The use of a fictional dialectic to discuss contentious subject matter

This is a brief discussion paper outlining the development of a novel pedagogical technique, termed the fictional dialectic.  It forms part of my teaching philosophy, which describes my beliefs about teaching, learning, and assessment, and how those beliefs guide my teaching practices

Abstract

Dialectic theory maintains that human thought develops through thesis, antithesis and synthesis.   Informing one’s teaching approach, dialectic theory can aid students in interpreting contradictions present in conflicting perspectives on contentious issues.   This paper builds on dialectic theory by utilizing a ‘fictional dialectic’ in a book titled: The Academic Vampire.  The book facilitates discussion of controversial subject matter in a course on business ethics.  In the book, characters hold different points of view and engage in a series of dialogues on pressing social issues.   After reading a dialogue from the book, students are asked to evaluate the arguments advanced by the characters.   This approach permits an open exploration of the fundamental ideological assumptions that animate debates on ethical conduct.  In this paper, I outline the teaching approach using the fictional dialectic, what I observed, and its significance to teaching scholarship.

1.      Introduction

One challenging aspect of discussing ethical scenarios in the classroom is the ability to critically examine the tension that exists between personal and social beliefs concerning a contentious subject matter.  People tend to conform to the current orthodoxy that has been formed on a particular issue, rather than speaking out against it as a matter of principle.  They may hold entirely different personal beliefs on the topic but do not share these views for fear of being viewed negatively by others.

Gender pronouns provide a useful illustration of this phenomenon.  The use of preferred pronouns has become mainstream in both business and personal communications (e.g. using He/Him at the end of an email signature).  The sentiment behind this practice is oriented toward building a more inclusive society.  Many people now disclose their personal pronouns with this in mind.  Whether this practice achieves this end is not important for the present discussion. The aim here is not to argue for or against gender pronouns, but rather to point out that it is possible for two reasonable people to have differing opinions on this topic.

To take a more pointed example, reasonable people have strong opinions on the topic of abortion.  Whether you are ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ is not particularly helpful for the purposes of debating the issue in a nuanced way.  And while the law (at least in Canada) may be settled, the moral and ethical dimensions of this topic may still be fruitfully explored through discussion.  Reducing the argument to simple binary categories can have the effect of shutting down dialogue and devolving the discussion into personal attacks.

There is no definitive answer in these and many other social debates and no amount of data or empirical evidence is likely to settle the discussion.  It is the case that when individuals have entrenched ideological assumptions about a topic they may be unable to accept information that would contradict their positions, even when this information is irrefutable.

In order to address this issue, dialectic theory offers an epistemological method for wrestling with contradictions and serves as a useful pedagogical technique.   This paper builds on dialectic theory by demonstrating the use of a      ‘fictional dialectic’ in a book titled: The Academic Vampire (Akalu, 2023). The book is used to discuss contentious subject matter in a course on business ethics.  The next section outlines the motivation for this teaching approach.  The third section provides a description of dialectics as a teaching approach, the fourth section provides a summary of the fictional dialectic developed for the course.  Section five provides a discussion of the significance of this approach to teaching scholarship.

2.      Motivations for an alternative approach to teaching ethics

It is a common practice that university administrations require instructors to use a course template when communicating the course outline to students.  The template provides helpful content regarding the course organization and evaluation (this is written by the instructor) as well as university policies and practices regarding the course.  The course outline forms the basis of shared understanding between the instructor, the university and the student.

Clause 11 of the course outline at Ontario Tech University reads as follows:

Sensitive/Offensive Subject Matter

The classroom (both physical and virtual) is intended to provide a safe, open space for the critical and civil exchange of ideas and opinions.  Some articles, media and other course materials may contain sensitive content that is offensive and/or disturbing.  The Course Instructor will try to identify such material and communicate warnings to students in advance of the distribution and use of such materials, affording students the choice to either emotionally prepare for, or not to view or interact with, the content.

