What to do? Antilogic

From: Elizabeth A Wardle (ewardle@iastate.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 20:38:37 PST

At 06:14 PM 1/28/2002 -0800, Bill Barowy wrote:

 If OUR practices must
change, then how must they change?  Can someone step up to the plate and
venture a theoretical, or at least human, insight?  If you read frustration
here, you read well.  Our situation feels like academic paralysis.

Ok, I'll try to give a practical answer, from my perspective as a rhetorician.

This list, and many academic lists, operate according to the practice of dialectic (what the Greeks called dialektike techne), most commonly defined as a method of seeking and sometimes arriving at truth by detailed reasoning. One variant of dialectic (which is commonly attributed to Socrates) is the elenchus, an aggressive approach to questioning in which a prolonged cross-examination serves to refute the opponent's original thesis by forcing him/her to recognize its inherent contradictions. Dialectic, and especially elenchus, have been the dominant mode of interaction in the academy since Socrates. Aristotle, with his focus on logic, certainly did much to entrench this mode of interaction. Dialectic is about proving that I am correct and you are incorrect. It is often antagonistic. It leaves little room for novices or anything that might seem remotely "illogical."

Dialectic and the agonistic argument that accompanies it have been the subject of critique, by feminists and others, for some time (see Susan Jarratt's work, for example). At least one alternative method of interaction exists, but it requires the participants to act on different assumptions. The Sophists offered us this alternative even before Plato. This alternative is dialogue and what they termed antilogic. Rather than look for Truth or Certainty, antilogic posits that ideas must be examined alongside alternative positions and people must judge for themselves which positions are stronger. Antilogic rests on the notion of multiplex ratio disputandi--many (legitimate) sides in a controversy--and requires an understanding achieved through a careful consideration of alternatives. If there is no knowable Truth, then we must be willing to entertain all possible perspectives in our search for what we find to be our best perspective. Antilogic requires true dialogue. People must search collectively for justifiable positions. Together people must seek out all possible perspectives. Antilogical dialogue offers all sides a chance to see the boundaries of their own logocentricity. For antilogic (and later, Bakhtinian dialogism) to be effective, each participant must truly say, "Here is my position, I am equally open to hearing yours and discovering whether my position should be altered or whether, together, we can find a better position."

Antilogic and dialogism welcome new and alternative perspectives and seriously considers them. Dialectic welcomes only experts, dismisses novel ideas out of hand (or ignores them), and attacks alternate perspectives in an effort to demonstrate that "my" view is the true view.

There is no inherent or biological reason why dialectic should be male. But traditionally it has been. When women wanted to join the academy, they had to prove they could stand up to dialectic modes of interaction--and many did. Because dialectic has reigned supreme for so long, it has been (and often continues to be) invisible, common sense. But many women who do not operate according to dialectic outside the academy dispute the supremacy of dialectic in the academy. Though we are often told that this is just "the way things are" and we should "learn it or leave it," many of us recognize that alternative methods of interaction are possible. So we respond in numerous ways: creating our own, separate forums with overtly dialogic rules for interaction; alerting those who operate according to the dominant dialectic to its shortcomings; or dropping out from sheer frustration. And, at times, using dialectic ourselves out of anger and/or to get people to hear us.

So my point is that there definitely are alternative modes for interacting, modes that may spur lurkers to post--and posters to drop out. Antilogic, dialogism, is an alternative. But it can never be a forced alternative because you can't FORCE people to listen. And in my experience it usually happens in smaller groups, where people agree to operate dialogically and are committed to being open to alternative positions, rather than being right. It may be that most of the participants on xmca are comfortable with dialectic and would like to make their assumptions explicit: "We are a listserv committed to dialectic. Be prepared to vigorously defend your positions and demonstrate what you know to the satisfaction of other experts." There's no shame in that. I think, in fact, that making our assumptions about what type of interaction are appropriate and sought after would be a useful way to settle some of the internal disputes. People would only sign on if they were comfortable with dialectic, and would not expect something else. Alternatively, other lists with dialogic assumptions would make those explicit (as many women-only listservs do).

I think that as long as assumptions are made explicit and acknowledged, people are more comfortable. It is often when one mode of interaction is actually occurring but another is being given lipservice that these sort of unsolvable contradictions occur.

Elizabeth

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST