"It is necessary now to create a new form of communication, through which human sensitivities can be awakened to the presence of danger on the highest level, and to the necessity for creation in order to avoid it efficiently. This form is not telephones, television, newspapers; nor is it theater, music, painting…The most direct and efficient form of communication is dialog. Dialog in its highest form is creation out of nothing: the only true creation." – from Frederic Rzewski's Parma Manifesto, 1969
Here in the United States, whether we look to the language used amongst ourselves, in the media, or by politicians, we may find that our standard method of communication is based on rhetoric – a style of argument that relies on a set of distinctly isolated viewpoints, with each view-holder applying a range of persuasive techniques in an effort to prevail over a perceived opponent.
As we navigate our way into increasingly fragile ecological and social conditions unfolding around the world, however, another lesser-known approach with roots in ancient Greek, European, and Asian thought may be worth revisiting.
In stark contrast to the goal of rhetoric – to persuade by any means possible – the purpose of dialectic is for all involved to gain a richer, less prejudiced, more multifaceted understanding of a dynamic situation in all its complexity.
It is not surprising that dialectic is so little-known and little-understood in contemporary culture; throughout the course of history the term has been appropriated by different people for different purposes. Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and Marx each developed their own signature varieties. If we could get all of these thinkers in a room together to engage in a dialectical discussion about the definition of dialectic, they may or may not agree on at least two basic tenets: 1) participants in a dialectic dialog understand that reality and our perception of it is in a constant state of flux, therefore definitive conclusions may not be necessary 2) apparent paradoxes and contradictions are identified and embraced as inherently interdependent conditions whenever possible (cases in point: the notion of “light” ceases to be meaningful without darkness by which to compare it; each of us is simultaneously an individual and part of a society).
Throughout history, forms of dialectic reasoning have been applied to discussions of a wide range of political, philosophical, spiritual, and scientific matters. While horns are locked and the clock ticks away on all manner of pressing social and environmental issues, I am now may be a fitting moment to evaluate the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of prevailing mechanisms for the exchange of ideas, and develop a more modern, appropriate, efficient, and constructive paradigm.
Perhaps it's time for a dialectic revival.
A new dialectic framework could have revolutionary potential. Transparency in communication is a radical act. The powers of obfuscation, confusion, and polarization are wielded with great skill by those who seek to suppress and control, often inadvertently drawing in even those with an earnest interest in clarity. Dialectic technique could serve as an antidote, a way of dissolving veils of calculated deception to reveal the inner workings of an underlying reality.
In order for a framework for dialectic to work effectively, a few parameters would need to be established at the outset. All participants might take into account that the primary goal of the dialectic method is to pool knowledge and compare and contrast differing viewpoints on a matter for the purpose of deepening overall understanding. Unlike forms of debate in which one side attempts to demonstrate the superiority of a singular view over a seemingly diametrically opposed one by any means available (including emotional persuasion), those willing to engage in a new dialectic suspend dualistic thinking and instead favor constructive critique, analytical reasoning, and rational deduction.
Proposed outline of steps:
1. Establish the matter to be considered.
2. Identify and define abstract or ambiguous terminology and concepts.
3. Acknowledge the existence of apparent contradiction, paradox, and nuance.
4. Determine commonalities and points of connection.
5. Reevaluate the matter in light of information gleaned through elucidation of both paradox and connection.
6. Develop and implement solutions based on a refined understanding of the matter at hand. If further clarification is desired, begin again at step 1.
7. Improvise on above framework.
"IT IS WHAT IT ISN'T!"
– John P. Clark