This site is often about strategizing and planning what course of action would be most effective in order to promote progressive political ideals. The recent
"non-compliance" diary by rcvanoz is making quite a stir along those lines. Yet while I endorse and admire such direct action (in some situations, at least), I happen to work a bit differently. So, I figured it was worth sharing my own peculiar method when it comes to engaging and promoting political ideas. Maybe it'll help a few of you out there who aren't as
"Promethean" as rcvanoz, but who are rather more Socratic. More below the fold...
As the title hints, my method is largely stolen from an old dead Greek guy by the name of Socrates (pronounced Soh-craytes, in tribute to Bill and Ted). Socrates was different from many of his contemporaries in that he didn't leave behind much in terms of written work, but rather directly engaged the populace by wandering the streets and talking to them. He engaged in dialogue, or "dialogos", with, well, just about anybody who was willing to talk to him. He kept a very open mind, and while he was critical he used reason and not rhetoric/insults.
Most importantly, though, he didn't really do much of the talking. Sure, he made statements occasionally, but most of the time he was asking questions. This is the hallmark of his method: to lead somebody to examine their own views more critically by questioning them. If you get good at it (like Socrates certainly was), you can easily cause somebody to show themselves their own contradictions. While sometimes they may persist in obstinance and refuse to acknowledge their lack of logic, it is still more effective to get them to show themselves their contradictions, rather than to just walk up to them and tell them their contradictions. When they end up reaching the conclusion and saying it themselves, they're much more likely to believe it.
So, this is largely the line of thinking that inspires my own political dialogues. It is important to note that the bottom line goal is never "conversion": I'm no evangelist, and wouldn't want to be one. Really, I talk about politics to learn and enrich myself: if the person I'm talking to happens to learn as well, more power to them. But it is very important in pursuing this method to be extremely diplomatic: if you end up insulting them, they won't want to keep talking to you and answering your questions. Some people won't even want to talk to you to begin with, but so be it. Most people, believe it or not, will actually talk to you if you're polite, as people love talking about themselves and their own opinions/beliefs (as I'm showing right now).
Somebody engaging in the Socratic method is in many ways comparable to an intellectual gadfly bothering a horse. They buzz around, pestering a bit and asking questions, but they're not so troublesome as to cause the horse to bolt. Instead, they stimulate a response: whether this response is good or bad depends on the stimulus and the horse, of course, but merely having intellectual stimulus and response is a good thing in this society I think. At least, there is the potential for self-improvement...
Now, I would like to provide one more caveat, and that is that I don't intend to judge the Prometheans (e.g. more confontation/direct engagers) out there. Indeed, us Socratics need you, perhaps even more than you need us. Still, not everyone is Promethean: I'm sure not, most of the time at least. And for me, the Socratic method has been very effective in my own day-to-day political interactions. I've used it talking to friends, family, classmates, professors, and total strangers. I've learned a lot, and I'd like to thik that a few of the people I've talked to have learned as well.
Thank you for reading, and I hope that my monologue about dialogues has been of some use to you. I'd provide a more specific example from my own experience, but I think if you want more information you'd be better served by reading a more authentic Greek dialogue. While Socrates didn't write much, his protege Plato wrote several dialogues featuring him as a character, including the famous Crito dialogue where Crito (a pupil/friend of Socrates) tries to talk Socrates into escaping from his death sentence. Socrates responds by arguing, essentially, that two wrongs don't make a right. It's not strict Socratic method, but it's a good read and a historic philosophical tome nonetheless.