Dialectical Writing:

"The Capacity of the Mind to Rise Above Itself"

Paul Zisman, Associate Professor
Mary Washington College
1987
Introduction
Writing is often advocated as a means of enhancing critical thinking. The
goal of clear writing, the reasoning goes, compels clear thinking; and
systematic forms of writing, such as the argumentative paper, compel the
writer to adopt certain modes of thinking. The emphasis, however, is on the
composition as the end-product; critical thinking is a by-product. What if
the emphasis were reversed, and critical thought were made the goal? What
kind of writing would result? One type of such writing might be called
dialectical writing.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what this might mean. The term
"dialectical " refers to a special kind of thinking. What is "dialectical
thinking"? When does thinking become dialectical? Does such thinking yield a
certain kind of conclusion and therefore is it known by its product? Or is it
a means of generating conclusions and therefore is a process?
Once we have made such clarifications, we need to determine how such
thinking functions so we can create it. Hence, the next question: How does
one think dialectically? This could be addressed by a long excursion into
cognitive psychology. Or it could be treated simply in phenomenological terms
in order to suggest instructional approaches. We will attempt the latter.
Finally, how does one go about promoting dialectical writing in a concrete
way? What instructional process promotes writing of this sort? The paper is
structured to address these questions, starting with dialectical thinking and
ending with a suggested format for such writing.

What is dialectical thinking? What is the dialectic? The dialectical method

probably originated with Zeno's paradoxes, reached its first high point in Plato's
dialogue, was relegated to a secondary position by Aristotle, and reached its second
high point with Hegel (Hall, 1967). It has recently been resurrected by the
current critical thinking movement in education. Everyone who uses it places
a special connotation on it. The etymology, according to Webster's, is found
in two roots, “dia-”, meaning "between," and “legein,” meaning "to choose, to
talk." It is related to another word of Greek origin, dialogue. Thus we have the notion
of juxtaposition of ideas with the context of a conversation. We can say that the
salient feature of "dialectic" is the opposition of elements with the aim of going
beyond them.

Does this indicate that dialectical thinking is only a process in which

two conversationalists or two ideas are brought into opposition? Or does it
refer to the end result of such a process? As a method, the dialectic is most
commonly associated with Socrates, and often equated with the Socratic
dialogue. Socrates' purpose was not simply to win the argument, a form of
dialectic scorned as Sophistry, but rather to reach a higher truth (The
Republic of Plato, Book V). Socratic irony was the pose of not knowing a
subject in order that questions may be raised about it. The aim was to find
contradictory cases that would render a position untenable. The
reconciliation of the contradiction would uncover some higher truth about the
subject, a higher truth already apprehended but forgotten. As Plato has
Socrates say in the Meno, the best use of this approach is the inquiry into
virtue, the Good. Socrates was not concerned with the validity of the theory
of reminiscence, in which the truth is always present but not immediately
recalled, but rather with the result of acting as if it were true. Such is an art of
thinking that accepts a supposition as way of providing an alternative platform from
which to launch an investigation. The “as if” hypothesis opens doors to untraveled
trains of thought and will help in securing a dialectical way of thinking.

So far, we have dealt with the dialectic as a process of deliberately fostering a

creative tension between seemingly disparate ideas. What about the dialectic as an
end result? The dialectic avoids "the egocentric predicament" by the direction it
takes. Dialectical thinking can only be counted as such when the direction of its
exercise is some sort of higher unity. An egocentric use of the dialectic would be to
win the argument or reinforce an existing bias. No creative transcendence of thought
can be attained under such a bias. On the other hand, to regard the "dialectic" as a
"debate" is to reduce it to the art of persuasion, disregarding any pretense of seeking
a “truth.” In contrast, following in the Platonic vein, some greater truth must result to
be considered a valid dialectic method. According to Nettleship (1968: 108), Plato
conceived of the dialectic as both a method and result:
If the method be supposed to have been carried through to the utmost verge
of truth, the moving process passes into a completed result, and dialectic,
instead of a logic of discovery and definition, becomes the
living expression of the truth itself, the embodied logic of reality.
Plato's dialectic becomes a unifying principle which goes beyond the
"hypothetical knowledge" produced by science. The essences of things are
known by their connections, so a universal science must "lead us to look
everywhere for unity in multiplicity and differentiation in unity"
(Nettleship, 1968: 126). The quintessence of such unity is the notion of the
Good, the ideal premise guiding a philosopher's life, which every individual
must discover for herself or himself.

