An experiment in dialectical
interaction of dialoguing,
questioning, enquiring and coenquiring.
A participative experimental session
in dialogue, co-enquiring, and critical
reflection
Alon.Serper@nmmu.ac.za
a 33
Earth Stewardship Science Research
Institute
1
Aims of Session
1. To look at and formulate the meanings and implications of a transformative
dialogue and dialectical engagement among individuals of different expertise and
backgrounds.
2. To distinguish between dialogue and other forms of social interaction
and conversations
3. to provide and enrich the skills of critical reflection and dialogical and
dialectical interaction among different participants who come from
different backgrounds and disciplines and embody different expertise and
knowledge base.
4. To
work out the meanings of reflection and distinguish between
reflection and thinking
5. To do this in practice and praxis of action and theory where theory and
practice/action are interrelated, governed by each other and complement
and lead each other so that the practice/action is structured by theory and
the theory avoids being abstracted rhetoric and is governed by action,
acting and practicing it.
6. To do it in action-reflection, and critically co-reflecting and dialoguing
on what is being and was done and achieved, how to improve what is
2
being done and fulfil the intention of constructing a greater
Dialectics
Dialectics is a
method for
qualitatively transforming an argument and the
understanding of a given phenomenon under discussion
in the quest for truth, knowledge, and wisdom
The qualitative transformation takes place
through
heuristic enquiry and creative dialogue (which includes selfdialogue or reflection) and
the creative use of
contradictions and questions and answers
to resolve problems,
strengthen the enquiry and argument
and qualitatively transform the phenomenon under
enquiry
3
The dialectical logic
Dialectics
is more suitable than
the traditional propositional logic
for the task of
explaining or theorising
how to change and reverse
the damage to the planet and its inhabitant
and
qualitatively transform and improve the sustainability and prosperity
of the planet
and the quality of life and living of its inhabitants
4
The Traditional Propositional Logic
The propositional logic and way of constructing theories is the logic that
has completely dominated the academy for three thousand years.
It is
the logic of Either Or
and
If …then
The idea is that
a tested event can merely have one linguistic proposition that best explains and rationalises it
And that
the point of research is to look for it,
find and explain and
rationalise why that proposition
is most suitable and valid for the explanation
of the tested phenomenon
If the research fails to do this and the chosen proposition cannot be
shown as superior to the alternative propositions which are
inferior then
the research is invalid and fails, alongside its conclusions,
findings, aims, intentions and methodologies
5
The Propositional logic
It is therefore made of
constructing, reinforcing and validating the most
valid linguistic proposition, or assertion, for
the explanation of a phenomenon
thereby dismissing and discarding whatever
does not follow this proposition
It works by
explaining how and why the chosen
proposition to explain a phenomenon
is superior to the alternative
propositions which should therefore be
discarded and
eliminated
6
An example
One cannot have contradictions in a single proposition
Hence explaining and theorising who is Alon
The linguistic assertion A:
Alon is an idiot
Cannot include in it the proposition – Linguistic Assertion B: Alon
is smart
A becomes invalid when
evidence is displayed that Alon is smart and
remains valid when more and more evidence is brought and
displayed that Alon is an idiot.
7
An example
Similarly
The proposition (B) Alon is smart
Cannot contain the proposition (A) that Alon
is an idiot
It becomes invalid when evidence is being displayed
that Alon is an idiot
and remains valid
when more and more evidence
is brought and displayed
that Alon is smart.
8
The Propositional logic
Hence
The traditional propositional logic is
the logic of debating
and out-weighting alternative ideas
that do not follow one’s own ideas, views and
theories
Debate – “strife…beat down, bring down, lower,. reduce, lessen,
diminish…take away”
It means completely dismissing ideas, rigorous,
quality researches, insights and explanations
just because they do not follow your own views
9
The dialectics
Dialectics
is the logic of synthesis and qualitative transformation–
Creating something new and improved from fusing
different things and from doing the enquiry and research themselves
It is the logic of “And” creation of and transformation of the existing into an improved new
thing
A+B=C
For example
Alon studies why he is stupid, reaches an understanding why he is stupid and fuses and uses this
knowledge in researching ways of becoming smart/er
A+B=C
C = Smarter
Alon explains (theorises, accounts for) how he became smarter and includes and fuses his
input on why and how he was stupid and what he did about it to change, qualitatyively
transform and become smarter (C)
Assuming being and becoming smart/er is the desired outcome
for Alon and being stupid is the undesired and the
contradiction (anti-thesis) of the desired
10
The Dialectics
Hence,
instead of working at eliminating the contradictory
propositions
in order to validate the tested
proposition,
as is the case in traditional
propositional logic,
dialectical logic uses and fuses
contradictions and everything in one’s
disposal to strengthen and improve the
existing and forge a new construction that
transforms both the contradictions and
itself.