The clause provides more questions than answers since how such a clause could be enforced is unclear.  What does it mean to say that the “Course Instructor will try”?  How would we know if the instructor failed?  When is a warning appropriate?  Instructors are tasked with “affording students the choice to either emotionally prepare for, or not to view or interact with, the content” by assessing in advance content they might find sensitive, offensive or disturbing (emphasis added).  The problem with this approach is that it leaves instructors in the untenable position of anticipating student feelings, when preparing for class.

To borrow from a concept of political science, the above-noted clause may be regarded as the framing of an Overton Window (The Lancet Planetary Health, 2021).  The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics.  The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion them. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.  This may also be applied to the university teaching environment since it is possible that instructors are unwilling to engage with students on politically charged topics for fear of offending students or losing support from their institution.

Students may also be reluctant to share their personal views for fear of being ostracized by their peers (or indeed the instructor) for having an unorthodox perspective.  Such behaviour does tend to avoid conflict and may get the student through life, but this does not develop independent critical thinking.  Rather than observing social trends, which are both relative and transitory in nature, an attempt was made to engage students on the substantive arguments on a range of controversial dialogues through the use of a fictional dialectic.

3.      Dialectics as a teaching approach

 Dialectic theory was defined by the influential 20^th century philosopher of science, Karl Popper in terms of a triad:  thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis.  The process begins when someone advances a theory in the form of an argument – a thesis (Popper, 1940). Since theories are tentative, corrigible and fallible in light of new insight and information, the thesis will encounter opposing ideas – the anti-thesis (Bromley, 2006).  This process goes on until some solution develops that goes beyond both the thesis and the anti-thesis, which recognizes the value of both.  The synthesis attempts to “preserve the merits and avoid the disadvantages of both” (Popper, 1940)

Dialectic theory can be distinguished from the scientific method in that the latter approach, the theory is tested and criticized to bring out points that may be vulnerable.  The ‘best’ theory survives by a process of elimination.  The theory will stand until new information becomes available that can no longer be explained by the dominant theory.  Khun argues in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that this is usually the result of enhanced methods of empirical observation that validate a new theory and invalidate an old one.  This has been referred to as a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 2009). However, the scientific method is of limited application when dealing with complex moral and ethical social issues.  This is due in part to the inability to isolate variables with sufficient precision to examine causality.  With dialectic theory, contradictions may still exist at the end of the discussion and we may ‘agree to disagree,’ yet still be edified by the discussion.

To take a concrete example, law courts typically operate with the use of dialectic theory.  The plaintiff and defendant have differing accounts of the facts in a dispute.  The plaintiff’s counsel develops a theory of the case and this is opposed by the defendant.  The judge will bring finality to the legal proceedings by rendering a judgement in the case.  This judgement may still be overturned by subsequent courts but it will bring finality to the current proceedings.

Dialectical thinking is a cognitive process and epistemological method for grappling with contradictions (Peng & Nisbett, 1999).  It has been found to be beneficial for interpreting contradictions (Bai 2015).  Wu and Lin state that “Careful consideration of a matter according to its different aspects and tolerance of contradiction are important characteristics of dialectical thinking.” (Li et al., 2021) The use of debate as a teaching approach permits students to become actively involved in learning course content while promoting critical thinking.

4.      The Fictional dialectic – The Academic Vampire

In building on dialectic theory, I wrote a ‘fictional dialectic’ titled The Academic Vampire. The book is about an assistant professor (who is a vampire) who impregnates his graduate student     .  The book is written as a dialogue between characters that discuss issues ranging from the Me Too movement to Black Lives Matter and feminism. The book is summarized as follows:

In the first dialogue academics Anthony and Ursula have been hired by a new university to bolster the institution’s credibility. The pair are in a relationship and are vampires.  Their dialogue begins with Anthony bemoaning the fact that the university policy of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ and ‘safe-spaces’ has resulted in a lowering of academic standards and weaker students.  Ursula draws attention to the need to accommodate historically disadvantaged students.  The dialogue develops with a discussion of critical race theory and social justice, which Anthony regards as a form of racism and virtue signaling.

