Culhane's use of Plato's Maieutic Method and Rejection of Socratic Elenchus

 Something to think about that may help you during these troubled times.

Context:

Our USF President wrote the campus community here in Florida today saying, "There was a a vigil for [ ] that drew more than 1,000 people to the Marshall Student Center on our Tampa campus, while a similar event was held Friday night on our St. Petersburg campus. Regardless of viewpoint, those attending or nearby were able to listen and treated everyone around them with respect."

My offering to this discussion is that we as academics, at whatever level, need to stop engaging in what Socrates called "Elenchus". We would do better to avoid the Elenktik use of Socratic Dialog and move as quickly as possible toward Plato's midwifery using the "Maieutic Method".

Definitions and explanations of how I'm trying to cut this Gordian Knot are below the German text I'm studying to figure out how Hegel and others since blundered into a bellicose dialectic that doesn't serve our better nature.

"Elenchus, Elenktik (ὁ ἔλεγχος, refutatio, Widerlegung). Ἔλεγχος und ἐλέγχειν (zurechtweisen, überführen, dartun, widerlegen, prüfen) bezeichnen bei Platon das kritische Moment der sokratischen Gesprächskunst. Die Elenktik (von ἐλεγκτικὴ τέχνη) bzw. den Elenchus charakterisiert er als «Reinigungskunst» (καθαρτικὴ τέχνη), ihr Ziel, das sie von der sophistischen Widerlegungskunst unterscheidet, als Befreiung vom Scheinwissen, ihren Weg als Erfragen und Prüfen von Meinungen, Aufdecken von Widersprüchen, gleichzeitiges Beschämen. Geprüft wird in der Rechenschaftsabgabe (λóγον oder ἔλεγχον διδóναι) das Verhältnis des Einzelnen zur Wahrheit, die ihn mit sich und so mit den andern in Übereinstimmung (ὁμολογία) bringt. Aufs Äußerste beansprucht wird der Elenchus durch die Leugnung der Gesetze vernünftiger Rede, die sich selbst widerlegt. Die Grundprinzipien verteidigt auch Aristoteles mit einer indirekten Widerlegung, einem ἔλεγχος oder ἐλεγκτικῶς ἀποδεῖξαι. Innerhalb der Apodeiktik reduziert sich der Elenchus auf seinen formalen Aspekt, auf die Widerlegung als den «Schluss auf das Gegenteil einer Behauptung» (ἀντιφάσεως συλλογισμóς). Scheinwiderlegungen sind die σοφιστικοί ἔλεγχοι; ihr Grundfehler ist die «Unkenntnis der Widerlegung» (ἄγνοια ἐλέγχου), in der weiteren Tradition: ignoratio und mutatio elenchi als Verkennen und Verrücken des Streitpunktes. Die rechtmäßige Übung des Elenchus in «Prüfen und Rede-stehen, Verteidigen und Anklagen» gehört zur Dialektik und Rhetorik.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary

The provided text defines Elenchus (or Elenktik) as the critical moment of Socratic dialogue, characterized by Plato as an "art of purification" (kathartikē technē). Its aim is to liberate individuals from false knowledge (Scheinwissen) by questioning and testing opinions, uncovering contradictions, and at times, inducing shame. The process involves examining an individual's relationship to truth to achieve agreement (homologia) with oneself and others. Even Aristotle defended its core principles through indirect refutation. In its formal aspect, Elenchus can be reduced to "concluding the opposite of a statement" (antiphaseōs syllogismos). The text distinguishes it from sophistic refutations (sophistikoi elenchoi), whose fundamental flaw is "ignorance of refutation" (agnoia elenchou), often involving misunderstanding or shifting the point of contention (ignoratio and mutatio elenchi). Legitimate practice of Elenchus belongs to dialectics and rhetoric, involving "testing and accounting for oneself, defending and accusing".

This description of Elenchus highlights its negative or critical function in intellectual discourse: its primary goal is to challenge existing knowledge, demonstrate a lack of understanding, or refute an argument. While valuable for critical thinking, its focus on "revealing contradictions" and "shaming" implies a confrontational and judgmental approach, aiming to show what is wrong or missing.

This stands in stark contrast to the Maieutic Method as employed by T.H. Culhane in teaching Nexus thinking, which is described as a constructive and dialogic approach aimed at bringing new ideas and knowledge into the world, rather than merely exposing ignorance. The Maieutic Method is presented not just as an alternative pedagogical technique, but as an inevitable outcome when certain foundational principles are deeply embedded in an educational philosophy.

Here's how the different logics, freedoms, and Natural Inclusion lead inexorably to the Maieutic Method and a Theory Y and Z approach to education, demonstrating its evolutionary stability and alignment with self-actualization without "unnatural selection" and judgment:

1. Shift from Logic 1/2 to Logic 3 Governance:

◦ Elenchus aligns with Logic 1/2: Traditional education systems, often rooted in "Logic 1" (short-term financial self-interest) or "Logic 2" (long-term financial self-interest), operate like "factory school models". They prioritize competition, external rewards/punishments, and obedience, often based on "Theory X" assumptions that people are lazy and need to be controlled. This environment, marked by "anxiety and fear intimidation through threats of failure," inadvertently mirrors the critical, fault-finding aspect of Elenchus, where students might be "traumatized" by competitive and judgmental systems. In such a system, uncovering "false knowledge" or contradictions could easily become an intimidating exercise that stifles creativity and intrinsic motivation.

