Wirning:The Socratic MethodCan Be Dangerous

Louis GOLDMAN

The Socratic method is inappropriatefor children because it teaches themto question adult authority beforethey have the necessary experience.

ocrates was executed for practic-ing it. Plato advised that it not betaught until the student had mas-

tered all of higher education and thennot until the age of 30 Yet MortimerAdler, Theodore Sizer, and others aresaid to advocate its introduction intothe public schools.'.2

I am referring, of course, to whatPlato called "dialectics" and our con-temporary advocates call "the Socraticmethod" Times change, we are told.Plato's rationale no longer holds, andwhat did Socrates in will be applaudedtoday I contend, however, that Plato'sreasons are still good. that the Athe-nians knew what thev were doingwhen they brought Socrates to trial,and that those who advocate the So-cratic method may be leading Ameri-can teachers to the choices given Soc-rates by his jury

Louis Goliman is As*stasn Professor,Foundations ofEducaton. Collge of Edu-cation. WVicita State niterstAl Wichia,Kansas

MO:-

Though exemplified in such earlydialogues as The Meno and The Euth-ypiro, it is only in Book VII of TheRepubic3 that Plato presents a detaileddiscussion of the nature of the dialecti-cal process. The discussion of dialec-tics follows Plato's discussion of thecurriculum for the higher education ofthe ruling class or decision makers.This curriculum includes arithmetic,geometry, astronomy, and harmonyand is designed to accustom the learn-er to think abstractly, to discover theprinciples or essential properties ofthings, rather than to remain on theconcrete level where individual casesare randomly encountered.

Socrates, who had always believedthat "the unexamined life is not worthliving' and that his special wisdom

derived from his recognition of hisown ignorance, is now proposing thateven these scientific and mathematicalstudies need to be examined and theirlimitations understood. The philoso-pher or dialectician "grasps the reasonfor the being of each thing" (534 b);he tries "to give an account" of things(531 e, 533 c), he "tries by discus-sion-by means of argument withoutthe use of any of the senses--to attainto each thing itself that is; he doesn'tgive up before he grasps by intellec-tion itself that which is good itself.. "(532 a).

Full understanding requires us toexamine ideas or concepts internallyand externally. An internal examina-tion will analyze the idea so that wecan formulate its essential meaningand reveal all assumptions or hypothe-ses that are entailed by it, until we canbe secure in using the concept as thefoundation for further knowledge. Anexternal examination will relate ideasto each other or syntbesize them into a

meaningful pattern. Plato recognizesthe plight of the learner and recom-mends that "the various studies ac-quired without any particular order by... children .. must be integrated intoan overview which reveals the kinshipof these studies to one another andwith the nature of that which is" (537c).

U

I

I0ft

- Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

.J

I

~3u~IIa~it. 4

1

I

The Socratic methd,. by searchingfor hidden assumptions or hypothesesfor any apparent gitvz, tells us thatthings are not always what they seemto be, that the truth may not be inconventional wisdom, that matters offact need to be transcended to discov-er the facts of the matter. But more

than that, recognizing that an illusionis an illusion gives us no assurancethat its contrary will in turn be theultimate truth. As Aristotle remarked,only one arrow can hit the center ofthe target, but an infinite number canmiss it. Invalidating a thesis may sug-gest an antithesis that does not err in

the same way, but it too is likely to errin its own wayv. As each position maybe successiveiv discredited, our wis-dom grows, but it is a negative wis-dom. We learn what is not the way,and we become less arrogant, moreopen to new possibilities. Ultimatelywe may see reason turn upon itselfand discover or intuit its own limita-tions. We see Socrates abandon reasonas he heeds his inner voice, and werealize that mind is mightier thanmere consciousness and that life andbeing transcend mind.

Further QuestioningIt is often remarked that for Socratesand Plato the mind has existed prena-tally in the cosmic mind or the realmof ideas and that learning is a form ofrecollection or remembering. But it isless noted, though more demonstra-ble, that the Socratic method amounts

j I

RV,-*.-d fl- L* -dk- (A* L&-~ of C-Vr

If I

,"Me

to a relearning and reorganization ofwhat was previously known in thislife-knowledge that has been gath-ered in a random pattern like coloredpieces of a kaleidoscope. The Socraticmethod shakes things up, destroys thecasual patterning, and looks for a bet-ter-more comprehensive and logi-cally consistent-pattern. That patternis again examined with the same crite-ria and may again be found wanting;the kaleidoscope is again shaken. Phi-losophy is a search for the ideal archi-tectonics of "all time and existence"

If anything is crystal clear, it is thatSocratic questioning leads to furtherquestioning. From this process welearn patience rather than The Answer.In the dialogues the relentless searchfor an ultimate truth is matched onlyby a ubiquitous dread of hubris, oridolatry, should we ever claim to havefound it.

