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

Charity No

313712

3-day Socratic Dialogue seminar, 26-28 February 2004, Druskininkai on

‘What is a good Citizen?’ 

facilitated by Dr Rene Saran

 Organised by the British Council Lithuania  

These notes contain only a Summary of the Conclusions at the above seminar and the students’ evaluation given at the end.

  Participants:  

9 women teachers from schools, colleges and universities.

            Summary of Conclusions     

 On the last day students chose one subsidiary question and attempted to answer it:  What characterizes a good citizen.  Initially they weighed up whether or not the people in the example (which was at the centre of the whole Socratic Dialogue) were good citizens.  The example concerned neighbours in a rural area who had reported to the absent owners that their house had been burgled.  Although the neighbours had reported the burglary to the owners, and told them that they knew who the burglers were, they did not report it to the police.  When the owners did so they refused to give evidence to the police saying ‘we saw nothing’.  During the dialogue the students were divided over whether or not these neighbours were good citizens (it was agreed that they were good neighbours and good people).

Arguments put in favour of the neighbours being good citizens:

-         only if they had lived in a society where justice works would they not have been good citizens (reference had been made to the corrupt police);

-         they did not themselves burgle the house, although the door was open (they are good people);

-         they informed the owners (in doing so, they kept their promise to the owners, treating them as part of the community);

-         they did their best in the given circumstances;

-         citizens have rights as well as duties.  Only if their rights are protected by the state would they have the duty to do more than they did.  (Reference was made to the view that had the police been informed by the neighbours, the police would not have protected them if these (local) burglars subsequently took reprisals against them).

Arguments put against the neighbours being good citizens:

-         they refused to give evidence to the police.  A good citizen is obliged to give

evidence.  This meant they failed to assist in the discovery of justice;

-         they did not call the police;

-         they lacked civic courage;

-         they held no active civic position;

-         unconsciously they evaded the duties imposed by the state;

-         they considered their self-interest (eg their own safety) more important than that of society.

In the light of the above arguments, the group returned to the question: 

What characterizes a good citizen?

This was their summary - A good citizen:

i)                    considers the common interest more important than self-interest;

ii)                   actively protects the common interest;

iii)                 obeys the law of the state, so long as s/he considers the law to be just (otherwise prefers moral values above the law;  reference had been made that sometimes disobedience makes a better citizen than keeping to the law);

iv)                 works legally to change laws which s/he considers unjust;

v)                  has awareness of the relationship between the individual and society, and of possible ways of cooperation;

vi)                 has civic courage.

After this, the group returned once more to assess the position of the neighbours in the example, and listed points which made them good citizens.

At the basic level:

-         they fulfilled their legal duties in that they remained innocent not guilty;

-         in a country like Lithuania (or any other country where people live) the neighbours were good citizens because in relation to the level of state protection they were still active.

At a higher level:

-         a citizen has moral autonomy in making choices where personal interest

conflicts with the common interest.  The active (heroic) person will prefer / act on the common interest.

Evaluation

All contributed to the evaluation of the seminar.  These statements were made:

-         I now have an idea of how the Socratic Method works.  But to gain confidence to apply the method, we need more experience of it;

-         The same group should meet again, at least once more, before I could apply the Socratic Method;

-         The role of the facilitator is difficult.  One learns through practice with help;

-         I had read about Socratic Dialogue and have improved my knowledge.  I might now start using the Socratic Method in my work;

-         I use similar methods, not so rigorously.  But may be now I will do it more methodically.  Here we had to present our arguments clearly, and it will influence my future work.  It was also enjoyable;

-         It was important to learn tolerance;

-         There is a difference between what I thought is the Socratic Dialogue Method – and what I have now experienced;

-         Here we were all equals – I learnt patience;

-         Everyone was ‘young’ in spirit and energetic and full of ideas;

-         A good facilitator brought out the best in the participants.  It was an example of good teaching;

-         The mixed group of different professionals coming from different fields is very enriching;

-         It was a very peaceful discussion; 

-         The historical Plato/Socrates is different:  the ancients started with definition and then were thrown into confusion by empirical examples.  Here we started with the concrete;

-         We got to know each other.eHeHllll

 RS, London