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

Charity No

313712

"AM I OBLIGED TO ENGAGE IN PUBLIC LIFE?"

Two Accounts of a Socratic Dialogue held in Würzburg, Germany, April 2001.

 by Paul Penny and Paolo Dordoni

• Read Paul Penny's Account

• Read Paolo Dordina's Account

 Paul Penny Reports

“The aim of Socratic Dialogue is to gain fundamental and general insights into a philosophical problem.  The topic or question determines the problem”.    (Raupach-Strey, G. 1997)  

•  The six-day residential Socratic Dialogue Course held at the Akademie Frankenwarte Education Centre in Würzburg, Southern Germany, was organised by the SFCP’s German sister organisations - the Philosophical-Political Academy (PPA) and the Gesellschaft für Sokratisches Philosophieren (GSP - Society of Socratic Facilitators) - and provided the opportunity to reinforce already close international links and friendships.

• The Education Centre (belonging to the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Institute), situated at the top of a steep, wooded hill above the baroque beauty of Würzburg, offered peacefulness and respite from our excited day-to-day lives and allowed for clarity of thought and reflection.

•  The Course participants were invited to join one of four Socratic Dialogue groups - three groups German-speaking and one English-speaking.

•  The topics and questions used to address our chosen ethical issues and philosophical problems were diverse. For example, one group addressed a mathematical question concerned with games of chance (using cards, dice and other assorted learning-aids), whilst another group considered the question  “When do we have to call a person’s action wicked ?”.  Another group reflected on the ways in which individuals excuse themselves - a topic inspired by a participant’s observations of prison-life where prisoners appear to be regularly excusing themselves. The English-speaking group addressed the question  “Am I obliged to engage in public life ?”.  (The deliberate omission of the word politics in the question aimed to broaden out the debate and further our understanding of the ethical and value issues involved).

 I was a participant in the English-speaking group in which I felt generally at ease from the outset. There was a very positive, co-operative feeling within the group which was inspired and galvanised by the virtuosity of our experienced facilitator Rene Saran.  The community of the group was evident and everybody was certainly keen to make progress in the Socratic Dialogue.

 But first came the starting point – collecting real and solid, individually experienced examples relating to the topic. One of these examples would be chosen by the group and would form the basis of the dialogue.

 For some members of the group, the length of time taken selecting our working example was frustrating. However, our group facilitator held steady (“jotter” always at the ready!) understanding how important the choice of real-life experience is to the success of a dialogue.

 Indeed, as Gisela Raupach-Strey [1]  explained, a Socratic Dialogue in the tradition of Nelson-Heckmann cannot achieve success in its search for insights and underlying principles unless emergent abstract philosophical statements are able to pass the test of understanding known as the “Socratic Principle”. In other words, it should always be possible to explain abstract statements by way of the real-life experience.

 The example chosen by the group was my own real-life experience and the following is a brief outline.

 After outlining my example to the group, our facilitator assisted in the joint process of clarification, as there were concerns about the adequacy of my description. Indeed, throughout a Socratic Dialogue it is important that all participants make every effort to express themselves as concisely as possible in order to enable all group members to understand the thoughts of others and achieve a genuine consensus.

At this stage in the dialogue the group became immersed in questions, which seemingly aimed to measure my certainty and uncertainty before I decided to engage. 

1. How unsure was I that I had either the time or the energy to engage in what could be a demanding campaign?

2. How unsure was I about the future success of the campaign?

3. How sure/unsure was I about the issues?

4. How sure/unsure was I that I was not engaging simply out of loyalty to the friend who first advised me of the “crisis” and asked if I would support a campaign?

5. How sure was I that the extent of my engagement would be within my control ?

 After some time, the group decided to formulate a statement, which read :

 “P reflected on all of the relevant factors – weighing them and taking into account his own emotions, arguments, and knowledge of the area”.

 However, this statement appeared to do little to advance the group’s search for the truth and there was considerable discussion about the appropriate method of proceeding with the dialogue. Questions arose such as :

 “ How was P able to become certain and what was the process ?  What factors were relevant?”

 On reflection, we should have been asking ourselves how these particular questions addressed the main question and how they would benefit the overall dialogue.

 At the next Meta-Dialogue there were signs of frustration within the group. Doubts were expressed about the direction of the dialogue prompting questions about the rules and method of Socratic Dialogue (as outlined by Leonard Nelson and Gustav Heckmann). This led to much deliberation about our own group’s methodology. Indeed, this particular Socratic Dialogue group showed an unusual level of interest in matters of methodology and strategic questions about the best way to progress (in contrast to the content of the dialogue). It was clear that we appeared to be losing our focus on content and there was a need to revise our approach if we were to advance. The group looked to the experience of our facilitator to help steer us back on track.

 The next morning the following question was formulated :

 “What else do we need to know about P’s example in order to work on our main question?”

 New questions quickly emerged and there was a fresh sense that we were once again making  ‘fruitful progress’.

 “ I want to know more about …….”   “ I need to know whether………”  “  I need further illumination of ……… ”

 It was now my responsibility as ‘example giver’ to respond to each question as concisely as possible. This was very challenging and not easy. However, the group worked together, seeking clarification and understanding where necessary, in order that adequate responses could be formulated and set out on our flip-chart. We dealt with each question one-by-one and there was a sense amongst the group that we had done good work. It did not matter that we had taken so long to come to this point. We had used the ‘luxury’ of time – so often at a premium in our daily lives – to examine our question thoroughly.

 Although we did not have further time in our Socratic Dialogue to move on to develop abstract philosophical statements from our examination of our concrete example, some of the insights which emerged were significant. I certainly felt that, together, we had successfully thrown light on why I had felt obliged to engage in public life on that occasion.

Here is a summary:

•  At the time of deciding whether to engage or not, I could only estimate the likely difficulties of the campaign. I was also unsure whether the campaign would succeed, given the imbalance of the power of the players. I was also unsure how heavy my personal commitments would be in the future and whether I had either the time or the energy to become involved.  However, to remain passive would have betrayed my sense of duty as a citizen, and my sense of justice.

•  The more that I heard about the plans, the stronger my emotional feelings became. The more emotional I became, the stronger my sense of duty became as a citizen. When my sense of duty as a citizen outweighed my sense of self-interest – I became engaged. The synthesis within myself of the forces of rationality and emotion had resulted in my feelings of duty.

•  In my view, the local authority was failing in its duty to care for the community, and the urgency of the situation made me realise that I should not postpone my engagement. The degree of urgency limited my ‘thinking-time’ and my need to raise public awareness urgently also influenced my sense of obligation to engage.

This Socratic Course was for me an enriching life-experience and I hope to participate in many more Socratic Dialogues in the future. The community of the group was open and heartfelt, and I left Würzburg with a greater sense of confidence that we can all make a difference to the world we share, so long as we continue to hold on to a belief in the guiding principles of ethical reason. We should not be afraid to examine our own presuppositions, common judgements, and personal beliefs, and we should equally feel confident to challenge others. I continue to share a belief that all people are capable of being rational beings, and I believe that the practice of the Socratic Method offers a tangible way to help people to become more rational.

Paolo Dordoni Reports

(RS assisted with the English)

Introduction

The dialogue started with the question "Am I obliged to engage in public life?" The eight participants tried to find a personal experience relevant for our question that could be analysed in the course of the dialogue. After having listened to the different experiences, we tried to choose one of them that would be suitable for our main question. This process was interesting and led the group to deepen their insight into some of the examples. Nevertheless it was difficult choosing the example. There wasn’t complete agreement on which would be the most suitable. One problem at this early stage was that the group did not know enough about the experiences of the participants. Little by little we came to identify two possible examples and decided to examine them more closely before taking a decision.

Some of the participants briefly described an example which they thought was connected with the main question, and these were written on a flip chart.

FL: Chess Club. FL asked himself: Am I obliged to accept an invitation to act as press-officer? He decided to accept, but initially was unsure.

PP: Local Community in London. In this case the question was: Should I agree to my friend’s plea to get involved actively in a campaign to stop the building of a car park in the centre of the community (known as the Balham triangle)?

MW: The Right to Vote. MW asked: Am I obliged to exercise my democratic right to vote in local and national elections? In 1997 this was a problem for me.

PD: School Buildings. The roof of part of the building was collapsing. I thought I had to act (I was student representative for another class). I felt obliged to speak to the Director and was dissatisfied with his attitude. I then sat outside his office and in due course was joined by many others. When I became aware that the others didn’t share my concern I withdrew.

AN: Homeless People. As a social worker, I saw the need (at a time of cuts in public money) of homeless people at risk. I felt obliged to start a campaign to influence through pressure the policy of the Berlin Authorities. I needed to activate social work colleagues but their interest and support wasn’t forthcoming.

The next task was to choose an example, bearing in mind criteria for choosing one that was seen as relevant to our initial question. Various objections were raised about the suitability of some examples, of which this is only a summary:

Example 1 Is this actually concerned with public life?

Example 2 In this example a role in the decision is played by friends, whereas our main question asks "Am I obliged …".

Example 3 Both to vote and not to vote seems a form of engagement in public life.

Example 4 This was considered too complex and too far in the past.

Example 5 There was no objection but the example giver (AN) withdrew the example because of language difficulties.

Having discussed the examples, group members made their preferences known: no-one opted for Example 1, four for Example 2 (PP’s), two for Example 3 (MW’s) and one for Example 4 (PD’s). The facilitator then suggested that a choice be made between PP’s, MW’s and PD’s. She invited the example givers to prepare a brief description of their examples for the next session so that more time could then be given to the chosen example. [Note 1 – for Notes see end of Report]

Generally the group was satisfied with the conduct of the dialogue and with the relationship among the participants.

A number of specific points were raised:

Not always to sit in the same place throughout the Socratic Dialogue;

PD withdrew his example (No. 4) because of language difficulties;

An apology was made by one participant for having been too aggressive towards another by insisting on his point of view;

The facilitator was asked some questions:

why had she summed up the examples put forward by participants. She replied that at that stage we were in a preparatory phase, not yet directly in the content dialogue. If too much time is given to that phase it limits the time available for our content dialogue;

why was it necessary to discuss only one example. The facilitator answered that this was not a dogma but perhaps a practical necessity due to the limits of time.

At the end of the first Metadialogue it was agreed to commence the next day with deepening our understanding of the two examples by clarifying them, and by probing their relevance to our question.

The two morning sessions were taken up with clarifying MW’s and PP’s examples before making a choice between them.

MW asked "Am I obliged to exercise my democratic right to vote in local and national elections?" and added: "In 1997 this was a problem for me". For MW there were two aspects to explore; the first concerned the nature of public life and how one engages in it, the second posed the question ‘to whom do I owe obligation?’. On the first, I can engage in British public life as a voter, for example in the General Election (normally every 4-5 years). My vote is part of the process to elect the local Member of Parliament (MP). The main candidates were recognised officially by their parties for the May 1997 General Election.

My main objective was to achieve a change of government. The choices open to me were:

Do I vote for the candidate nominated by the political party I support even though the individual had some weaknesses?

Do I vote for another candidate and therefore for another party?

Do I abstain from voting?

Neither the second nor the third choice would achieve my main aim to have a change of government. Public engagement for me in this case meant going to the polling station and either voting for a candidate or spoiling the ballot paper as a means of protest.

The second point about ‘to whom is obligation owed’ was not developed because the group recognised it was not directly connected to the main question. However, so as not to forget important ideas, a separate sheet of paper (a jotter) was used to record the group’s ideas. After all, were we to choose MW’s example, it could prove important to deepen our understanding of points on the jotter.

One point on the jotter was our lack of clarity about whether abstaining from voting was a form of engagement in public life. A second point was the question: to whom was MW obliged – to herself or to her society? A third point was whether MW’s obligation to vote was a moral or a legal one. [Note 2].

PP asked whether he should agree to his friend’s plea to get involved actively in a campaign in the Local Community in London (Balham) to stop the building of a car park in the community’s centre? The facilitator asked PP to connect his example to the main question. PP then proceeded to clarify his example:

I was staying with a friend in an area that I knew very well over time. My friends brought to my attention plans to develop the heart of Balham. These plans to me lacked sincerity in their supposed concerns for local residents and for me showed a total lack of respect for local history. When I became aware of the players (local supermarket chain, local authority, developers) I felt a strong sense that a David and Goliath situation had emerged of which the community at that time should be made aware. Convinced by the issues outlined by my friends I decided to engage in that campaign (leaflets, petition signing) against the planned development. I felt obliged to engage primarily because of my belief in the issues and partly because of loyalty to friends.

In this case also some thoughts were recorded on the jotter, especially with reference to what might be relevant to answer our main question. It was important to discover if the action of PP could be considered an engagement in public life. For this reason it was necessary to have a definition of public life. PP said his engagement began with the self and snowballed outwards to embrace the widest community (traders, neighbours). [Note 3].

Certain questions were raised:

Why don’t we change the question if the examples are better fitted for another question?

The facilitator answered that it isn’t obligatory to answer the main question if participants think it could be better to answer another one. In our case this could be "How am I obliged to engage in public life?", instead of "Am I obliged to engage in public life?". But it is also true that only after a detailed analysis of an example is it possible to evaluate whether it is suited or not to the question.

- To what extent is agreement necessary for the group to choose an example?

Here the facilitator suggested that it would be better to ensure that the chosen example is relevant to the question being examined. This doesn’t imply necessarily that all agree completely in what sense it is relevant.

Group members brought their views to bear:

For GW it is sufficient that for the example giver the example is suitable; On the contrary, for FL it is important for the group to agree because otherwise ‘how could each of us put ourselves into the shoes of the others?’. MW observed that the example giver also can change her/his opinion and that whether the example is relevant or not depends on the discussion. D asked whether voting could be used and PD suggested that disagreement could be useful for a dialectical discussion during the dialogue.

Finally, at the end of the second Metadialogue, the facilitator suggested the group should not become obsessed by strategic questions at the expense of more directly addressing the content. In order to gain time for the content dialogue the group decided to choose the example there and then.

The facilitator asked whether anyone thought one of the two examples unsuitable. FL argued that the example of MW could pose problems because a vote isn’t the only way to participate in public life. Furthermore, FL thought abstention also made an impact on public life. Some participants were indifferent about the choice of example. Others preferred to discuss the example of PP because it seemed to represent a process of internal deliberation. It was then decided to start the next session analysing PP’s example. [Note 4].

GW observed that PP had said something which was unclear to her - his reference to uncertainty. What followed was not an easy discussion because initially we didn’t know which question PP should answer: "when" did he become unsure; or of "what" was he unsure. GW was more interested in the second question. So we first asked ‘What was PP unsure about?’. He was unsure:

A1 whether he had either the time or energy to engage in what could be a demanding campaign;

A2 about the future success of the campaign because of the imbalance in the power of the players;

A3 about the extent to which loyalty to a friend influenced his decision.

By contrast, PP was sure:

B1 the plans of the developers presented a threat to the area he had known for a very long time;

B2 the extent of his involvement in the campaign would be within his control.

During the discussion PD observed that we were in fact discussing two different questions which was resulting in confusion: first, what was PP unsure about, and second how was PP able to become certain. This was due to the fact that FL had pointed out that in the process of becoming sure some forces were fighting within PP. This observation, for PD, was concerned with the question how PP was able to become certain, not with what PP was uncertain about. [Note 5].

Having clarified what PP was uncertain about, we came to the second question. How was PP able to become certain? PD suggested two more detailed sub-questions: what was the process?; and what factors were relevant?

This suggestion catapulted the group into yet another strategic discussion on the difference between the two sub-questions and with which we should begin the discussion. We seemed to end up in a kind of deadlock. The session was concluded in a certain amount of confusion. We wrote down as an answer to the second question "PP reflected on all the relevant factors (weighing them, taking into account his emotions, the arguments, his knowledge of the area)." In addition, PP wanted to record on the jotter two other aspects he had to consider: reflection on the consequences of engagement or non-engagement; the tolerable / intolerable results for him of taking or not taking an action.

Third Metadialogue

The facilitator suggested to the group to reduce the amount of attention given to strategy to

allow more time for creative thinking about the content. The example giver (PP) expressed his frustration because sometimes he felt the right of reply was denied him. The facilitator also suggested that the group had given insufficient attention to clarifying the example, and that we should go back to that. Quite a heated exchange followed trying to analyse what had happened during the session and why confusion had occurred leading to frustration for some participants. [Note 6].

The facilitator suggested that the group needed to understand the example better, before trying to analyse it in relation to our question "Am I obliged to engage in public life?". She asked each participant to write down one or two points in answer to the question: "What else do we need to know about PP’s Example in order to work on our Question?". By doing this we were at last concentrating on the content, even if at times there was the temptation to start a discussion on a question and to forget that we were recording it and making sure it was clear to everyone. After listing eleven points we discussed how to proceed. In the end the group decided to proceed chronologically, looking to PP to answer each question. The answers were difficult to formulate. Here are the questions and the answers. The group helped PP wherever possible to find the best formulation.

I want to know more about David and Goliath. How much influence the awareness of David and Goliath had on PP’s decision to engage.

Before I made my decision I had already gained a strong sense that the fight was very unbalanced. This made me feel emotional. I know I have this response when I recognise any form of bullying, which I define as an abuse of power. In this situation I felt that to remain passive would be intolerable for me, given my principles, my sense of justice, and instincts, but I also had to consider other aspects.

What influence did PP’s awareness of a total lack of respect have on his decision?

This also made me feel emotional and doubt both the sincerity of the planners and the competence of the local authority (LA) in its duty to care for the community’s local history. I believe that the LA has an obligation to consider local history within its reflection on the general plans.

I need to know more about the forces of rationality and of emotion in myself and the weight of these factors.

The more I heard about the plans, the stronger my emotional feelings became. As I became more emotional my sense of duty as a citizen became stronger. When my sense of duty as a citizen outweighed my sense of self-interest I became engaged. I wanted to show the mighty ones that they can’t walk over us.

I want to know more about PP’s moral impetus.

To engage actively as a citizen was the proper moral response for me. To remain passive would have contradicted my sense of duty as a citizen.

I want to know more about the lack of sincerity underlying the plans.

I felt the lack of sincerity given the information I obtained from my friend. This was sufficient for me because I could rely on my friend.

I want to know more about "…belief in the issue".

Belief in the issue "meant" on the one hand to get to know the facts and on the other hand the emotional response towards the facts.

I want to know more about PP’s definition of public engagement.

We decided to withdraw this question for the moment because it was too general.

I want to know whether PP thought the LA was failing in its duty to care for the community.

Yes, in my view the LA was failing in its duty of care for the community.

Sixth Day (and final session)

I need to know how aware was PP of the likely difficulties when he made his decision to engage.

At the time of deciding whether to engage or not I could only estimate the likely difficulties of the campaign and of my personal commitments that lay ahead.

In order to understand why I felt the obligation to engage I need further illumination of whether I had either the time or the energy to engage in what could be a demanding campaign.

For me time and energy was one of the components of self interest (see also answer 3 above).

In order to understand why I felt obliged to engage I need further illumination on what is written on the jotter (reflection on consequences of engagement / non-engagement; tolerable / intolerable results of taking or not taking action.

The consequences of non-engagement for me are referred to in answer 4. To remain passive would have betrayed my sense of justice as a citizen and my general sense of justice. As far as I recall the possibility of having a bad conscience played an insignificant part in my decision. The urgency of the situation made me realise that I shouldn’t postpone my engagement (local history, workshop market, bullying). [Note 7].

Final Brain Storm (no longer a Socratic Dialogue)

- PP decided he was obliged to engage in the Balham issue;

- The interaction in PP of the forces of rationality & emotion were central to his action;

- The synthesis within PP of the two forces, of rationality and emotion, resulted in his feeling of duty;

- We threw light on why PP felt obliged to engage in the Balham campaign (see point 11, the last part: "The urgency of …").

- The degree of urgency limited the "thinking time".

[Note 8].

 

Notes

These Notes consist of PD’s personal reflections on various aspects of the dialogue as he

experienced it.

I found the first day’s discussion very interesting. We were trying to deepen our under-standing of the examples and to probe their relevance to our topic. The discussion wasn’t concerned only with the relation of the examples to our question but also with the differences and similarities between them. In this sense the different observations of our group were fruitful and creative. I think that whilst this first approach to the examples helped the participants to take a decision, nevertheless it became clear to me that we cannot really know whether or not an example is relevant for our question before our understanding of it has been deepened.

Is it important that all in the group discuss and agree about the relevance of the example to the main question, particularly when the example giver clearly sees such a relevance? It was clear that for MW voting for a candidates or spoiling the ballot paper as a means of protest are forms of engagement. Similarly, as we will see, some in the group questioned whether PP’s example was or was not a form of engagement in public life when for PP it clearly was. In my opinion such a discussion should be postponed to a different phase of the dialogue. Once the example has been clarified the group can start to generalise from that experience.