11
The Dialectics
During dialectical thinking,
there is an enquiry and dialogue
during which
one propositional idea, assertion and response
pushes forward and transforms the one preceding
in the search for truth and a solution to a presented
problem and enquiry
Different relevant propositional enquiries and responses
transform each other.
They are not eliminated, or turned against each other, debated and outweighted.
But, rather,
Are attended to, enquired
into, used, sought to be understood and analysed
concretely and profoundly, fused and included
in the analysis and accumulated knowledge and understanding and the
construction and validation of the dialectical theory.
12
Earth Stewardship Science Explanation
At the Africa Earth Observatory Network - Earth Stewardship Science
Research Institute (AEON-ESSRI)
we are
working at improving the prosperity of the planet and quality of
life of its inhabitants
Doing it dialectically means that
within the dialectical logic and epistemological grounding all the
disciplines, positions, arguments and theories available work and coenquire together - in dialogue and co-creation of something new and
improved –
into how to improve and qualitatively transform the prosperity and
sustainability of the planet and the wellbeing and quality of life of humanity
and human beings
13
Earth Stewardship Science Explanation
We test our co-constructed ideas and
implement them in practice
We push forward, complement, add
to and qualitatively
transform each other
and each other’s ideas
positions, arguments and thinking.
Rather than
Debate or/and work at discarding each other’s
ideas, thinking, arguments and positions to
validate and show off our own ideas and
ourselves
14
Reflection and Dialogue
People carry out enquiries and offer possible explanations on
their own, reflectively, and with other people within a dialogue that
aims to complement, enrich and qualitatively transforms their
limited reflections on their own.
The reflection is important to establish an autonomous, critical,
analytical and challenging ‘I’ (an individual) who can analyse ideas
and reconstruct and reshape them and to examine and reevaluate
the action that he or she is doing
Yet, sharing and using the input and critical thinking/ reflection of
other people improves the quality of the reflection and knowledge
and understanding summoned up and achieved in isolation
It provides, uses and fuses the insights of other people
If done well the co-reflection becomes
Dialogue that complements, enriches and pushes forward
(qualitatively transforms) the reflections, ideas, positions and
explanations of the individual ‘I’s is an important essence and part
15
of the dialectical process.
Heath et al., (2006), p. 368
Dialogue
dialogue is “a skill, that needs to be learned” and “is (or should
be) part of a culture—our culture” and “is an element of social
existence, and an important one…[since] without dialogue, civilization
is not possible...[even though]
The call for dialogue became a core part of our sociality in the latter
part of the 20th century, and it clearly continues as a social hope as we
confront the problems of a new era. (page 367)
Dialogue in a multicultural society must begin by deconstructing
the structural and ideological constraints that shape both reality and
dialogue itself” and thus “effective dialogue requires a critique of reality
and a critique of social practices within that reality (Kersten, 2000)”.
(pp.359-62l)
Heath, R. I., Pearce, B. W., Shotter, J., Taylor, J. R., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., Roper, J., Motion, J., and Deetz, S.
(February 2006). The Processes of Dialogue: Participation and Legitimation. Management Communication
Quarterly, 19.3. 341-375.
Kersten, A. (2000). Diversity Management: Dialogue, Dialectics and Diversion. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 13 (3), 235-248
16
Dialogue
Heath et al., (2006 p.346) acknowledged the
influence of Buber (1965) and perceived “
dialogue, as viewed by Buber” to
depend on whether the
participants have in mind the other
or others in their present and
particular being and turn to them
with the intention of establishing a
living mutual relation between
themselves and the others.
Buber, M. (1965). Between Man and Man (R. G. Smith, Trans.).
Macmillan. New York.
Heath et al., (2006 p.346) acknowledged the influence of Buber (1965) and
17
Dialogue
dialogue is both
a quality of relationship that arises, however
briefly, between two or more people and
a way of thinking about human affairs that
highlights their dialogic qualities.
Cissna and Anderson (1998 p.64.),
Cissna, K. N., and Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing About Dialogic Moments: TheBuber-Rogers Position
and Postmodern Themes. Communication Theory, 1, 63-104.
The Buberian existential approach to dialogue and the
Rogerian humanistic approach to therapy and the
relationship between client and therapist, that draws
on Buber, is crucial here as it talks about an
unconditional acceptance and really trying to
understand and reach the other person engagement
18
and care for the social other
Dialogue
Heath et al.,
effective dialogue assumes three things:
(a) that participants have the capacity to
understand and acknowledge their own
worldview and express it competently,
(a) that participants are able to understand the
worldview of the Other,
and
(c) that through discourse, participants develop
common language and common ground. (p.
361)
19
Dialogue
Heath et al.,
One of the challenges for dialogue…is the tension
between being open to alternative outcomes on one hand
and being goal oriented on the other hand
p. 367)
openness to alternative outcomes is an
important dimension of dialogue (p. 367)
Gadamer
To conduct a conversation requires…that one does
not try to out-argue the other person, but that one really
considers the weight of the other's opinion.