A modern expression of Plato is found in Richard Paul 's work (1984), which
distinguishes dialectical thinking from disciplinary problem solving.
Although critical thinking embraces both kinds of thinking, most educational
efforts are directed toward the latter. This entails training in the "micro-logical skills,"
such as identifying premises, drawing conclusions, making inferences, etc. Dialectical
thinking, in contrast, pursues unifying principles that synthesize across disciplines
and across the domains of cognition and affect. Dialectical thinking, while it directs
the mind toward the integration of knowledge, seeks to examine the context or
underlying premises of integrated knowledge. Although Paul does not state it in his
1984 paper explicitly, from his examples and from a video demonstration I viewed,
such thinking is basically ethically oriented, rather than oriented toward grand
scientific schemes. The search for ethical premises presumes an open mind,
one that sympathetically considers the interpretations of others, no matter
how alienating they seem. In sum, while Paul advocates a Socratic dialogue approach,
his greatest concern in his 1984 article is with the direction of critical
thinking. I will build on his approach, shifting the emphasis to the method of the
dialectic rather than the outcome.
How can this brief review help in settling on a guiding description of the
dialectic that we can apply to educational situations. Dialectical thinking begins by
employing the mental processes which pull the
thinker out of a frame of thought so that it can be examined. I like Nettleship's
interpretation of Plato. One moves from "opinion" formed from ensory experience to
"knowledge" by confronting the contradictions inherent
in opinions. After he refers to the natural impulse of the mind to go beyond
what it apprehends from its sensory experience, he states:
And in this capacity which the mind possesses of rising above itself,
asking itself questions, feeling dissatisfied with its own results, lie
the real condition and source of progress, intellectual and moral.
Therefore, dialectical thinking employs the mind's self-referencing capacity
in such a way that the mind transcends its current thought patterns.
How does dialectical thinking appear to the thinker?
How does one make the leap from one frame of reference to another, from
egocentric references to more universal ones? Where does one leap to when
one knows only the current frame of reference? What compels one to make the
leap? The initial stage of the dialectic requires that one's current
premise, upon which one's current thinking is referenced, be brought into
one's awareness. As the reader can see, we are treating mental objects
phenomenologically, from the inside, as the thinker knows them. We are faced
with the problem of how the mind knows itself. We begin by positing a
capacity for self-referencing, and admit that we do not know how the mind
indeed can be exist aware.of itself but we know as thinkers that jifc^such a capacity
does
While the mind has the capacity for self-awareness, it does not
automatically use this capacity dialectically. From Plato (and Piaget), we
conceive of two directions in extending knowledge: downwardly, by
differentiating one element from another (analysis) within a whole; and
upwardly, by forming new wholes from disparate elements (synthesis). In the
former, the thinker becomes aware of missing knowledge in existing
categories, and he searches to fill the gap. Or, as in synthesis, he becomes
aware of two isolated thought systems and seeks their unification. The
direction of the dialectic is the latter, to distinguish the premises of
thought systems one from another and to create from these premises higher
order systems. But phenomenologically, how is this done?
Through the self-referencing capacity, awareness focusses on the pinnacle
or highest node of a thought system, the foundational principle. How is this
principle brought into awareness? The mind must have its objects to think
3 Zisman: Dialectical Writing
with. Mental phenomena must be produced and externalized so that they can be
treated as objects external to the knower, as if they belonged to another
knower. In practical terms, the thinker must create a stream of thoughts
about the subject or question at hand. These thoughts become a verbal or
written "text" open to analysis. In this way, a thought system is
objectified, made into an object external to the thinking self. This object
can be analyzed like any other object. This phase of the dialectic might be
referred to as "generating the text."
Our thinker generates the text by using the tools of critical analysis to
probe the initial idea and draw out its primary principle.
Phenomenologically, the thinker is engaged in a dialogue; hypothetical
* Socrates" confronts him with questions about the meaning of his text. Having
been asked to clarify his meaning, he elaborates on it by spelling out more
precisely the definitions of key concepts. Each step of the way he is
challenged to explain vague terms or conceptualizations. The thinker himself
goes from one idea to another, as if hp were unburying previously
inaccessible knowledge, much like Socrates' demonstration of the doctrine of
reminiscence. Such process is called definition under criticism.
Having elaborated on the text and having it in front of him as if it were
the text of someone else
, our thinker can now search through it, finding the
unifying theme in the multiplicity of his ideas. How can he " pul legs himself
out" of the frame of reference which generated this stream of thoughts and be
led to recognize its foundational premise? Carl Rogers, the humanistic
therapist, discovered that his attempts to see the world from the point of
view of his client and to express this understanding back to the client
resulted in the objectification of his client's thoughts. His clients