◦ Maieutic Method aligns with Logic 3: "Logic 3" governance explicitly optimizes for "long-term wellbeing for all people and the planet" as the ultimate objective, decoupling human motivation from mere financial gain and instead tapping into the innate desire to serve the greater good. This shift in purpose makes it illogical to maintain fear-based, competitive educational models. Instead, education must foster curiosity, collaboration, and self-directed learning to enable individuals to contribute to collective wellbeing. The Maieutic Method, with its emphasis on "finding or constructing new knowledge" through dialogue and shared exploration, directly supports this Logic 3 objective by creating an environment where individuals can "make a point, get a point" without fear of being "wrong," thus fueling "purpose-driven energy". It cultivates a "psychologically safe" environment where people are comfortable speaking up and experimenting, which is crucial for innovation and progress towards sustainability.

2. Embracing the Three Fundamental Human Freedoms:

◦ Elenchus can constrain freedoms: A method focused on refutation and identifying contradictions might subtly undermine fundamental human freedoms by implicitly dictating "correct" thought or punishing divergence. The "shaming" aspect of Elenchus could deter individuals from exploring unconventional ideas or challenging established norms, thereby limiting their intellectual agency.

◦ Maieutic Method is built on freedoms: Graeber and Wengrow's "Three Fundamental Human Freedoms" – the freedom to move away/relocate, the freedom to disobey an order, and the freedom to create new ways of relating – are foundational to Culhane's Maieutic approach.

Freedom to disobey: Culhane's classes explicitly state, "nichts erzwungen, alles ermutigt, was funktioniert und nachhaltig ist" (nothing is forced, everything that works and is sustainable is encouraged). Students can choose their own structure, schedule, and deadlines, and there are "no right answers except to play and experiment". This liberates students from authoritarian structures and the fear of saying "the wrong thing".

Freedom to create new ways of relating: The Maieutic Method fosters a "many-to-many network" where each individual is a node, and instruction is a "dialectic, a dialogue, a part of the great conversation". Social annotation platforms like Perusall facilitate collaborative learning, where students share and annotate text and video, contributing their unique voices and visions without competition. This cultivates a "we" mindset over "me," promoting collective creation and "ludic" (playful) exploration.

Freedom to move away (intellectually): Students are not forced to "regurgitate" material but are encouraged to develop their own understanding and "make their own arguments". The "smorgasbord of possibilities" in the Perusall library allows students to choose their learning paths, moving intellectually across diverse topics without strict adherence to a predetermined curriculum. This enables self-actualization and personal best by allowing students to follow their interests and "expand their box".

3. Embodiment of Natural Inclusion:

◦ Elenchus can be dualistic: By focusing on "contradictions" and "refutation," Elenchus can create an "atomistic logic" that isolates and divides, separating "right" from "wrong" or "knowledgeable" from "ignorant". This dualistic thinking is identified as contributing to "profound psychological, social and environmental harm".

◦ Maieutic Method embodies Natural Inclusion: Natural Inclusion recognizes the "evolutionary vitality—NOT irreconcilability—both of individual difference and collective coherence". Culhane's approach accepts that "you are all different" but also "we are all human," fostering an environment where individual contributions are valued within a collaborative whole. It explicitly rejects the "competitive struggle for existence" that underpins much of Logic 1 and dualistic thinking. Instead, it promotes Rayner's "co-creative, receptive-responsive relationships" by bringing different elements together in what Alan Rayner describes as "swirls within swirls and variations around a central theme". This method acknowledges the complexity of human understanding and aims to integrate diverse perspectives, reflecting the dynamic flow and interconnectedness inherent in natural systems.

4. Leading to Theory Y and Z Education:

◦ Elenchus leans on Theory X: Its potentially fear-inducing nature aligns with "Theory X" management, which assumes people are inherently lazy, require external motivation (like grades or fear of being wrong), and strict control.

◦ Maieutic Method is Theory Y and Z: Culhane's pedagogy operates using McGregor's "Theory Y" and Ouchi's "Theory Z" of management.

Theory Y: Assumes that work can be as natural as play, and people are self-directed, creative, and committed if given meaningful goals. Culhane's system, with its "ludic" (playful) nature, "make a point, get a point" grading, and emphasis on creative projects, intrinsically motivates students. It shifts the focus from "doing" to "being," allowing for "flow" and tapping into the "human drive to serve others".

Theory Z: Emphasizes a strong company philosophy, long-term staff development, consensus decision-making, and concern for employee wellbeing. Culhane's "many-to-many" network fosters consensus and collaborative knowledge construction. The "life lines" approach to deadlines and the guarantee of points for effort, regardless of initial "quality", reduce stress and burnout, promoting wellbeing and long-term learning. The goal is to develop "profound knowledge" that leads to "true sustainability". This system is about "precision education," allowing students to engage in so much creative output that they "naturally get better and better".

In conclusion, the critical and often refutative nature of Elenchus, while intellectually rigorous, creates an environment of judgment and potential fear, which is fundamentally at odds with the principles of Logic 3, the Three Fundamental Freedoms, and Natural Inclusion. These principles—focused on collective wellbeing, individual agency, collaboration, and inherent diversity—naturally lead to a pedagogical approach like Culhane's Maieutic Method. This method, operating through the lens of Theory Y and Z, fosters an intrinsically motivated, psychologically safe, and creatively abundant learning environment, enabling self-actualization and sustainable impact without the pitfalls of "unnatural selection" or destructive competition."