Gadamer (1975/ p. 330)
Gadamer, H. D. (1975). Truth and Method. Sheed and Ward. London.
20
Paulo Freire
Dialogue
Freire (1973), in the essay Extension or Communication, has pointed out that for
True humanism, to engage in dialogue is not to engage
without commitment and that dialogue is not to invade, not
to manipulate, not to “make slogans”…it is to devote
oneself to the constant transformation of reality.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Sheed and Ward.
Freire (1996, p. 71) also stressed that
dialogue is rooted in men’s incompletion…from
which they move
out in constant search –
a search which can be carried out only in
communion with others.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.
21
Freire
Dialogue is
Critical, loving, humble and communicable stance for a position”
which is renowned for “respecting another person’s position”.
the man who has made a radical choice does not deny another
man’s right to choose, nor does he try to impose his own choice”
(Sic) and in turn “can discuss their respective positions”
and whilst “he is convinced he is right”, he nevertheless still
“respects another man’s prerogative to judge himself correct” and
“tries to convince and convert, not to crush his opponents”.
Also, Freire (1996 p.109.) warned us that to impede
communication is to reduce men to the status of “things” – and
this is a job for oppressors, not for revolutionaries.
22
Freire
Furthermore, echoing his ideas throughout his life, Freire
(1996 pp.73/4) stated that
“without dialogue there is no communication, and without
communication there can be no true education” and that
“only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also
capable of generating critical thinking”,
He stated (1996 p.148) that whereas “in the theory of
antidialogical action, conquest (as its primarily characteristic)
involves a Subject who conquers another person and transforms
her or him into a “thing”,…”in the dialogical theory of action,
Subjects meet in cooperation in order to transform the world”.
He stressed that “no one can…unveil the world for another” and
although one subject may initiate the unveiling on behalf of
another, the others must also become Subjects of
this act. (p. 149)
23
Action
Our aim in this session is to work at qualitatively
transforming and co-constructing ideas as for improving the
prosperity of the planet and the wellbeing and quality of life
of human beings, human existence and humanity.
To support enrich and empower each other into
bringing our best into the group and session
And to avoid putting each other down and cancel each
others’ ideas, thinking and positions just because we do not
agree with them.
Also avoid using our credentials, age, background,
NRF ratings, Euro-centrism, gender, ethnicity to try to force
ourselves and our theories and ideas on the group, the views
24
of the members, and each others
Action
We want to synthesise our individuals’ (our ‘I’s)
positions, knowledge, strengths and
weaknesses into the creation of a Gestalt of the
whole greater than the sums of its parts and
create something new and improved that was
not there before
And see what happen
Perhaps we can start regular face-to-face meetings in
Port Elizabeth and electronic meetings online for those
living far away.
25
Action
Let us discuss together ways of reversing the crises in the
planet and ecology and qualitatively transforming the within a
trans-disciplinary
And see what happens and if we manage to have a proper
transforming dialogue rather than debate or just conversation
and interaction.
Let us see if we can really relate to and engage with each
within a dialectical dialogue
and transform each other to co-create knowledge and
qualitative ontological transformation in ourselves, our ideas and
our co-constructed explanations as for how to improve the
prosperity of the planet and quality of life and wellbeing of its
inhabitants
It is not as easy as it seems. It is very difficult and
challenging.
26
Questions
What do you think of that?
How do you relate to that?
What are your intentions, views, aims and objectives
for the issue of improving the prosperity of the planet?
Let’s see how we interact with each other?
Are we intimidating people?
Is the space open and free to really co-enquire,
test, reflect
and transform the ideas of others and our
own ideas?
27
Questions
Have we managed to shed our egos,
superiority or inferiority conflicts,
complexities and insecurities
and
really heed each other’s saying and being
here with us in the world,
understand what the other person says,
really hear and engage with him, and just be
focused on ourselves, our positions, views,
sayings?
28
Questions
Do we let the other people be and
become and enrich them and let
ourselves be enriched by them?
Are we interested in the others?
Do we get the others?
Do we work to get them?
How do we see a good transformative dialogue?
29
Questions
Let us co-construct theories of dialogue and
dialogic engagement
What makes dialogue different than conversation or
co-reflection together?
What is dialogue?
How to approach it and do it?
How to dialogue?
How to test and evaluate it?
30
Action
Let us dialogue on dialogue and dialectics and qualitative
transformation of people, ideas, the world and the prosperity
of the world
Was the interaction constructive, democratic and enabling
transformation of co-enquiring and participants’ reflections, or
whether it was impositional and dominating?
Did it enable the opening up and transformation of
other people, and knowledge, ideas and understanding?
or was it is confrontational,
Have participants out-weighted and shut down and
oppressed the ideas and creativity of others, and of ideas,
knowledge and explanations, thereby preventing and
hindering qualitative transformation?
And see and evaluate what happens
31