I have read the previous messages written by my colleagues with great interest while searching for hints of what I might be able to offer in the message that I am tasked with writing now. I wonder, have you read the other messages? Collectively, these relay messages provide a wealth of useful insights to encourage you in your studies at GC, from revising how we perceive failure to different kinds of non-verbal communication. I worry that, unlike my colleagues, I may not be able to offer a message with a cheerful tone or ending, but I hope you will find some meaning in it anyway.

As I write this message to you, more than 120 days have passed since Israel began an unrelenting assault on Gaza, Palestine. I read the news every day with a knot in my stomach. The devastation has been profound. All of Gaza’s universities, a majority of its hospitals, and numerous cultural sites have been destroyed. Yet, on our campus, as in many other places in our society and around the world, there has been minimal real dialogue about the ongoing crisis in Palestine. It is common to hear that it’s best to stay neutral when it comes to complex global issues, or the assertion that we should not speak about things to which we do not know enough about. Even after the International Court of Justice issued its preliminary ruling stating that there is a “real and imminent risk” that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, many barriers to the kind of dialogue needed to stop the compounding atrocities remain.

As we contemplate the key phrase,「世界へ通じる対話力」, let us remember that communication includes both what we say and what we do not say, how we engage or do not engage, and it is inherently political. Dialogue requires more than just skills, it also requires the will to meaningfully engage. I asked my friend to explain the difference between 会話 and 対話, and I think her answer is worth repeating here. She pointed out that while both involve communication, 対話 includes a nuance of opposing (対), or an engagement with differing viewpoints, which requires more listening and ability to sympathize. Professor Dieth’s (2022) message addressed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and encouraged us to see dialogue skills as a power to contribute to peace. Here, I would like to propose that we see dialogue not only as a skill or power that we can possess, but also as an act of care.

A neutral stance may seem commendable in its pursuit of objectivity, however it also risks shutting down dialogue. In some cases neutrality is simply used as a shield to avoid taking a stand on crucial or ethical matters. American historian Howard Zinn has famously stated, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” Zinn’s metaphor of a moving train suggests that we don’t need dialogue to connect us, but rather dialogue shapes how we connect to the constantly changing and evolving challenges in a shared global world. While neutrality risks indifference and ignoring the historical and social contexts that shape conflicts. Seeing dialogue as care in an already connected world requires us to seek out understanding of issues such as systemic inequalities, historical injustices, and power dynamics on local and global scales.

Returning to the topic of the current crisis in Palestine and what we can or should speak about, American rapper Macklemore reminds us that in the face of complex or sensitive topics, there is at least one preferable option to silence. At a recent rally in Washington D.C. aimed at stopping the bombardment of Gaza, Macklemore asserted,

“They told me to be quiet. They told me to do my research, to go back, that it’s too complex to say something, right? To be silent in this moment. In the last three weeks, I’ve gone back, and I’ve done some research. And I am teachable.”

As our academic pursuits, social conditions, and global developments often lead us to discussions on various subjects with which we may not be familiar, may be difficult to understand, or may push us out of our comfort zones, reframing dialogue as care is an invitation to see ourselves, like Macklemore, as teachable. Macklemore’s assertion that we are teachable finds resonance with Professor Uchida’s (2017) message that emphasized the importance of learning about China to challenge the unfavorable impressions of China based on ignorance rather than tenable knowledge. Both instances underscore the value of active engagement and a commitment to learning when faced with sensitive subjects.

Seeing dialogue as care reminds us that communication is so much more than memorizing vocabulary words and grammar. It insists that we navigate complex discussions with empathy, curiosity, and critical thinking. Dialogue is not easy, it takes courage, effort, and vulnerability. But, dialogue also allows us to think things through with others who may hold different positions and positionalities in ways that are not possible to do alone. As students of global communication, our education necessarily extends beyond the confines of a classroom. In a world that often tries to reduce complex issues to simplicity, I encourage you to be active participants in meaningful dialogue that challenges your perspectives, has you challenging the perspectives of others, and seeking out diverse voices and sources of knowledge as you grow, shape, and reshape your unique thoughts.