|
|
Richard.Jewell.net |
CollegeWriting.info
|
|
|
CollegeWriting.info |
|
 |
Introduction to Dialogic/Dialectic Arguing |
|
Welcome! This introduction offers a simple, brief summary. For more, go to "The Basics." "Sample Papers" by students also is quite helpful. If you understand this type of paper already, you might prefer to read "Advanced Methods."
|
|
|
Definition and Purpose |
A dialogic or dialectic paper is a multiple-arguments paper on a single, usually controversial issue. It is similar to a three- or four-way oral debate among opposing experts or political candidates as they argue about a single important issue. A typical dialogic paper often may present or imply three viewpoints: two of them completely opposing each other, and the third either opposing the first two or representing a compromise or higher point of view. A dialogic paper usually does not take a single stand on an issue; rather, it attempts to represent all sides equally, even if the author happens to believe more in one side than another. Sometimes a dialogic paper will offer the author's own opinion in the very end, in the conclusion, but otherwise such a paper usually is fair, balanced, logical, rational, and equal in its treatment of all sides it represents. A dialogic paper is like a thesis paper in that it shows an argument, but rather than just one argument, the dialogic paper shows several: in a way, it is like combining three thesis papers together, one after the other. A dialogic paper also is like a conversation among several people who disagree on a subject; however, the dialogic paper presents each point of view fully before continuing on to represent the next point of view. Examples of dialogic papers include debates among several people when each debater presents his or her point of view fully and without interruption, and research papers that show separate and opposing arguments on a controversial subject.
Dialogic writing is a reflection of the ever continuing historical, democratic debate among ideas. English theorist and educator Kurt Spellmeyer of Rutgers University describes it thus:
If what you're after is to be a better human being..., [w]hen any real improvement takes place, it makes the mind more open to not-knowing rather than more certain and well-grounded in tradition. First, you read a book or adopt a new way of thinking, and, for a while, it explains everything. But then you see that it doesn’t. Something’s been left out, or something’s absolutely wrong. And then you read another book, and, for a while, it explains everything. But then you see that it doesn’t either. Something’s been left out, or something’s absolutely wrong. This process goes on and on, and, after a time, you might come to regard the structures of knowledge as necessary but crippling, redemptive but destructive, civilizing but barbaric. Then you might begin to suspect that there’s no point at which this process will come to an end, and you’ll finally be There. And, if you have that humbling experience, it’s just possible that you might look at others with a little greater patience, forbearing, and curiosity... (637). Modernity [i.e., being modern] is all about...the search for connections to a universe more alive, diverse, and mysterious than any cultural tradition has fully understood (639).*
Writing a dialogic paper is a small but very important part of this great democratic tradition of trying out different ideas in the marketplace of academic and professional thinking, weighing and judging, trying them out, and then deciding upon one or another--or perhaps deciding on yet a different and better way. As Spellmeyer points out in saying that then you will be "There," the most important part of dialogue is not the conclusion you come to at any one time in life, but rather the process itself, and using it.
I recall a time near the end of high school when a friend decided that three of us were going to discuss one of the great works of Western culture, Plato's three Dialogues, over a meal on the town. We had never gone to a fancy restaurant together, a thing in itself kind of strange in our small-town culture decades ago--the idea of three guys (instead of a guy and a girl) having a special dinner together. So, we read our Dialogues and we went out to dinner in small city fifty miles away where no one knew us. And the guy who wanted to have the discussion, David, started talking and inviting our ideas. Mike, the second guy, participated somewhat, and they talked back and forth for awhile. But I didn't say much because I thought the point of the Dialogues was pretty obvious: Socrates died for his ideals, and those who controlled his society were wrong to kill him. Period. When I said as much, David kind of shook his head and said, somewhat lamely, "But we're supposed to discuss it." At the time I just didn't get it, even though I had gone through some tremendous intellectual changes already in the previous three years--from fervent fundamentalist Christian to ardent Ayn Rand young Republican and agnostic, and then to existential leap-of-faith liberal and believer in "humanity."
And half a year later, sitting around the dorm in my first term at famously intellectual Shimer College and its tradition of teaching the great Western classics (a program initially developed by the University of Chicago), the sophomores and juniors in my dorm wing kept talking about the value of "bullshit sessions." At first I thought this meant "creative lying." But when I asked them to define it, they said to bullshit meant that no matter what you believed, you exchanged different ideas and possibilities through talk. This to me seemed a novel idea. Fortunately, though, I had grown enough to see the point of it: I had already gone through so many changes that nothing seemed quite so certain anymore, so why not explore other possibilities?
