantly contribute to the experience.

In any case, for a few weeks, the space of the Igino Giordani Foundation was transformed into a space outside the comfort zone. Because to dialogue, to dare to dialogue, to dare to inhabit that field of discussion (that is, that field of — according to the dictionary — analysis or comparison of results, in light of other existing or possible ones) means taking risks.

Susana says: “Taking the risk of not knowing what might happen. What the other person tells me must somehow touch me, even if it is an opinion contrary to mine. I must try to understand what the other person wants to convey with that opinion. Why the other person thinks the way they do.”