It seems to me that the outline of the two examples was inadequate to answer some of the points on the jotter. This is not to deny that the jotter observations might be a help to example givers to understand better their experience.

The process of choosing an example is very interesting. Perhaps argument and counter-argument for or against particular examples should not have a central role because it is difficult to know how relevant the example will be before exploring it in depth. It is also difficult for the group to reach agreement in terms of how interesting they find the examples. It is easier for participants to express any important objections to a particular example. Thus the choice was influenced both by interest in the example and by the absence of strong objections.

This part of the dialogue was very fruitful in probing the example. Nevertheless a problem arose because the dialogue moved to a different level: from the level of clarifying the example to the level of considering our method of working. My attempt to show that we were working on different levels perhaps hindered the process of the dialogue.

It is very difficult to try to clarify the way we are working. Sometimes full awareness only develops whilst working together. If most participants don’t comment on what we are doing, to insist on making explicit the structure and levels of the dialogue can perhaps create confusion and move the dialogue from a fruitful to a sterile and frustrating discussion. I think that most of the problems that emerged in this part arose partly on account of linguistic difficulties, and partly because of the temptation not to look at the example itself but rather to look at the way we were analysing it. Also when a participant has a doubt it may not always be useful to communicate it. It depends on how relevant it is. My doubts were relevant to me, but my attitude was sometimes perceived similar to that of an external observer. May be this disturbed the group and caused the reaction.

Trying to understand the experience of PP, we were on the right road. We were really exploring the example. The answers of the example giver helped him to clarify the situation and us to understand him better. Nevertheless, I’d like to make an observation. It is very difficult to distinguish between an effort to understand someone else’s experience and to judge it from a different perspective. Sometimes it seems to me that we try to force the example giver’s story into our own presuppositions. It was surprising that the group, without being conscious of this risk, was correcting itself and checking whether something was relevant or not. We were learning the skill to answer directly what was important and relevant. We reached a better comprehension of the example, of what had really happened. In the course of the analysis of the example, we had reached a better comprehension of the process by which PP became certain. Thanks to this clarification we also pointed out some criteria for his becoming engaged. This means that by partly answering the question "how was he obliged to" we also partly answered the question "am I obliged to". This is an outcome of the process of the dialogue to understand better the example. Inevitably we describe how and when the thing happened, but thanks to this description we can try to answer our main question.

It was surprising for me that as a group we were learning by our errors and we were learning how better to engage in Socratic dialogue. This was possible also because of the attitude of the facilitator. Instead of pointing out our errors I think she let us take different directions, giving only a few suggestions, sometimes essential, but not imposing a direction on us. This obliged us to be aware of the time we were taking discussing strategy questions, of the reasons for disappointments and frustrations, and to establish ways of avoiding these. In other words we became more responsible for our own dialogue. In my opinion the dialogue wasn’t easy. There were three persons entirely new to the Socratic Dialogue and one who had only one other experience of it. The hurry, the desire for generalisation, the preoccupation with the clarification of the example, sometimes forgetting that, even if it was one person’s example, it was a common discussion. The need for clarification certainly caused some frustration but at the same time provided the occasion to learn by ourselves and to improve our way of doing Socratic dialogue.

As a final personal comment from me, maybe we had identified some criteria to help answer our question: urgency and a profound sense of injustice. We had clarified the sense of injustice in terms of lack of respect for a value considered important (respect for local history). We had also clarified how PP became certain pointing to the role played in the process by emotion and rationality. Most of the later dialogue was perhaps concerned with this topic; for me answering the question ‘how’ was PP able to become certain threw light on his decision that he was obliged to engage in public life. It was useful to analyse the ‘how’ question because it led us to identify some criteria. We didn’t then have time to make generalisations and test in what sense urgency or a profound sense of injustice might be suitable criteria. Any further discussion might have taken a variety of routes. Some possible ones might have been: is urgency a sufficient criteria? Is the perception of an injustice sufficient to answer our main question? This does not mean judging negatively PP’s experience, only to try and see whether such further questions can tell us something more general that we can recognise as true.