Dialectics [Now freed from the "Scott and"]

[Stephen Chilton]

On Sat, 9 Aug 1997 MSalter1@aol.com wrote:

>  
> STEVE replies 
> 
>  Alas, Michael, I see the relationship between phenomenological
>  demonstrations and definitions/theory as dialectical and am
>  unwilling to give priority to either. But perhaps in a practical
>  sense it is right that I as an academic be especially cognizant
>  of the former since I get (and give) so much of the latter! 
> 
>  Best,
>  Steve >>
> 
> MICHAEL RE-REPLIES
> 
> But, both of us refuse to reduce the topics of our analysis to either
> 
> 1/. phenomenogical demonstration (some nominal / provisional "definition"
> must already be presupposed in order to even identify let alone delimit the
> borders of the field)  or
> 2/. a dogmatically imposed, supposedly universal and self-sufficient
> "definition" whose fixed "identity" , from the outset, prescribes the
> signifiance of all mere empirical/experiential content which is subsumed
> under it.
> 
> Then we are still at a prelimary stage of dialectics. Here the either/or-ism
> of the underlying dualism is still implicitly "framing" our analysis; the
> movement from either/or (understood as a reduction to one of two mutually
> exclusive and positive contraries, e.g., abstract definition vs. concrete
> experiential demonstration ) to a more reflexive neither/nor position is
> coherent. The latter stage prescribes the limits of "negative contraries" and
> which seems to characterise Steve's quite appropriate response "refusing to
> priorities either". 

I've never had a chance to think much about this issue, so your
re-reply is helping me clarify stuff to myself.  I see the dialectic
not as a conflict between incompatible claims (as in
thesis-antithesis) but as a process that takes place between two
different and reciprocally transformative modes of knowledge. 
	- Incompatible claims:  Here some resolution is clearly
called for, and certainly it will be useful to challenge the terms
in which the contraries are cast, turning the "either-or" of the two
claims into the "neither-nor" of which you speak.
	- Reciprocally transformative modes of knowledge:  In the
discussion running through this thread, we have been talking about
two different ways in which we can come to know things:  by
abstraction / definition / theoretical / philosophical inquiry, and
by experiential demonstration.  I see two key things to notice here: 
First, these are ways of knowing instead of facts themselves. 
Second, each way of knowing has the ability to transform the
products of the other.  Thus (to take a not-so-random example), the
forces of production can transform the relations of production, and
the relations of production can transform the forces of production. 
[I can elaborate on this mutual transformation if it isn't clear.]
So it seems to me that while "either-or"  might be the
(inappropriate) nondialectical stance -- one or the other method is
the source of Truth --, its opposite is not "neither-nor" but rather
"both":  BOTH methods are useful and must be continually consulted. 
In this situation I don't see much point in challenging the terms of
the ways of knowing;  instead, we need to challenge the claim of
each of them that it is the royal road to Truth. 

Perhaps I have misunderstood you;  and perhaps I am unduly
restricting the concept of a dialectic.  I'd be interested to hear.

> This movement certainly takes us some way forward. But it only takes us some
> way forward towards fulfilling the possibility of "dialectics" in a more
> fulsome sense, i.e.,as a concrete way of doing empirical research, as
> distinct from simply adopting a abstractly universal theoretical stance
> definable as a "method" at the outset "free" of any empirical references.

I'd need to hear more about the above paragraph.  I don't understand
it very clearly, since as far as I can tell my sense of dialectics
doesn't lend itself to being "a concrete way of doing empirical
research". 


I look forward to hearing more on this from you, Mike, or from
anyone else on the list who can shed light on how we use this widely
mentioned and diversely understood concept.


Best,
Steve

*************************************************************
| Stephen Chilton, Associate Professor, Dept of Pol Science |
|    Univ of Minnesota-Duluth / Duluth, MN 55812-2496 / USA |
|                                                           |
| 218-726-8162 (desk)    726-7534 (dept)    724-0979 (home) |
| FAX:  218-726-6386     INTERNET:  schilton@mail.d.umn.edu |
|                                                           |
| More [supposedly] Actual Newspaper Headlines:             |
|                                                           |
| - Miners Refuse to Work after Death                       |
| - Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant                |
| - Stolen Painting Found by Tree                           |
| - Two Soviet Ships Collide, One Dies                      |
| - Two Sisters Reunited after 18 Years in Checkout Counter |
| - Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time in 10 Years     |
| - Drunken Drivers Paid $1000 in `84                       |
| - War Dims Hope for Peace                                 |
| - If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last a While    |
|      [Courtesy of Roger Fossum]                           |
*************************************************************