|
Beginning with the dialogue
:
Choosing the example guidelines :
1. from your own experience
2. it’s an event
3. concluded in time
4. not too emotional
5. as simple as possible
6. willing & able to tell everything about the event (must
be willing to share all relevant material to investigation)
7. interesting for everyone
8. the question plays a central role in the example
9. one that doesn’t involve another participant directly
Examples suggested – the choice of the example is based on a consensus
Examples given on a personal experience of
being authentic or not :
- Career change – choosing to do something
in accordance with one’s nature
- To conform to a professional ‘look’
- To express one’s difference ‘the natural
look’ (no hair)
- Living a lie
- It’s me or the crowd
Each participant described his/her example
and then the group looked at each example to decide on which
one was the one they wanted to work on for the dialogue. Since
two were similar in nature ‘physical appearance’ but for differing
reasons : one was a question of conformity whereas the other
was of expressing one’s own true nature (affirming difference),
these were examined but felt to be limited in responding to the
question. The group unanimously chose the "Living a lie"
example as it came up at the last moment. For the other examples,
though illustrating the question didn’t grab the group’s attention
as much as the ‘Living a lie’ one did. Consensus was almost immediate
and unanimous. This example seemed to be most appropriate to
respond to the question as well as illustrate the dilemma of
possibility to be authentic or not.
The example chosen was Ellen’s : She got married to be socially accepted
and realised she was living a lie (for she didn’t love the man
she married.) By divorcing her husband, Ellen felt she was authentic
and no longer living a lie. The group were invited to ask questions
in order to understand the example, clarifying information around
it.
|
Examining the example :
In questioning the example, areas
of authenticity came forth : was it something you should be,
was it a positive thing, was it concerned with being true to
oneself, did it involve making a choice, did it presuppose knowing
what you don’t want or doing something which is against your
nature, were there different moments of authenticity if it was
in accordance with one’s own nature, does one’s own nature change
?
Searching for the core
statement :
The participants were asked to view this example
as their own and could they see themselves in this situation.
Also, asked if they thought the example demonstrated the question
of authenticity.
In this part of the dialogue, it was difficult
to find one core sentence as the example was so rich there were
many areas to look for the core sentence. The propositions varied
as follows:
authenticity was linked to freedom and being
able to make a choice
the desire to be socially accepted created an inauthentic feeling
or at least challenged the desire to be authentic
authenticity was linked to (presupposed) leading an independent
life
authenticity was directly connected to feeling in harmony with
body, mind and spirit
authenticity presupposed honesty unto oneself (in response to
‘living a lie’)
The later developments of the core statement
and striving for consensus (though not yet achieved) :
Authenticity is understanding one’s own nature
and making choices consistent with that nature.
You can’t be authentic unless you understand your own nature.
During this one-day Socratic dialogue, consensus
was not achieved due to time constraints and thus, participants
were asked to respond to the initial question individually (taking
into consideration the dialogue up to that point)
|
This is a rendition
of a Socratic Dialogue which hopes to demonstrate what this exercise
entails for those who are unfamiliar with this type of inquiry.
The backgrounds of participants was quite diverse from teaching
to architectural designing. This dialogue was set up as a one-day
inquiry.
Hour-glass
procedure :