The Socratic method is nothing if itis not upsetting and unnerving. Dew-ey's remark about inquiry appliessquarely: "If we once start thinking noone can guarantee where we shallcome out, except that many objects,ends and institutions are doomed. Ev-ery thinker puts some portion of anapparendy stable world in peril, andno one can wholly predict what willemerge in its place."4 The inherentskepticism of the method can easilyturn to nihilism; its openness to newvisions and revisions may erode stan-dards and disorient and alienate itsdisciples.

No one was more keenly aware ofthese dangers than Plato himself. Hehad seen the dangers inherent in theSocratic method become real, hadseen it turn against Socrates himself.So he has Socrates ask the question,"Don't you notice how great is theharm coming from the practice ofdialectic these days?... Its students arefilled with lawlessness" (537 e). Hegoes on to describe how we becomesocialized, saying that "we have fromchildhood convictions about what'sjust and fair by which we are broughtup as parents, obeying them as rulersand honoring them" (538 c). But then"lads get their first taste (of argu-

ments), they misuse them as thoughthey were play, always using them tocontradict and ... refute others" (539b). They will question what the lawsays is just and fair, and they will refutearguments about its validity until theycome to "neither honor nor obeythem any longer in the same way"(538 e). Generalized, it can be imag-ined that all the customs, mores, stan-dards, values, and conventional wis-dom of the society will be examinedand refuted by these immature dialec-ticians who are "like puppies enjoyingpulling and tearing with argument atthose who happen to be near" (539 b).

Of course, it is the older generation,the fathers and authority figures, whouphold the traditional views; indeed.their claims to legitimate authority restupon these views. And their sons,armed with the Socratic method, comepulling and tearing at them as Oedipusattacked Laius. Small wonder that Soc-rates was accused of attacking tradi-tional religion and of corrupting theyoung. So Plato, chastened and sad-dened decades later, has Socratesironically warn us that only older men,over the age of 30, who have orderlyand stable natures--only these shouldengage in philosophy or the Socraticmethod (539 d).

The Nature and Value ofCultureAs Dewey observed, inquiry leads tochange; and in a dynamic and demo-cratic society such as ours or fifthcentury Athens, inquiry should be wel-comed. Without change a society willstagnate; and the energies of its citi-zens may turn inward, destructively.But every society also needs stabilityand continuity, and the absence ofthese will generate anarchy. The twoare part of an organic unity, and ahealthy society needs to find a middleway. Continuity ensures structure,without which nothing can function,grow, or develop.

It was Socrates' failure to recognizethe claims of a convention-based sta-bility because of his intoxicated, mon-omaniacal thirst for inquiry that ledfinally and inevitably to his trial and

death. The wisest man of his time wasblind to the human requirement ofhabit and tradition, of having a past.He failed to heed the traditional wis-dom of his culture to avoid excess-"nothing too much"--and he was cutdown. R. Freeman Butts comes to asimilar conclusion: "It may ultimatelybe decided that the greatest weaknessof Socrates was his failure to stress apositive education for citizenship thatwould develop the basic loyalties tothe common values of democracy atthe same time that it developed theability to criticize, which was Socrates'chief glory."s

A proper education of the youngmust begin with a hrm grounding inthe nature and values of our culture.Without teaching the rules of the gameand the lay of the land, we handicapthe young and threaten the continuityof the societ. Teaching the essentialknowledge, skills, and values of ourculture presents a challenge and aparadox and requires some epistemo-logical tightrope walking. On the onehand they are essential They are non-negotiable It is tempting to portraythem as absolute and eternal and in-vest them with divine authority Butthey are also relative to our cultureThev have been created by peoples;and they will inevitably be changed,just as thev vary in other lands and atother times. We do impose our cultureand its standards on the voung; to dootherwise would he irresponsible andinjurious to them. But we must try togive good reasons for these standards;and we need to be open to discussion,lest we be accused of indoctrination.On the other hand, in these early vearswe should not take the initiative todemonstrate inconsistencies and otherinadequacies in the belief systems weare helping to inculcate As R. S. Petershas written, "To take a hatchet to apupil's contribution before he hasmuch equipment to defend it, is notonly likely to arrest or warp his growthin this form of thought; it is also to beinsensitive to him as a person.""' Wehave seen thus far that as desirable asthe Socratic method may be, greatdifficulties have emerged. The corn-

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

I I

I-T

prehensive overview, or synthetic as-pect, first requires that children haveconsiderable experience. That experi-ence may then be scrutinized, ana-lyzed, and reconstituted. In fact, thatprocess may continue indefinitely witheach synthetic overview reanalyzedand ultimately reconstituted. But eventhe first comprehensive vision re-quires a level of experience youngchildren prior to high school age willnot usually attain.