And gradually, during the next two years at Shimer, I learned to "bullshit" well, even elegantly, offering a variety of opinions for both teachers in class and friends in our rooms. However, it was in the exchanging of opposing viewpoints--in the actual act of doing it--that I became a firm believer in its value. Dialogic discussion didn't really change me that much as a person, at least not my core values, especially as I began to develop my own sense of self through experience, meditation, and thought. What dialogic discussion did for me, though, was help me discover whole worlds of other people's thoughts, actions, feelings, and motivations. The world opened up. Through dialogue (what at Shimer we called "bullshitting"), I saw not just the end product of what people believed but, more importantly, the process of their thoughts and feelings that made them what they were. )And sometimes, just as importantly, it helped me see how people justify their beliefs and actions.) Learning to talk dialogically helped me become more sensitive to individuals, more rational in my own thinking (as I learned ever better to separate reason from excuse), and more culturally diverse as I discovered the widely differing experiences of people from ethnic, gender, income, and geographic groups other than my own.
|
|
 |
Writer's Goal or Assignment |
The goal of writing a dialogic or dialectic paper usually is to complete an academic assignment asking you to show a debate or argument among two to three opposing viewpoints. To do so, you should write using a dialogic structure (two arguments opposing each other and, if requested, a third opposing argument, compromise, or higher point of view) using three or four body sections. Start your paper with an introduction that briefly and clearly offering your two or three opposing viewpoints briefly and clearly. (If your instructor allows or requests it, you also may have a very brief first section, after the introduction, that reports on the issue's history or background.) Then devote the great majority of your discussion to the body section, in which you develop strong, clear supports for each position. Your supports should be details from from experts and/or, if you are writing from personal experience, your own personal-experience examples.
In your introduction and conclusion, clearly indicate the type of paper you are writing and the two or three opposing arguments you are discussing. If your paper is a research paper, each body section must include quotations and/or paraphrases that are substantial in quality and quantity and are from authoritative sources; also attach a bibliography appropriate to your field, discipline, or profession.
|
|
|
Summary/Outline of the Visual Structure |
Here is the structure or organization of a dialogic argument. More development of this structure is shown in the "Basics" section.
|
Unique Title |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Focusing Methods |
A "focus" in writing helps you at any given moment to concentrate on writing. Here are several helpful, important focuses people use to develop a dialogic/dialectic argument.
|
|
SUBJECT: If helpful, brainstorm a list of subjects. Choose one carefully. Will it appeal to you throughout your writing time? Do you have enough details or examples to support what you are saying, or can you find them easily? Can you write about your subject fully and logically? What is the problem and what are the several solutions your paper will represent? Will your audience find your paper and its solutions reasonable, appropriate, and interesting? (If you wish to represent only one side of an argument, see "Thesis Essay.") |
|
FIRST & SECOND DRAFTS: Start with one or two methods that work best for you, but develop the others in later drafts.
|
|
STYLE, TONE, and WRITER'S ROLE: Develop (in early or late drafts) an academic style and tone of calm, reasoned, fair, balanced logic. Relay each viewpoint calmly and rationally by using such phrases as "Some people believe...." Do not take sides, emotionally or logically (until possibly the conclusion). |
|
AUTHENTICITY: Be as real and meaningful as you can to your audience, your content, and yourself. First, respect your audience: try as fully as you can to answer its questions using a pattern and style it expects. Second, find the heart of the meaning in each of your three arguments and write about them with as much balance and fullness as possible. Third, make the subject your own: explore the differing points of view to discover what they mean at their deepest. |
---------
-*Spellmeyer, Kurt. "REVIEW: A Massive Failure of Imagination." College English 70, No. 6, July 2008. 633-43.
Most recent update: 19 Aug. 2008
|
Contents and Page Design © 2002-2004 by Richard Jewell. Nonprofit copying for education is allowed. Images
courtesy of Barry's Clip Art, Clip
Art Warehouse, The
Clip Art Universe, Clipart
Collection, Microsoft Clip Art Gallery and Design
Gallery Live, School Discovery,
and Web Clip Art |
|
- End -
