An Elaboration on Dialectic: Origins, Dialectical Criticism & The Exploration of Barthes' Application

First and foremost, the concept of dialectic was originally developed by Greek philosophers, more specifically Socrates and Plato, (Murfin & Ray 110). It is “a form and method of logical argumentation” that usually “addresses conflicting ideas or positions,” (Murfin & Ray 110). In its plural form, dialectics aim to resolve any “contradiction between opposing ideas,” (Murfin & Ray 110). Its main use is for argumentative purposes, and to further explain the two sides of an argument, using their duality to reach a new conclusion from the two presented spectrums. Dialectic is rooted in the art of investigation and of discourse. It is a discussion and more so treated as dialogue between two sides of a greater truth. The end result is the outcome of the synthesis of the two opinions at hand.
 

The entire concept is based off a three-step process, involving the thesis and it’s counterpart the antithesis, in order to reach a new idea, known as the synthesis, (Murfin & Ray 110). In other words, you need two parts to make the whole, and to make that idea or concept completely different and come together in another light.  

In regards to our class, this term is used in a lot of literary criticism, which we have been reading about since the start of the semester. The aim of dialectic criticism refers to the “oppositional ideas or reasoning that [pervades and unifies] a given work or group of works,” (Murfin & Ray 110). A lot of critics will argue about the dialectics of “head and heart” in literature such as with the works of William Shakespeare for example, which refers to “reason and passion,” (Murfin & Ray 110). In addition, dialectic criticism can relate to the manner in which two truths of an issue or of a work are explored, and therefore synthesized to form a final opinion and truth.

Furthermore, this sort of argumentative structure is used historically in philosophy or political science due to its organizational tendencies, and its use of the synthesis function as a means of reaching an end to an argument or issue. The term can sometimes complicate the reading of a text because the readership will not always agree on the two opposing viewpoints, and therefore reaching an entirely new, third concept will not be the most suitable option. On the other end, this term can help intensify our readings of the text because it can teach is to look at our readings in a different light and different manner; when you catch yourself reading dialectically in an active manner, it contributes to a different understanding and concept-breakdown of greater ideas within a text. 

With relation to Barthes and his discourse about the death of the author, and therefore the role of the reader, the relationship between the two sides of the spectrum of textuality are expressed and therefore explored and examined in order to reach an ultimate truth. Barthes examines the idea of the journey of the text and of readership, and how the author’s notion of the text needs to be put to death so that the reader can therefore establish their own links and connections concerning the text. In order to reach his conclusion, and therefore the destination of his argument he takes a dialectic approach to the way that he presents his information and findings and opinions. The two opposing sides about authorship and readership and their corresponding roles are explored in a dialectic manner in order to help provide a significant discourse and approach, but also to help the reader shape their own conclusion about a work of text in the end keeping in mind the duality of the argument.

-Valeria Vargas Caro