Charity No
313712
ETHICAL CODE FOR SOCRATIC DIALOGUE
Introduction
This outline is written for facilitators and participants of Socratic Dialogues (SD) in the Nelson-Heckmann tradition. SD is an intellectual and philosophical group activity. Participants work cooperatively to seek answers to philosophical questions. Initially, personal experiences are explored as a basis for reaching more general insights. In this way the group is able initially to approach the question in the concrete situation and then progress to seeking an answer at a more abstract level.
The aim of SD is to encourage people in their own thinking and reasoning. This involves people in the challenge of facing openly their own established prejudices. Developing an open mind can be a very hard task which can arouse people’s feelings and emotions. The content dialogue is sometimes disturbed by group dynamic problems which surface due to the different personalities in the group.
Socratic facilitators have no easy task. They have several functions, for example keeping the content dialogue on track as well as managing any disturbing group dynamic problems which arise.
Rules and guidance for conducting a SD already exist and have been reproduced in an Appendix in Enquiring Minds (Saran and Neisser, 2004). These rules govern the activity although in some circumstances it might benefit the content dialogue to apply them flexibly. But in general a successful dialogue requires that the rules are kept by everyone. Yet the rules alone in no way fully cover all the responsibilities of a SD facilitator. This is the reason why SFCP has endeavoured to make an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings which sustain the Socratic work. These underpinnings are summarised below and are considered binding for participants and facilitators of SD in the Nelson-Heckmann tradition. They are inherent in the aims and practice of SD and are of a higher order than the rules, although closely related to them.
Philosophical Underpinnings
SD is grounded in the philosophical and humanitarian assumptions stemming from Nelson’s theories, influenced by Kant’s critical philosophy and the elaboration of this by Fries. What, then, are these assumptions? In our view let us emphasise the following three most important ones:
-
Humans possess the capacity to think and reason;
-
All humans are equal and should be treated equally;
-
Humans as individuals and as social beings have rights and responsibilities.
We see these three as fundamental.
What are the implications especially for Socratic facilitators
Let’s look at the above assumptions, recognising that sometimes they overlap.
The first one implies that a SD facilitator should trust the members of the group to be able to think for themselves and thereby foster their own capacity to reason. This links with the above-mentioned aim of encouraging people’s independent thinking and by that enhancing their self-esteem and confidence. This assumption also provides the reason for two important rules: to exclude from the dialogue outside authorities, as well as the facilitator’s own views.
The second is basic to any SD, which means everyone in the group should be treated with equal respect. Everyone should endeavour to avoid the expression of potentially hurtful personal likes or dislikes or treating others disrespectfully. This could hurt or harm someone and also disrupt the content dialogue by undermining the participants’ confidence in their own thinking and in the whole Socratic process. The facilitator needs to observe and ensure that all participants can contribute on an equal footing to the progress of the dialogue. In this way the facilitator can assist to generate an understanding and supportive atmosphere in the group. The practice of active listening, the clear expression of participants’ thoughts and their clarification should also be nurtured by the facilitator. These in turn will support the good atmosphere and concentration on the content dialogue.
Reflection on the third assumption raises the issues of differences in individual personalities and behaviour which may result in group dynamic problems. Here all group members have shared responsibility in addressing these difficulties. Often a resolution can be found during the meta-dialogue, but this is not always possible. In the last resort it falls to facilitators to manage such a situation and in order to be able to do so they need to stand above any disputes. This requires self-knowledge and empathy, the development of insight into one’s own subjective judgements. The third assumption among other things requires that all facilitators should have basic knowledge of group dynamics and understanding of how different people can be.
The above exploration of the assumptions shows that in application it is often difficult to draw clear boundaries between them.
Finally, then, we think that facilitators who have internalised and wholly understood the three fundamental assumptions will be able to
-
develop a Socratic attitude;
-
articulate and explain the reasons which underpin the aims as well as the rules of the Socratic Dialogue.