Dialectical Reasoning

Dialectical reasoning refers to critical thinking about problems and evaluating conflicting viewpoints. Dialectical reasoning is best applied in resolving controversial issues and assessing opposing positions. Often times, there are several possible ways of resolving questions and understanding issues, rather than one single right answer. We may have situations where information is incomplete, where many approaches may compete, and we have to decide which one is most reasonable based on what is known, even though there is no clear-cut solution.

Dialectical reasoning consists of moving back and forth between contrary lines of reasoning, using each to cross-examine the other. This is what juries are supposed to do in arriving at a verdict: consider arguments and evidence for and against a case, point and counterpoint. It is a process in which opposing facts and ideas are weighed and compared for the purposes of determining the best solution, resolving differences, and coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence and logic.

This approach to understanding and implementing dialectical reasoning in the social sciences classroom outlines a five stage process:

1. From both perspectives: Consideration of both perspectives of an issue in which the students will list reasons, or “arguments”, as to why they agree or disagree with an issue.

2. Moral testing: Engaging in a series of moral testing exercises using the three moral tests of new case, role exchange and universal consequences.

3. Talking circles: Learning and using the talking circle method of dialogue and discussion.

4. Consensus decision-making: Learning the consensus decision-making model, and participating is a series of activities designed to improve the students’ understanding and use of the model.

5. Dialectical reasoning: Writing a dialectic, incorporating all of the strategies and skills learned in the previous four stages.

The basis for teaching the dialectical approach in the classroom is the demonstration of respect for the existence of a variety of perspectives. In this first stage, teachers are encouraged to present a number of issues and invite the students to consider all of the reasons in agreement or disagreement, in other words, looking at the issue from both perspectives. Consider this example:

Stage 2: Moral Testing

In our daily lives we must make choices which involve questions of honesty, the treatment of other people and acting responsibly. These are moral choices because they are about right and wrong. Moral choices are choices between what might be good for us personally and what might be good for others. We may want to do one thing, but we have doubts about whether we are doing the right thing. When a situation is morally doubtful, we have to have some basis for deciding what to do. Should an individualistic, personal point of view be taken? Should one always be “nice” and make sure that everyone else is satisfied? When should individuals look out for themselves and when should they be concerned about others?

The concept of moral testing provides guidance for making moral choices. It is based on a number of principles or criteria.

○ imagine myself in the place of another person in order to better understand the effect of my actions on that person.

○ demand from others that they test their moral reasoning and reject it if it is faulty.

After applying all of the above criteria, I must be resolved to carry out that which is morally correct and reject that which is morally wrong.

All of the above principles can be summarized into three tests which can be used to determine whether a morally doubtful choice or an action can be taken.

The New Cases Test

· You should be able to apply the same value claim to other similar situations.

· If you find in another case, it is not morally acceptable to make that value claim, then it is not acceptable to make the claim in the first situation.

· If you find in another case that it is morally acceptable, then your value claim has passed this test and you can look at other moral tests for further confirmation.

· Before carrying out your value claim, you should imagine how another person who might be affected by your choice would react to that situation. You must imagine how you would react if some other person treated you the way you are thinking of treating them (remembering that another person might not accept everything you might accept).

· The issue is not whether you “like” the treatment but whether the treatment is right for everyone.

· There may be circumstances where another individual may not like the treatment but it is clearly good for them, then the choice may be made for another person (e.g. a child not wanting to take the bad tasting medicine they need).

· The critical issue is to clearly understand the consequences of the value claim for others and that the consequences are morally acceptable for everyone.

· You must imagine what the consequences would be if everyone carried out the actions involved in your value claim.

· A value claim cannot be acceptable if the consequences of acting upon it are unacceptable.

· If it is wrong for everyone to act on a value claim, then it is wrong for anyone to act on that claim.

· If it is right for everyone to act on the value claim, then it has passed this test .

When you have finished the moral testing, you then have to decide what you have learned. There are some things to consider when evaluating the results of moral testing:

· No test takes precedence over another test so if a value claim fails any of the three tests, then the value claim needs to be reconsidered.

· The new cases, and the role exchange tests fit well for situations where an action will have negative consequences for one or more persons, and

· The universal consequences test suits situations where the effect of many people performing the action will have negative consequences for others.