The analvtic aspect encountersmore severe problems. If we assumechildren are capable of this manner ofthinking, despite Piaget, Socratic meth-odology may prove damaging to thevulnerable young child, as Peters indi-cated, and may rob him or her of aneeded sense of security . It may leadto a growing recognition that there isno truth and that reason is a poor tool.Cynicism and despair may follow. Inolder students who are insufficientlymature it can become a weapon in theconflict between generations, with theyoung attempting to discredit the val-ues and conventional wisdom of theolder generations. Hannah Arendt re-marked that Socratic "thinking as suchdoes society little good . it does notcreate values . but, rather dissolvesaccepted rules of conduct"- Socrateswas perceived as the instigator of theactivity that undermined Athenian so-ciety; and he was ordered to desist, orto leave Athens, or to take hemlockand die

For the most part our citizens aswell want the schools to transmit ourcultural traditions, not change them.When teachers emphasize change andinquiry to the detriment of continuity,their communities may censor the ac-tivity, suggest that the teacher relocate,or force the teacher out of teaching.Thus, the Socratic method may be asperilous to the teacher as it is to thestudent The case against introducingthe Socratic method in the publicschools is strong indeed.

An Idea-Centered CurriculumAnd yet, in a larger sense, we have nochoice. In the deepest sense dialecticsor the Socratic method is simply think-

ing, nothing less, nothing more. "Soc-rates is a metaphor of an activity ofmind," writes Joseph Needleman. 8 Forhumans it is inevitable that there willbe thinking; the question is merelyone of degrees, the extent and thedepth we will go. By calling the think-ing process "dialectics" or "the Socrat-ic method," however, we have openedthe door to a new insight. Thinking isthe mind talking to itself, dialoguing,answering its own questions. The dia-logue, the Socratic method, is reallythe externalization of thinking; moreaccurately, thinking is the internaliza-tion of a social process, a dialogue, aninteraction between two people. Butthe duality involved is essentially oftwo ideas as presented by the peopleand not the people themselves. Hu-man beings have a duality insofar aswe think. We are "both the one whoasks and the one who answers," savsArendt.9 Our two selves strive to beconsistent with each other Indeed,insofar as thev are, there is no think-ing. Only when we encounter contra-dictions or otherness do we becomeperplexed and wonder. This encoun-ter is the origin of thought. There is nodifference between Socrates encoun-tering a Sophist or Dewey's "problem-atic situation"' 0 because these are theexternal or social occasions for the selfto undertake thinking or problemsolving.

Once we have grasped the notionthat thinking is not only somethingthat goes on subjectively in one's headbut also has an objective correlative inwhat goes on between two people(who embody ideas), we can take onefurther step. The teaching of thinkingor the stimulation of the mind is notdone by somehow tinkering withmental processes or developing tech-niques or skills. Rather, since thinkinghas the external or social aspect to it,our attention should focus on institu-tionalizing the Socratic method

One way of doing this is to adopt acurriculum that is more idea centeredthan .sill centered. Skills are not expe-rienced as contrary to one another andwill not generate thought. Ideas, onthe other hand, are the means through

"A school climatethat will generatecritical thinkingrequires a facultyof strongindividuals whodiffer widely intheir ideas, values,and teachingstyles."

which we process the world and thevery stuff of our thinking

For political reasons an idea-cen-tered curriculum cannot be too close-Iv associated with the individual teach-er or with contemporary factions. Itmust take account of our deeply con-servative nature (which includes a dis-trust of thinking) and appear safe fromradical departures from our tradition.The curriculum I would advocate is,nevertheless. the curriculum that ismost likely to develop critical think-ing, most likely to produce divergentor radical thinkers. It is the traditionalliberal arts curriculum From that tra-dition came the pbilosophes of theFrench Revolution. Jefferson and hiscohorts in America. Karl Marx andJohn Dewev, and among our contem-poraries. Paul Goodman and Iv-an II-

SEPTEMBER 1984 61

lich. These critical thinkers were noteducated in schools that taught prob-lem-soving tecbniques or criticalthinking or creativty. Indeed, oneraises the heretical question, "Is thepaucity of independent, critical think-ers among today's 'me' and the 'post-me' generation a result, not of lack ofattempts to engineer critical thinking,but of their very presence?"

The liberal arts curriculum can berecommended because it is both polit-ically safe and educationally sound. Itis richest in ideas, perhaps in strange,divergent ideas that are more otherthan the fashionable and contempo-rary; and hence it is most capable ofoperating "Socratically" or of stimulat-ing thinking.