The second dialogue offers a sweeping historical account of the establishment of Western universities.  Anthony visits a vampire friend Eva Cortez and they discuss whether faith is the foundation of intellectual community.  Anthony takes a secular position, stating that religion is of no importance to scientific inquiry.  Eva, who is a ‘pre-enlightenment’ vampire, argues that modern universities are the product of Christian culture.  She points out, among other things, that the founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.  Research scholarship was meant      to ‘Glorify God and relieve man’s estate.’ Anthony remains skeptical and points to the many atrocities that have been made in the name of religion.

The third and most heated dialogue deals with abortion.  Anthony has been having an affair with his graduate student Jessica Khan.  Jessica becomes pregnant and has an abortion.  The dialogue centres on a tense discussion between Anthony and Ursula about the status of the unborn, the rights of women and men with respect to reproduction and the ethics of abortion.

In the fourth dialogue Anthony’s students discuss his intellectual legacy. The dialogue centres around the Greek myth of Perseus and Andromeda which was discussed in one of Anthony’s classes.  The students discuss the myth and its characters in what Jung would describe as archetypes of the collective unconscious. The concept of the collective unconscious provides an explanation as to why similar themes occur in mythologies around the world. Jung argued that the collective unconscious had a profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its meaning through their life experiences (Jung, 2014).  Perseus and Andromeda is the quintessential damsel in distress narrative, where the hero defeats the dragon and gets the girl.  This discussion is then used to explore issues of sex and gender.

Dialogue five is a discussion between a criminal defense lawyer and his client, one of the students from the previous dialogue has been falsely accused of sexual assault.  The lawyer goes over the case and discusses the moral and ethical choices that his client has made to get to this point.  The lawyer discusses the change in sexual dynamics since the introduction of reliable birth control.  Since that time, he argues, sex was decoupled from love and commitment and led to greater promiscuity and ‘hook-up’ culture.

The last dialogue discusses artificial intelligence from the perspective of the undead.  The dialogue centres on whether the metaphor of artificial intelligence in law, policy and regulatory discussions stems from a secular intellectual hubris — that Man can use science to manipulate nature, defy God, cheat death and achieve immortality.

5.      Discussion

The dialogues are deliberately designed to have no conclusive argument.  There is no ‘silver bullet’ that proposes to resolve the issues presented.  The aim instead is to stimulate debate about the merits of the arguments advanced by the characters.   The theses presented in the dialogue are highly provocative.  The antithesis is provided with equal vigor.

The class discussion turned to synthesis. Students were highly engaged by the discussions.  Many had never been able to speak openly about such issues or had never had the issues presented to them in this way.  However, I got the sense that some students were trying to determine my own position on these issues to align themselves with that.

The fictional dialectic permitted these matters to be discussed in a nuanced and substantive way.   Such material might otherwise violate the university policy (a problem for the instructor) and result in individuals becoming identified with their viewpoints and being ostracized for holding an unorthodox position (a problem for the student).

Conclusion

The ability to tolerate disagreement is a much-needed academic virtue.  It is important to cultivate students’ ability to defend their ideas without becoming defensive.  This is difficult to do in an educational environment where having an honestly held difference of opinion can limit professional opportunities or be otherwise deemed offensive.  The fictional dialectic offered by The Academic Vampire allows these discussions in a classroom setting.  There are limitations of the dialectic approach in that it is not a scientific approach.  However, it is the case that ideological bias is seldom influenced by science in the first place.

 

Bibliography

Akalu, R. (2023). The Academic Vampire. Independently published.

Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (2014). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Routledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (2009). The structure of scientific revolutions (3. ed., [Nachdr.]). Univ. of Chicago Press.

Li, X., Han, Z., Fu, J., Mei, Y., & Liu, J. (2021). Debate: A new approach for improving the dialectical thinking of university students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1640123

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741

Popper, K. R. (1940). What is Dialectic? Mind, 49(196), 403–426.

The Lancet Planetary Health. (2021). Moving the Overton window. The Lancet. Planetary Health, 5(11), e751–e751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00293-X