Adapted from “Validating Moral Judgements by Principle Testing” Jerrold R. Coombs (1980). Development of Moral Reasoning: Practical Approaches, Donald B. Cochrane, Michael Manley-Casimir Ed., New York: Praeger.

Examples of how each of the three cases can be applied to moral testing include:

Talking circles are useful when the topic under consideration has no right or wrong answer, or when people need to share feelings. Moral or ethical issues can be discussed in a non-judgemental climate. The purpose of talking circles is to create a safe environment for students to share their point of view with others. They come to believe that what they say will be listened to and accepted without criticism. They gain an empathetic understanding and appreciation for points of view other than their own.

Talking circles may need a facilitator (especially when the process is first introduced) to ensure that the guidelines are being followed. The following guidelines should prove useful to teachers and students:

§ All comments should be addressed directly to the question or issue, not to comments that another participant has made.

§ Only one person speaks at a time. Everyone else should be listening in a non-judgmental way to what the speaker is saying. Some groups find it useful to signify in some way who the speaker is. Tactile objects serve as a reminder that while one person is speaking, all others should be listening.

§ Depending on the purpose of the discussion, it is often better to hold talking circles in smaller groups rather than with a large group. For students who are reluctant to verbalize their ideas, small group discussions may be less intimidating.

Adapted with permission from the Four Worlds Development Project (1982) Sacred Tree Teachers’ Guide. Lethbridge: Four Worlds Development Project, University of Lethbridge.

Stage Four: Consensus decision-making

Consensus is a process for making group decisions without voting. Agreement is reached through a process of gathering information and viewpoints, discussion, persuasion, a combination of synthesis of proposals and/or the development of totally new ones. The goal of the consensus process is to reach a decision with which everyone can agree.

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. A group can proceed with an action without having total agreement. In the event that an individual or small group cannot agree with a given proposal and is blocking consensus, the facilitator may ask if the individual(s) are willing to “stand aside” and allow the group to decide.

Consensus decision-making sometimes requires a great deal of patience. It is necessary to listen carefully to opposing viewpoints to reach the best decision. In spite of this drawback, the consensus method has the following advantages over the voting method:

§ Discuss underlying assumptions, listen carefully to one another, and encourage the participation of all members.

1. Take some time for all members of the group to think about their own individual arguments.

2. Take turns sharing the arguments you have come up with and the reasons why you think those issues are important. As each of you presents these arguments, the others should be really listening and trying to see it from the speaker’s point of view. Make a list on paper of the arguments presented.

3. Have a discussion, using the list that you have created, around the questions (1) What are the most important issues, and why? (2) On what issue could we as a group agree?

4. Check for consensus by taking a straw poll about your priorities. This is essentially a vote which is not binding on the group but rather points to where there is and is not agreement.

5. If there is not agreement, go back to sharing the reasons why the issues on which you differ are so important.

6. Discuss what decision would best enable the group to reach consensus. What do we share that we could agree to? What concerns keep us from agreeing? How could we incorporate those concerns into a different decision to which we all could agree?

7. Check again for consensus. If differences are still unresolved, then the group may decide as a whole that it is more important to come to a decision at this time than to make a decision which everyone agrees to. In such a case, some members may agree to “stand aside” allowing the whole group to make a decision that everyone agrees to.

A facilitator makes no decisions for the group, but suggests ways to help the group move forward. He or she works in such a way that the people present at the meeting are aware that they are in charge, that it is their business being conducted and that all have a role to play. It is important to emphasize that the responsibility of the facilitator is to the group and its work rather than to the individuals within the group. The following are some of the things the facilitator should try to do:

Dialectical reasoning refers to critical thinking about problems and evaluating conflicting viewpoints. Dialectical reasoning is best applied in resolving controversial issues and assessing opposing positions. Often times, there are several possible ways of resolving questions and understanding issues, rather than one single right answer. We may have situations where information is incomplete, where many approaches and views may compete, and we have to decide which one is most reasonable based on what is known, even though there is no clear-cut solution.

In a democratic and pluralistic nation such as Canada, there are a number of identified issues that reasonable people will still disagree about even after a careful analysis of both sides of the issue. On the other hand, it is important to also realize that there are certain issues that reasonable people do not disagree about; for example, all reasonable people know that racism is wrong.

