A Word for Good Conversations
Dialectic • noun • (die-uhh-leck-tick)
Definition: a process of finding truth through conversation
Origin: Greek
To help sustain and grow The Word with Barrett Holmes Pitner we have introduced a subscription option to the newsletter. Subscribers will allow us to continue producing The Word, and create exciting new content including podcasts and new newsletters.
Subscriptions start at $5 a month, and if you would like to give more you can sign up as a Founding Member and name your price.
We really enjoy bringing you The Word each week and we thank you for supporting our work.
Pre-orders for Barrett Holmes Pitner’s book THE CRIME WITHOUT A NAME are now available. You can place those orders through your local independent bookseller, or any of the following: Bookshop.org | Amazon.com | Barnes and Noble
When SCL first launched, our main focus was to engage our audience in conversation. When I look back on our beginnings, I can see that our focus was primarily about cultivating the right environment that could allow for organic conversations to grow, but not about how to engage in a healthy and constructive conversation. Our idea was very Field of Dreams, in that if we built the space we believed that people would come.
Fortunately for us, our events were successful, but this success did not mean that we should stop exploring how to have good conversations. Creating the right environment is only one facet of the work. This desire to forge healthy conversations is why we use a dialectical approach to our work.
A dialectic is the process of finding truth through conversation, and throughout history, many philosophers have cultivated a dialectical approach to their work.
Plato’s dialogues in Ancient Greece adopted a dialectic approach to challenge one’s conventional notions through a precise line of questioning that would often leave the person in a state of puzzlement called Aporia.
German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel created a dialectic that encouraged us to uplift and transcend our present limitations. A key aspect of his dialectic is Aufheben, which is a hard-to-translate German word meaning “abolish, preserve, and transcend.”
As SCL has focused on cultivating a dialectic, we have noticed some strange impediments in American discourse that can impede our ability to discover truth and transcend our limitations.
Illumination vs. Dialectic
In the year 389, Christian theologian and philosopher St. Augustine proposed the theory that humans learn through a process he called Divine Illumination. Augustine's theory essentially concludes that what we consider to be knowledge is actually the Divine illuminating the truth through us. Knowledge and truth did not occur through conversation, but instead through a private process of Divine Illumination.
This idea has influenced and shaped Christian thought for hundreds of years, and though it might seem like an incredibly strange idea, I believe that the concept of illumination still undermines our capacity to have productive conversations today.
Regardless of whether one really believes that the Divine is illuminating through them and that they are merely a conduit for divine truth and knowledge, the pressure to illuminate still shapes our conversations. Far too often, people expect that a conversation should consist of the protagonist illuminating the other person, and that the conversation does not consist of rebuttals and questions. The hope is for an illumination followed by a series of appreciative thank yous. This discourse is the absence of a conversation, but in America it is often considered to be an ideal conversation.
Throughout my life the expectation of illumination and the absence of discourse has been a profound problem for me because I have always asked a lot of questions. I can be unceasing in my questions as I pursue truth and knowledge, yet far too often each question is interpreted as questioning or invalidating the other person’s capacity to illuminate.
People frequently attach their self-worth and intelligence to the notion of creating a perfect idea all on their own, so when they engage in conversation, they aspire to wow people with their brilliance. This leads to situations where asking questions can challenge the efficacy of their brilliant illumination, and now questions are no longer perceived as an exploration towards truth and knowledge but a questioning of one’s self-worth that needs to be prevented.
I have known many people who were exceptional at illuminating when they were younger as they made great grades in school, and now their sense of self in adulthood resides in the capacity to illuminate. As adults, these people have grown to be reluctant to ask for help, listen to others, or be receptive to constructive questioning, because each of these healthy actions that are foundational to a dialectic challenges their capacity to still illuminate. They do not want to acquire truth or knowledge, but want to be the vessel from which knowledge flows.
American individualism encourages each of us to retreat from conversation and instead invest in our capacity to illuminate. This concept can only work if we believe that truth can only be found through a divine individual—a savior—and not through our connections with each other. This theory offers no opportunity for growth, and as we work to forge a better world we must cultivate a dialectic so that we can grow out of our reliance on illumination.
Ethnocide vs. Truth
Another substantial impediment of cultivating a dialectic in America is that our ethnocidal foundation has no interest in truth. American ethnocide has always worked for truth to reside with the ethnocider. They are the owners of truth, therefore truth has long been what they say it is regardless of whether it is true or false.
Due to this absence of truth and a dependence on a façade of truth, an honest dialectic has long been shunned in America. America recoils at the prospect of the actual truth because it will bring every facet of our society into question.
Additionally, due to America’s Christian roots colonizers believed they had a moral obligation to illuminate the “truth” of god and western civilization upon what they considered the uncivilized world.
A dialectic not only questions established notions of truth, but entirely dismisses the legitimacy of illumination. Colonization and the United States were largely built upon a belief in a truth that exists without forging a dialogue with the people whose lives will be impacted by this truth.
As America works to become more inclusive, equitable, and truthful, our society has worked to cultivate healthy conversations in pursuit of the truth. Yet in order to sustain this growth and increase our knowledge, we must be aware of some of the profound obstacles that impair us from engaging in healthy conversations.
This week, focus on engaging in conversations with others with an intention of collectively pursuing knowledge and truth, and shed yourself of the troublesome burden of wanting to illuminate. You do not need to be the conduit of all knowledge and truth. Ridding yourself of this expectation can allow you to have better conversations and become a more knowledgeable and truthful person.