automatically elaborated on their own thinking and often came to surprising
insights about their deep-seated motivations for holding a thought. So the
definition under criticism
, a process similar to Roger's but cognitively
oriented
, might be sufficient. In an academic setting, however, and given the
lofty aims we hold for the dialectic, the thinker should not only identify
the premise but also be able to relate it to an intellectual tradition. The
thinker draws on his knowledge of the intellectual traditions, which could be
schools of thought, paradigms, or competing theories and the like, as a basis
of comparison. Which intellectual tradition does his theme approximate? How
is it similar? How does it differ? This phase of the process might be called
identifying the frame of reference.
Why might the thinker be fascinated and engaged by the dialectical
encounter? The dialectical method calls into question the thinker's
conceptualization of a subject. A contradiction unsettles the thinker as he
cannot act in contrary directions. He searches for a resolution. This wellknown
compulsion was recognized by Plato and in modern psychology by the
Gestalt notion of coherence
, Piaget's notion of equilibration, and
Festinger's concept of cognitive dissonance. According to our approach to the
dialectic
, the contradiction should create tension about the utility of the
foundational principle. For example. Strike and Soltis, in their
instructional text entitled The Ethics of Teaching (1985), create tension by
directing the thinker's attention to undesirable consequences stemming from a
cherished ethical principle. A dialectic device, then, casts suspicion on a
4 Zisman: Dialectical Writing
taken-for-granted conception of reality and thus offers an opportunity for
growth.
Nett1 eship identifies a deeper motivation in Plato and, as he has a talent
for
, finds the modern condition in Plato's thoughts. He understands Plato's
notion of the Good in the Republic as follows (Nettleship, 1968: 138):
We talk of our principles of justice and honour, but how can we be said to
understand, or even to possess, a principle or a virtue, unless we see
"wherein they are good," unless we know what it is which gives them their
value
, unless they are not isolated fragments in a vague "sketch" of life,
but connected parts in a fully wrought design? How can a man order his own
life or that of others
, if he has "no clear pattern in his soul" to the
ideal truth of which he can look for guidance? How can he maintain
existing iaws or institutions, or reform them when they need it, if his
acquaintance with them is the merely empirical [sensory] familiarity which
a blind man might have...with a road along which he had learned to walk
stra'1 ght?
We naturally engage in the dialectic as we try to bring coherence to our
lives and find a personal significance that accords with our perception of
the universal. Our striving for such integrity is undermined by our striving
for the trappings of our culture, with little understanding of their
significance. Plato's vision was to create a way to bring men and women out
of the caves of appearances and into the light of the highest principles to
which our nature, when untrapped, is naturally attracted.
How is dialectical writing promoted?
Writing which exercises the writer's capacity to rise above a thought
system by applying dialectical methods can be called dialectical writing.
According to our phenomenological approach, there are two major components.
First, a text must be generated which pulls out of the writer her ideas about
a topic. A special form of Socratic questioning will serve this step. The
second step requires that the writer recognize the underlying premises or
frame of reference for her ideas. This can be accomplished through
contrasting the writer's frame of reference with those of traditional schools
of thought on a subject. Such a contrastive analysis must be employed
dialectically, that is, with an eye toward a synthesis, if it will actually
move the writer to a higher level of understanding.
The emphasis on the writing process in the last decade or so provides a
framework very compatible with the aims of dialectical writing. The dictum of
writing process proponents is that writing is a process, not only a product
(Elbow, 1972). The teacher emphasizes the writing act itself by helping the
writer shape her text towards its completion. As the writer struggles to
formulate her thoughts, she engages in a discovery process which leads to her
greater understanding of the material (Murray, 1984). The writing process is
therefore broken down into phases, beginning with pre-writing activities
through a revision of drafts until the writer feels a sense of completion.
Students must be coached to think
, write, read, think again and re-write
5 Zisman: Dialectical Writing
until the text gels into a coherent authentic expression. They should share
their early drafts to seek reactions and they need to be stimulated to
organize their ideas in order to accommodate the audience. A common mistake
is to insist on correct mechanics and clarity in the first or second drafts.
These drafts must be seen as experimental, opportunities to play with ideas.
Only as the writer reaches the end of the process should she start judging
the mechanics and finer points of expression.
Dialectical writing is a special type of the writing process. One approach
that I found useful is to begin with freewriting about a question. The
students are asked to respond to a question which ultimately calls for a
value judgement. An example is " What is the purpose of education?" The
students are asked to write whatever comes to their minds. They then get into
small groups to discuss each other's ideas. The goal is to try to isolate the
central ideas which express the student's beliefs about what the purpose of