Instittional DiversityNow, I doubt that we can educateteachers to use the Socratic method;and as I have already shown, we prob-ably shouldn't even if we could. Fewphilosophy professors, includingthose who are lifelong scholars ofSocrates himself, have successfullyused the Socratic method in any mean-ingful or profound way. Of course, weall ask students, "What do you mean byso-and-so?" Plenty of articles and man-uals are available on techniques ofquestioning, for classroom teachersthrough Rogerian therapists. But therelentless and incisive questioning ofSocrates himself has never been close-ly approached. It requires not only avast experience, but a genuine open-ness to new experience, a lack ofdogmatism, and a playful and experi-mental personality that is extremelyrare in this world. And it requires atalent for listening and for hearing an'particular utterance in the total con-text of the communication. This sel-dom occurs between parents and chil-dren or between husbands and wives.To expect it to occur in classrooms of30 students is follv.

Yet, if we look at the matter from aninstitutional perspective, it is not nec-essary for each teacher to be capableof entertaining and examining altema-tive beliefs by having an open person-ality. The faculty as a whole may reflecta wide spectrum of beliefs, with eachmember holding his or her beliefswith the utmost dogmatism; and wecould still achieve the objective ofstimulating or generating thinking.

This objective would not necessarilybe achieved within each classroom, inthe formal setting, but could beachieved by internal, informal dia-logue that would be set in motionwithin the individual student. Such anarrangement would also generate aterrific amount of informal discussionbetween the students of the school--again, not in the formal classroomsetting.

This model needs to be consideredwith the utmost seriousness. The labo-ratory of history seems to confirm itssuccess; and it requires neither a revo-lution in teacher education nor inno-vative programs, techniques, and ma-terials for teaching critical thinking. Itrequires care only in the selection ofteachers, and I shall soon return to thisimportant issue.

On the other hand, this modelstrikes at the heart of many contempo-rary approaches. While it embracesformal and even compulsory school-ing as a means, it implies that theculmination of the educational ef-fort-thinking-may occur within theeveryday life of the student in an infor-mal setting. Nothing is remarkableabout this, except that it is not the waymodem schooling operates. If the goalof schooling is achieved outside theformal setting, then measurement andevaluation lose their importance, if nottheir very being. Teachers lose theiraccountability. Students are no longerviewed as material to be manipulatedor managed, and the conclusions oftheir thinking cannot be monitored.Outcomes of student thinking may beunpredictable and mav never even beknown to the teacher or school, asbehavioral objectives for students aretranscended. But isn't that what hap-pens when there is true inquiry, whenwe follow the argument where itleads? Surely, if the argument is worth-while, it will lead out of the classroomand into the life of the student'

What creates an invigorating schoolclimate, then, is not a faculty of moder-ate, even-headed, undogmatic, friend-ly, tolerant, pluralistically orientedteachers who are compatible at facult-meetings and are mutually supportiveof each other's decisions and views. Aschool climate that will generate criti-cal thinking requires a faculty ofstrong individuals who differ widely intheir ideas, values, and teaching styles.

A faculty that because of its differencesis in perpetual discussion among itsmembers is also a faculty that showsstudents by example that ideas andthinking do matter and must enter intothe way we conduct our lives, thatcritical thinking is not a performancewithin a classroom setting but is anessential component of full, successfulliving.

The institutionalization of diversity,by creating faculties composed ofstrong individuals, is easier said thandone. Some colleges and universi-ties-usually the superior ones-havesucceeded, but our public school fac-ulties are characterized by an increas-ing homogeneity. This may ultimatelybe the most serious problem facingthe future of our schools, as it may bethe most limiting factor in developingcritical thinking. The level of compen-sation of teachers and their social classorigins, preservice education, pro-gram design, hiring standards and per-sonnel directors, current administra-tive philosophy, school board con-trols, and other factors have contribut-ed to this growing homogeneity. Howto reverse this trend, however, is notwithin the scope of this paper. "Per-haps," as Socrates might say, "we shallreturn to this someday. For now, how-ever, my wife is expecting me home,and we must end the discussion."[

'Mortimer J Adler The Paideia Proposal. New York: Macmillan, 1982

'Theodore R. Sizer,llorace's Compro-mise The Dilemma of the American HighSchool. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1984

'All quotations are from Allan Bloom'stranslation of The Republic of Plato, NewYork: Basic Books, Inc., 1968

'Joseph Ratner, Intelligence in the Mod-ern Worlds of John Deue''s Philosopln,(New York The Modern Libraryn 1939), p

'R. Freeman Butts, The Education of theWest (McGraw Hill, NY, 1973). p 92

"R. S. Peters, Ethics and Education (Lon-don. George Allen and UInwin, 1966), p 59.

-Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind(New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,1978), p 192

"Joseph Needleman, The Heart of Philos-ophy (New York: Bantam, 198 2 ), p 25

'Arendt, p 185"'Emanuel Shargel. -Dewey's Dialectic'

Philosophy of Education 1981 (Philosophyof Education Society, Normal, Ill., 1982)pp. 162-171

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

II

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.