Some people have difficulty with dialectical reasoning because their self-esteem depends on their being right and having their beliefs accepted by others. We all have our convictions, but the inability to consider alternative views and evidence with an open mind is a major obstacle to critical thinking. Other obstacles include:

· the tendency to form quick, impulsive opinions instead of fully developed arguments;

· reaching decisions based on what “feels right” at the moment be, and not distinguishing between knowledge and belief, or between belief and evidence, and not seeing any reason for justifying a belief;

· thinking that because some things cannot be known with absolute certainty, any judgement about the evidence is purely subjective, and defending a position with the explanation that “We all have a right to our own opinions,” as if all opinions are created equal.

When we become capable of critical thinking, we understand that although some things can never be known with certainty, some judgements are more valid than others because of their coherence, their fit with the evidence, and their usefulness. When reasoning dialectically, we are willing to consider evidence from a variety of sources, to justify our conclusions as representing the most complete, plausible or compelling understanding of an issue, based on currently available evidence -- this means abandoning “ignorant certainty” in favour of “intelligent confusion.”

Dialectical reasoning can also be described as reflective judgment: the ability to evaluate and integrate evidence, relate that evidence to a theory or opinion, and reach a conclusion that can be defended as reasonable and valid. To think dialectically, we must evaluate evidence and question assumptions, consider alternative interpretations, and stand ready to reassess our conclusions in the face of new evidence. This process works in a cycle that involves 3 basic steps:

· a thesis, which is a statement of an idea, viewpoint or position;

· an antithesis, which is the statement of an alternative and possibly contrary (conflicting) idea;

· a synthesis, which is the reconciliation of the two prior ideas in a way that integrates the best aspects of those ideas.

Ultimately, the synthesis serves as a new thesis and the cycle repeats. The synthesis typically shows that ideas that seem to conflict or to be contradictory are not necessarily so – there is unity in the diverse aspects of the issue. The reconciliation of the ideas, however, may require discarding weaker or flawed aspects of the ideas. Thus, other aspects of the ideas can be integrated in a way that builds on their strengths and more reasonable qualities. As an example:

Question: Why are human beings violent?

Thesis Statement and Arguments: I believe that violent behaviour develops in people as they experience and learn from the world around them.

· Behavioural psychologists believe that people are the products of their environment and that violent behaviour is learned.

· Behavioural psychologists John B. Watson and Ivan Pavlov advanced the theory that "certain basic laws of learning" can explain the actions of both humans and animals.

· A child is not born knowing how to act, what is good and bad, right or wrong.

· People learn these things during childhood and continue to learn throughout their lives.

· When a child grows up experiencing family violence in the form of physical abuse or battering, he or she learns that violence is a normal and acceptable way of acting, even with loved ones.

· Violence is learned through images of violence on television, in movies, and other places.

· The mass media plays an important role in influencing behaviour, we learn to be violent through watching it.

· B.F. Skinner, stated that "the consequences of an act affects the probability of it occurring again."

· Unless children are rewarded for good behaviour, and punished for violent behaviour, they will not learn to control themselves.

· The combination of positive and negative reinforcements will largely determine how a person behaves later in life.

Antithesis Statement and Arguments: Aggression and violence are not learned, they are basic human instincts.

· Sigmund Freud, psychoanalytic theory, aggression as a basic human instinct.

· Violent behaviour is determined by aggressive and destructive forces originating in the unconscious mind.

· From an early age, society teaches us to repress these instincts and to channel our energies into more socially acceptable and creative pursuits.

· When our basic instincts overpower our judgement violence results.

· The formative experiences of early childhood are most important in determining a person's capacity for controlling these aggressive impulses.

Synthesis: Violent behaviour is learned, and experiences in early childhood are very important in determining behaviour in later life.

To structure dialectical reasoning in the classroom:

· Carefully craft the central question concerning an issue which encourages students to take a for or against position with the understanding that their original position may change. The question must be carefully framed to be provocative enough for students to create interest without generating/over-riding strong emotion.

· To introduce the dialectical approach to students, start out small. Pair students with someone with whom they feel comfortable and provide them with different "fact sheets" which illustrate contradictory facets of an issue. Students will familiarize themselves with the issue and select facts in support of a pro nor con stance. Students will isolate facts that are neither for nor against.

· When students have grasped the principles and procedures of the dialectical approach, move to controlled discussions in small groups, with a group of four, split evenly in two camps to discuss and test evidence for soundness and completeness. Students will assess the possibility of a third position between pro and con. Exercises in synthesis, resolving conflicts, and finding the "golden mean" between polarities, are essential for the meaningful implementation of the dialectical approach. Students may rotate within groups as third party arbitrators, mediators or judges to rule on the merit of the alternative viewpoints that are discussed.

