DIALOGUE

With this posting, I conclude describing and explaining the five disciplines I deem to be essential in productive argumentation – productive, that is, along federalist values.  To sum up:  I have borrowed from Philip Selznick’s[1] “five pillars of reason” to devise this set of disciplines.  My intent is to encourage educators – and other interested parties – to see argumentation from two perspectives:  one, the typical view of argumentation as a means of convincing others of a point of view; and two, as a process that can be used to seek the truth.  These disciplines, when combined with relevant skills, can be utilized in classroom instruction as a means of having students conduct inquiries over issues, especially if those issues are spurred by concern over federalism.[2]  To date, the disciplines reviewed have been order, principle, experience, and prudence.  This posting will look at dialogue.

When considering prudence, one point highlighted was the concern over the ends of arguments; that is, when considering a contested point of policy or view, one should be cognizant of the ends the argued means are meant to target.  Oftentimes, ends seem to be assumed; many times, those assumptions differ in that the ends they represent differ.  We can often detect these variances by the language each side uses.  For example, in the debate over abortion, one side will use terminology that speaks of the killing of babies.  The other side does not counter this reference directly; instead it will speak of a woman’s right to control her body.  Neither side directly contradicts the other’s claim because such language gets to the ends of the argument.  The anti-abortion side has as its unstated ends its desire to please a deity.  The other sees this battle as one prong in the war for women’s equality.  Instead of getting into all that, argument tends to avoid such “messy” aspects and just assumes, in its arguments that its ends are above reproach.

But it is here that participants should argue and they should do so through dialogue.  We engage in such dialogue not necessarily to secure agreement.  We engage in this process to seek truth by seeing other perspectives, other trains of logic, and other instances of devout and honest commitment.  It humanizes those with whom we disagree and it does so not by avoiding strenuous debate and passionate exchanges but by engaging in them.  That is part of it:  the passion, the emotions, and the rhetoric.  And yet, we can do all of this with civility.  But civility presupposes a general environment of basic trust that those with whom we disagree are honest, generally moral, and pursuant of the common good.  Therefore, we can’t have dialogue – not of the type described here – with everyone.  As a matter of fact, dialogue, while it can be attempted in usual argumentation, will probably occur infrequently.  Why?  We don’t live in a society in which federalist values are generally seen as ideal.  But this does not preclude us from holding them collectively – or even individually – as an ideal that we can strive toward.  And so, one so disposed, can seek dialogue, attempt it, and engage in it whenever possible.

But even if dialogue were readily experienced, this does not mean such argumentation will lead to agreement.  Some opposing ends have been with us since the beginnings of civilized life, if not before.  It would lead, though, to greater understanding, empathy, and respect among us all.

Although the risks are real, there is a place for the prophetic spirit, for passion and rhetoric, in communicative inquiry.  Without confrontation, unspoken assumptions may never be truly exposed to criticism and debate.  People may not really listen.[3]

And what of the demands of the classroom?  How does this dialogue work there?  The classroom can prove to be a very demanding area.  First, students are a captive audience.  What is presented to them is mostly not of their choosing.  A process that relies to any degree on argumentation, much less the process I am suggesting, needs to be cautiously approached.  Arguments over ends – what is usually treated as assumed contentions – will come to a screeching halt if the appropriate build up is not laid out.  Premature attempts at such arguments can easily devolve into shouting matches.  If that happens, those who will cease to listen will be the students who are sitting before the teacher who is attempting to promote such dialogue.

---

[1] Selznick, P.  (1992).  The moral commonwealth:  Social theory and the promise of community.  Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press.

[2] For those new to this blog, the blog is, in part, dedicated to promoting a mental construct in the guidance of curricular content in the subject matter of civics.  That mental construct I entitle federation theory.  The accompanying remarks introducing the postings of this blog gives the reader an overall description of what federation theory is.

[3] Ibid., p. 62.