Elizabeth, help me out here. How would I disagree with some of what you
have proposed in an antilogic mode? Would I, instead of disagreeing, state
my view? Then each of us individually would decide to keep or revise our
views or decide to work toward a merged model together? That seems to me to
have characterized the dialogue on XMCA for the most part. True, there are
some who write as if they are speaking from the mountain top to the ignorant
masses below, but I think they are the exception.
By the way, I think that antilogic is a very unfortunate choice of terms
(those wacky Sophists!). As you have described antilogic, it is very much in
the spirit of what Gary Shank once described as abductive multiloging.
Abduction is certainly a logical process as is antilogic,as I understand it.
Its just not deductive logic or inductive logic. IMHO, that
is............djc
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth A Wardle [mailto:ewardle@iastate.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:39 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: What to do? Antilogic
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 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST