Given the complexities of CHAT, it seems that this listserv could not,
not be antilogical, or am I being dialectic? In anycase, thank you
Elizabeth for your explanations.
Molly
Elizabeth A Wardle wrote:
> 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