An experiment in dialectical interaction of dialoguing, que - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

An experiment in dialectical interaction of dialoguing, questioning, enquiring and co-enquiring.

A participative experimental session in dialogue, co-enquiring, and critical reflectiona 33

Earth Stewardship Science Research Institute

Alon.Serper@nmmu.ac.za

1Slide2

Aims of Session

1. To look at and formulate the meanings and implication

s of a transformative dialogue and

dialectical engagement

among individuals of different expertise and backgrounds.

2

. To distinguis

h 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 thinking5. 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 being done and fulfil the intention of constructing a greater transformative dialogue and critical reflection

2Slide3

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 self-dialogue 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 enquiry3Slide4

Dialectics

The dialectical logic 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

4Slide5

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 5Slide6

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

6Slide7

An example

One cannot have contradictions in a single propositionHence  -

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. 7Slide8

An example

SimilarlyThe 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. 8Slide9

The Propositional logic

HenceThe 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 views9Slide10

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

=

CC = SmarterAlon 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 10Slide11

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.

11Slide12

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 out-weighted. 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. 12Slide13

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 co-enquire 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

13Slide14

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

14Slide15

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 of the dialectical process.

15Slide16

Dialogue

Heath et al., (2006), p. 368 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 16Slide17

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 17Slide18

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 and care for the social other18Slide19

Dialogue

Heath et al., effective dialogue assumes three things: that participants have the capacity to understand and acknowledge their own worldview and express it competently,

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)19Slide20

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 handp. 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. 20Slide21

Dialogue

Paulo FreireFreire (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.21Slide22

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.

 22Slide23

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)

23Slide24

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 of the members, and each others

24Slide25

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 beforeAnd see what happenPerhaps we can start regular face-to-face meetings in Port Elizabeth and electronic meetings online for those living far away.

25Slide26

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

.26Slide27

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?

27Slide28

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?

28Slide29

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?

29Slide30

Questions

Let us co-construct theories of dialogue and dialogic engagementWhat 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?

30Slide31

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