Another approach was taken earlier by John Woolman who patiently, over many years, persuaded his Quaker brethren that the practice was wrong. Because the decision of each slave owner was individual and unforced there were few second level negative consequences. This contrast, and many other similar ones, provide the answer to those who argue that dialogue is not an appropriate response to our current situation because it cannot bring about change sufficiently rapidly. It is always possible to force the appearance of change through coercion. But the inevitable backlash, which shows up in resistance and avoidance of imposed policies, will almost always have significant destructive consequences.
Dialogue does take longer.
Agreement, when it is achieved through this route, is durable and permits new directions to be implemented rapidly, with general and enthusiastic support. The critical point to remember in any dialogue process is that each person is necessarily screening what they hear through past experience. They are deciding what makes sense to them and what does not. Their screens are usually well-established and the process of shifting them is always difficult. The purpose of dialogue is to alter these screens so that everybody involved is able to broaden what they are willing to consider.