· Simulations of real-life dialectical situations are effective, especially when students are comfortable with the process. Employer-employee bargaining situations, parliamentary debate, court room settings and arbitration hearings are the most commonly used.

Writing a Dialectical Essay

Here are some steps to guide dialectical reasoning in writing an essay.

Step One -- Introduction

Write an introduction providing the purpose and context for the essay. Discuss why the subject of the essay is meaningful, interesting and worthwhile. Define or explain key ideas, terms, situations, controversies, complexities, etc. [First paragraph]

Step Two -- Thesis

Clearly state the thesis and describe it. Then present arguments for the thesis. Describe and evaluate the reasons and supporting evidence for the thesis. [Second and third paragraphs]

Step Three – Antithesis

Acknowledge and present the antithesis. Describe how it is contrary to the thesis. Describe and evaluate the supporting arguments and evidence, with a degree of rigour and passion equal to the original thesis. Be fair and do it justice. [Fourth and fifth paragraphs]

Step Four -- Conclusion

Conclude the essay with one of three options:

· Affirm the original thesis and reject the antithesis;

· Adopt and advance the antithesis, giving up the thesis; or

· Provide a synthesis combining the best aspects of the thesis and antithesis, reconciling the two views. [Sixth paragraph]

The conclusion needs to carefully summarize the consideration given the thesis and antithesis. Weigh and compare the ideas. Point out the significant strengths/weaknesses, advantages/disadvantages of the two positions. Explain the how and why of reaching the conclusion.

Throughout time, people have been victims or perpetrators of violence. Violence is defined as any action intended to harm, injure, violate or dominate people, other organisms and property. It is well worth our while to study violent behaviour so that we can better understand why it happens and how we might avoid or prevent it. The social science of psychology has contributed much to our knowledge of human aggression and violence. The purpose of this essay is to explain two psychological theories about the origins of violence. Behavioural psychologists believe that people are the products of their environment and that violent behaviour is learned. Other psychologists of the psychoanalytic perspective assert that violence results from an inborn instinct people possess.

I believe that violent behaviour develops in people as they experience and learn from the world around them. Behavioural psychologists John B. Watson and Ivan Pavlov advanced the theory that "certain basic laws of learning" can explain the actions of both humans and animals. A child is not born knowing how to act, what is good and bad, right or wrong. People learn these things during childhood and continue to learn throughout their lives. When a child grows up experiencing family violence in the form of physical abuse or battering, he or she learns that violence is a normal and acceptable way of acting, even with loved ones. If this aggression is reinforced by images of violence on television, in movies, and other places, it becomes an even more powerful influence on a person.

Another behaviourist, B.F. Skinner, demonstrated that "the consequences of an act affects the probability of it occurring again." A child growing up surrounded by violence is unacceptable and wrong only when there are negative consequences for such behaviour. Positive rewards for appropriate behaviour can reinforce this learning. The combination of positive and negative reinforcements will largely determine how a person behaves later in life.

An opposing theory about the cause of human violence was advanced by Sigmund Freud who viewed aggression as a basic human instinct. Violent behaviour is determined by aggressive and destructive forces originating in the unconscious mind. From an early age, society teaches us to repress these instincts and to channel our energies into more socially acceptable and creative pursuits. When our basic instincts overpower our judgment, however, violence results. The formative experiences of early childhood are most important in determining a person's capacity for controlling these aggressive impulses.

Having examined both the behaviourist and psychoanalytic theories, I agree with the behaviourists. Humankind has a vast capacity and potential for learning. We are governed more by our experience than by instinct. This is what separates us from all other animal life. Violent behaviour is acquired through learning, it is not caused by instinct or mysterious forces in the subconscious mind. I find that Freud's idea about the importance of early childhood experience actually complements the behaviourist position because this is the period of life in which the most powerful learning occurs. The greater our learning, the more control we exercise over our environment. If violence is learned, it can be unlearned.

Following are some sample topics and issues to be used in dialectical reasoning:

Saskatchewan Education acknowledges the contributions of Donald McLeod, a teacher with the Saskatoon Public School Division, and Rick Ast with the Regina Public School Division, for their work with dialectical models and suggestions for dialectics.