education should be.
In the next phase, with the central notions identified, students engage in
self-questioning as if they were in a dialogue with Socrates. The aim of this
phase is to generate a "text", that is a corpus of thoughts about the topic.
Usually students need to engage in actual dialogues with classmates in order
to break out of their ideational encapsulation, that is, the notion that they
cannot think further about a topic. Ruggiero ( 1985) suggests using written
dialogues to stimulate ideas. In any event, Socratic questioning aims at
probing the meaning of concepts. And since concepts are represented in words,
the process is essentially to ask, " What do I mean by that?" Although a
dictionary might provide an initial response by giving a detailed definition
of the words, the writer must probe her own understanding and preferences for
her own particularistic connotation of the concept. In this way, her values
will be unburied.
Students find little difficulty in taking the first step in this
definitional process. But many do resist going beyond one or two levels of
probing. Here is an example of the Socratic method which does take the
process out a few levels:
What is the purpose of education? The purpose of education is to transmit
knowledge from one generation to the next. (What do I mean by "transmit
knowledge"? Or first, what does "knowledge" mean?) Knowledge is
information
, facts. (What are facts?) Facts are statements about things in
the world. (Is this what I really mean?) Knowledge is more than just
verbal statements. There must be some understanding. ( What does
understanding mean?).
Linguistically, each predicate tends to become the subject of the following
sentence. But questions which branch to other concepts or those which return
to the original concept and begin a new line of definitions are often
necessary moves to unravel the student's deeper understanding of the concept.
At some point the student stops and summarizes. This initiates the next
phase, identifying the frame of reference. For example, the student needs to
recognize that "transmit information" is very different from "stimulating
understanding." In the formal study of educational philosophies, the former
is known as Essential ism, which assumes a passive mind, and the latter as
6 Zisman: Dialectical Writing
Experimental ism, which assumes an active mind (Duck, 1981). Therefore, the
dialectic approach that I am advocating goes beyond Socratic questioning and
encourages the student to juxtapose her ideas with those of the great
thinkers in a form of contrastive analysis. This feature assumes that
students have subject matter knowledge, and therefore implicitly asserts that
dialectical thinking should not be divorced from subject matter knowledge.
Contrastive analysis allows the student to further clarify her assumptions
and values. The student can now use the intellectual traditions to "raise
questions" about her ideas. At this point, the student may have the urge to
defend her assumptions. But open-mindedness must prevail in order for the
student to find the validity in the contrasting viewpoints and use these
respected differences to help qualify her original position. For example, as
the student finds favor with the notion of understanding, she will realize
that development of understanding has an assumptional base (active mind) very
different from the transmission of information (passive mind). Such a
realization enlarges her own understanding of her perspective, thus giving
her the capacity to rise above her previous position.
The final product, in summary, is a paper divided into four parts. The
introductory part describes the purpose of the paper and how the student will
interpret the original question. Sophisticated students can follow
Soltis 1(1S78: 14) approach of asking prior questions in the introduction. The
second part goes through the process of presenting a tentative brief answer
to the question and then applying the Socratic method to the key concepts.
The third section is a contrastive analysis of the student's assumptions with
those of traditional schools of thought. Naturally, this assumes that the
student has a subject base. The purpose of this section is to induce the
student to further clarify her position. The final section reformulates an
answer to the original question in view of the previous analysis, noting the
progress that has been made, and ends with a set of questions for further
exploration.
References
Basseches, Michael (1982)
"Dialectical Thinking and Young Adult Socio-Cognitive Development."
(Cornell University) Unpublished paper for the Frost Foundation Conference,
Denver, CO.

Cornford, F. M. (1941) The Republic of Plato. New York: Oxford University Press

Duck, L. (1981) Teaching with Charisma. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Elbow, P. (1972) Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hall, Roland (1967) "Dialectic." The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York:

Macmillan. Vol. I, pp. 285-389.

Murray, Donald M. (1987) Write to Learn. New York: Holt Rhinehart Winston.

Nettleship, Richard Lewis (1968) The Theory of Education in the Republic of Plato.
New York: Teachers College Press (Originally published in 1880)

Paul, Richard (1984) "Critical Thinking Fundamental to Education for a Free Society"
Educational Leadership Vol. 42, No. 1.

Perry, William G., Jr. (1970) Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the
College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan (1985) Enter the Dialogue: A Dramatic Approach to Critical
Thinking & Writing. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Soltis, J. F.(1978)

An Introduction to the Analysis of Educational Concepts. Reading, MA.:

Addison-Wesley, second edition.

Strike, K. A. and Soltis, J. F. (1985) The Ethics of Teaching. New York: Teachers College
Press