The SFCP aims to promote the Critical Philosophy through the linked activities of education and scholarship.

Charity No

313712

SOCRATIC DIALOGUE    19 – 21 August 2005

 Facilitated by Dr Rene Saran      

Organised by Claridge House

Report by Trustee Dr Rene Saran

• Question

• Examples

• Chosen Example

• Working with the example

• Individual Statements

• The Jotter

• Evaluation

Participants

 RS;  ML;  AdB;  RD;  HH;  BW;  TdB;  SC;  AD;  GK;  SMcG;  RL.

Chosen Question

 Two group members had suggested some questions which Rene had reformulated.  The group chose the following:

 What is a good citizen?

Collection of Examples

 Example 1:  A cat was trapped on a high tree when I was a child.  The fire brigade had not succeeded in rescuing the cat.  Against advice, my father climbed the tree and rescued the cat.  I was proud of his action, helping the cat and our neighbours in the community.  It was a selfless act, very simple, a social act.

 Example 2:  A friend of mine was leading an ME campaign.  We protested against a section of the benefits rules.  I wrote letters to my MP etc.  Eventually, after several years, the rule was changed.  I was impelled to stand up for people who might not be able to do so for themselves.

 Example 3:  In 1973, during the oil crisis, people (in Holland) had to apply for petrol coupons.  As Head Teacher of a school I had to sign my teachers’ applications.  Our philosophy teacher (a Jesuit) needed petrol for only 1,000 kilometers to get to work, but applied for 10,000 km.  I refused to sign his form.  His defence was:  “Don’t follow government rules, rely on individual responsibility” (he mentioned his experience in Indonesia).  At the time I saw myself as a good citizen, but over time I changed my view.

 Example 4:  At age ten I observed and reported to the police the presence of a potentially dangerous parcel at a time of terrorist threats in Dublin in 1970/71.  I alerted my father and then went to the police station.  A good citizen needs to be alert to realistic potential danger.

 When it came to choice of one example, Example 3 was withdrawn and the group’s preference was between Examples 2 and 4.  After discussion Example 2 was chosen; all agreed they could work with it.  

 The questions asked of the example giver proved helpful and later influenced the fuller formulation of the example

The chosen Example

 A friend of mine, who had been a senior civil servant, was chair of our local ME group in the l990s.  In 1992 she became aware that proposals existed in the Department of Social Security which, in her view, would have resulted in serious hardship for ME sufferers nationwide.  The proposals would have resulted in a change of the benefit rules under which ME sufferers are assessed.  My friend convinced me that the proposed change would involve unfairness and injustice.  As a result I was impelled to participate in the campaign.  I had felt strongly about other issues previously but had not taken them up actively.  This time I really felt I had to do something.  My friend had started the campaign in the media and suggested to us it would help if we each wrote to our MP.  This was something I felt I could do.  Letter writing presents no difficulty for me.

 However, I had to overcome a fear barrier about challenging authority, and had to push myself to do it.  I felt I had to take a stand, for the first time ever.  I was, of course, worried what the proposals might mean for me, but I was even more worried about the effect on my friends and colleagues who were too ill to stand up for themselves.

 For me this experience illustrates an act of good citizenship because I saw it as showing care and concern for vulnerable members of the wider community.

Working with the Example

 There were three stages to the group’s work.  During the first, and shortest, some questions were raised, and comments made.  The example illustrated persistence during the campaign – several letters to the MP were written.  It was argued that the example illustrated only half of what belongs to ‘a good citizen’:  good citizenship involves giving as well as taking.  After a brief discussion, the group moved to the second stage.

 In order to explore the link between the example and good citizenship, the following question was asked:

 “What in the example illustrates good citizenship?”

 A number of statements from participants were recorded, although not discussed in detail due to lack of time.  All comments attempted to identify points which linked the example with our outgoing question:

 -                     standing up against injustice and unfairness;

-                     standing up against the power of the authorities;

-                     standing up for vulnerable people;

-                     making a sacrifice, taking risks;

-                     an unselfish act, an act for the wider community;

-                     an expression of social conscience;

-                     methods used were transparent within the established civic framework;

-                     action had been pursued with persistence.

