In education, it is still possible on occasion to hear a teacher assert that they like to use the Socratic method. Whenever I hear this, I find myself wondering whether the person making the assertion has ever actually read a Socratic dialogue. I have, and they do not model a teaching technique in which students are invited, through a series of thought-provoking questions, to generate answers for themselves. No, in the actual Socratic dialogues, Socrates is a pompous windbag who preys on hapless and ignorant young Greeks. The Socratic dialogue usually begins with the HIYG making a laughably naive claim. Socrates then shows the HIYG the error of his ways through a "dialogue" which consists of Socrates leading the HIYG by the nose through the levels of an argument, while the HIYG agrees weakly with everything Socrates says.
For instance, Socrates goes on for two or three pages about one of the premises of the argument, then says, "Wouldn't you agree, HIYG?"
HIYG: Yes.Socrates: Well, then, is it not also true that [insert four pages on Premise Number 2 here]?
HIYG: Yes.
Socrates: In which case, you cannot possibly dispute [six pages on Indisputable Conclusion Deriving From Premises], can you?
HIYG: No, Socrates, I cannot.
So much for dialogue.
I am thinking of Socrates this morning because yesterday at the library I picked up a copy of What Should I Do With My Life?: The True Story of People Who Answered the Ultimate Question, by Po Bronson. This book purports to be interviews with people who have wrestled with the thorny question of life's purpose, and Po Bronson spent several years traveling the country to interview them. The early part of the book, all I have read so far, consists of interviews with people who haven't figured it out, who are stuck, and the interview transcripts are making me want to find Po Bronson and whack him good, the obnoxious know-it-all.
His commentary is full of things like, "Although I had only known Jessica for an hour, I couldn't help feeling that her basic problem was that she was in denial about how much she really loved breeding small rodents for the pet trade." That's a paraphrase, but this, which closes a chapter, is an actual quote:
[I told her] "Well, if the purpose of life is to be as great a doctor as your father, then you might have stalled. But if the purpose of life is to be true to yourself, when you walked out of that hospital, you passed your first big test."This was possibly just a trick of words, but for a moment it helped her find the value of those years. (18)
It's astonishing how often Po is able to help those he's interviewing. A pompous windbag in the true Socratic style. Here's another favorite moment of mine (identifications added for clarity):
Po: Nothing wrong with that for a while. Rebuild your confidence. Find out you're as smart as anybody. But then you've got to return to those character-shaping experiences that matter. That anger you still carry over that reprimand--that's fuel.Interviewee: You think I should be a civil rights lawyer?
Po: Don't look to me for answers. (53)
I can't decide whether to drop the book back into my Return to Library bag before I waste any more time on it, or whether I should keep reading for the unintentional humor.
By the way, Po does eventually tell the poor guy above what to do with his life, after some abject begging: "He made it clear he would feel cheated, and maybe even used, if I didn't share my honest assessment" (53). Good old Po. Always happy to help out. Someone should have warned him that if, in an interview transcript, the interviewer is getting whole paragraphs while the interviewee is getting only single sentences of the "Do you really think so?" and "You're so wise!" variety, something is sadly out of whack.
Posted by Su Penn at May 13, 2003 11:47 AM | TrackBack