Having made links explicit, the group moved to the third stage by stating their views briefly, and these points emerged.  A good citizen:

 “expresses social conscience in the context of structures”;

 “has a social conscience and works towards their goal by the most appropriate and effective means open to them”;

 “acts with integrity by upholding what is ethically right, challenging authority where necessary and in spite of the opinion of others”.

 Given the time factor, the facilitator suggested to group members that a good way to round off our work on Sunday morning might be for each participant to reflect overnight on the shared dialogue in order to formulate for the final session a short statement about the good citizen.  This statement was to embrace each person’s view as to the essence of good citizenship.  These statements would build on the exploration of our concrete example, but would be more abstract and general in nature.

 The group accepted this way of proceeding, which we all hoped would enable us to say our “goodbyes” with a clearer notion of good citizenship. 

Final Session, Sunday morning

 Summary of previous work:  on Saturday, the group had heard brief accounts of four examples, one of which was later withdrawn, so the group had made a choice between three.  The chosen example was written out more fully and the remaining Saturday sessions were devoted to in depth exploration of the example and intensive discussion of possible answers to our question arising from the example. 

 For this final session on Sunday, participants had reflected on and formulated a more abstract statement in answer to the question:  “What is a good citizen?” and these statements were shared.

Individual Statements - A ‘good citizen’ to me means:

The Jotter

 Some interesting thoughts emerged which the group had to put aside in case there was time to explore them later.  These are the points noted:

1.  Is it a good citizen’s act when the help and support involved in the action is for people close at hand rather than the wider community?  How does a smaller act relate to action in the wider community? (SC) 

2.  In a conflict between the individual and public rules, how is the balance struck by a good citizen?  Or how is a compromise made? (AdB) 

3.  General Awareness:  Importance of probing the link between feelings and our reasoning about a matter.

Evaluation of the Course

 The following comments were made:

 I had high expectations which were more than met.  The reasons were:

1)    Superb facilitation;  never authoritarian

2)    A joy to work with this group

3)    Having my thinking clarified (valuable for me professionally).

 I’m very glad to have been here.  I enjoyed the peace of the place, meeting an intelligent group of people.  Rene showed occasional jewels.  There were good questions and the group dynamics were good.  We felt free and participants were attentive.  At the end, when tired, I wondered whether Rene could have handed over to someone else?  Could she have passed over to someone else the conductor’s baton?  [Others commented that Rene did pass the baton round to a certain extent;  that no one else could have taken over the facilitation, having been a participant – that would be too difficult].

 I found the weekend intellectually very stimulating.  We had a fairly abstract topic, and I don’t normally get that chance.  We had good company, getting to know each other.  I like Rene’s direction.  I have learnt quite a lot [interjection:  could you give an example?]  “Pushing through the fear barrier” is one example.  It’s not easy to be the example giver, it improved my confidence.  It was hard talking about my experience, putting that experience in the public arena.

 I live alone, so airing ideas like we did here is rare for me.  I appreciated being here, airing our ideas on the good citizen.  [At the end of the dialogue this participant had read aloud a short passage from The Trial of Socrates by Plato, a very appropriate passage for our topic on citizenship].

 The course was stimulating, exhausting and rewarding.  I didn’t know how much I could contribute.  It made me think in ways I don’t normally have to do.  I am interested in philosophy.

 It was like a mental buffet!  New views appeared at every turn.  I loved the group dynamics.  I learnt a lot, listening, being open (difficult for me).  It is an interesting method and I like Rene’s style.  She leaves people to take their own responsibility.  [Others added:  trust in the group made this possible; that the trust built up, the meals together, the peaceful place, all these engendered trust].

 I saw the course by accident on the web and was excited about coming.  I appreciated (for the first time) this amount of time being devoted to discussion of a topic – it was very exciting.

  Return to top

RS, 26.08.05.