Dr Hegel, The Man
Rapid Teaching of Paraphrasing and Critical Thinking – the Hegelian Dialectical
Critical thinking is in short supply. Put aside global warming (whatever that is) and climate change (read: the daily weather); put aside Trump v. Clinton and Black Lives Matter™. CRITICAL THINKING is dangerously close to running on empty.
What is Critical Thinking? This definition, long though it may be, is good:
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
The key word, to me, is synthesizing. Critical thinking is about taking an idea (a thesis), flipping it on its head (antithesis), and then coming up with our own version of the idea (a synthesis). Sound familiar? It might. This is what has come to be known as Hegelian Dialectical Thinking.
The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant. Carrying on Kant’s work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.
Anyway, and because Hegel is usually credited with it, I will continue to refer to it as his. And a graphical depiction of the process might look like this:
In Figure 1, the emphases are on balance and distance. The process is simple: Flip the Thesis on its head (think here of A versus Not A) to get the Antithesis. Then sit back and examine one against the other. The space between them is given over to reasoning and to understanding the tension. You then engage in resolution of the two and make an attempt at Reformation (perhaps Martin Luther engaged in this process?). The end result will be a new, synthetic thought, otherwise known as the Synthesis.
An Example
Waiting on the New Day
In its simplest form we might assert the thesis of “Dawn is the happiest time of day,” and flip that around and assert the antithesis that “Twilight is the happiest time of day.” Dawn and twilight are not equal. In the former, the sun is just rising and pointing toward a new day full of potential. In the latter, the sun is setting, with its promise of sleep and, perchance, to dream. There are people who, as early-risers, prefer the dawn and would have many reasons, some firmly held, why it is the best time of day. On the opposing side are those whose spirits come alive in the brilliance of a sunset, who use that time to reflect on the day, and so forth. There is tension between the opposing viewpoints. Not exactly the stuff of which wars are made, but tension nonetheless.
Twilight
We step back and reason between them. We feel the tension and understand, perhaps, the intractability of either side. Reasoning leads us to see the warrantable position of both; after all, some of our greatest thinkers were early risers (Benjamin Franklin, who was also very early to bed and probably missed a few twilights); while other, equally great, thinkers never had an original thought before about 5pm (Schopenhauer was one of them). Their positions would seem irresolvable.
Let us assume that in our reasoning, we identify a new position, something in the middle that captures perhaps the essence of both. We begin to formulate a resolution of the tension and reformation of the debate. This here, right there, is the essence of critical thought. The distance between the debate of Dawn versus Twilight, and then what we arrive at in terms of a synthesis, may be seen as the quantum of critical thinking. It is a “quantum” in the sense that some amount of thinking is minimally required before a synthesis may be arrived at which is warrantable. One must get one’s ducks in a row before asserting a synthesis. That takes some time, some minimal distance.
Let us now say that our synthesis is that the best time of the day is that which corresponds to our maximal activity and potential for original thought. Perhaps it is a function of the angle of the sun. After all, in some countries, particularly those along the equator, nothing – absolutely nothing – happens during the siesta (the point at which the sun is at its apex). Perhaps it is a function of cycles, so-called human biorhythms, which vary from person to person and which are thought to reach their apexes at either earlier or later times of the solar day. Whatever our critical thought leads us to conclude, that is the synthesis. And the longer the resolution distance (the reformation distance), and the extent to which the synthesis is balanced between thesis and antithesis, the more warrantable our synthesis becomes.
Figure 1 above, therefore, would depict the optimal dialectic.
How does Paraphrasing Relate?
Alright, so the foregoing is how I teach dialectical thinking as a gateway to critical thought. There is more to say about critical thought, but for now let me pause and tell you about how this all relates to paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing is the process of expressing the meaning of written or spoken words using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity. Consequently, a paraphrase is: (1) your own rendition of essential information and ideas expressed by someone else, presented in a new form; (2) one legitimate way (when accompanied by accurate documentation) to borrow from a source; and (3) a more detailed restatement than a summary, which focuses concisely on a single main idea.
Paraphrasing is an example of synthesis in action (albeit only half). However, the closer your synthesis is to the original thesis (what the author originally wrote), the shorter the implied reformation distance. Indeed, one could say that you are dangerously close to plagiarizing. Figure 2 depicts such a situation.
In this case, in Figure 2, the synthesis, such as it is, is terribly skewed toward the thesis and might even be considered not significantly different from the thesis and thereby dangerously close to plagiarizing. But for illustration purposes, we will assume that you have reworded is enough to avoid being brought up on charges. At the very least, you would include the author’s name, the year it was written, and the page number(s). Even worse, one could argue that you have engaged in (at best) only a minimal amount of critical thought.
Figure 3 shifts the balance the other way, toward the antithesis.
In Figure 3, you have claimed as a synthesis something that is remarkably close to your proposed antithesis. In fact, I would maintain, it is not even close to a synthesis as we have defined it. You assume all risk here: the idea is entirely your own, it appears unwarranted (the short distance implies only a short amount of reformative thinking), and you will have a tough time getting it through any sort of review. There simply is not enough warranting of the resulting synthetic thought.
Let’s Talk Now about Paraphrasing
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) has this to say about paraphrasing:
When paraphrasing or referring to an idea contained in another work, you are encouraged to provide a page or paragraph number, especially when it would help an interested reader locate the relevant passage in a long or complex text [emphasis added].
Now, why would they say encouraged? The Publication Manual is, after all, chock-full of Do’s and Don’ts … yet here we have a mere suggestion. I believe it is because of what I have said about the nature of the dialectic, of critical thinking, and of the reformative measures you have taken. The more of each, the less you will have to direct the reader to the precise page number. Indeed, in such cases, having a page number would do nothing to help the reader! Therefore, it would be, in my opinion, acceptable to have just the author name followed by the year.
Summary
When setting forth a new thesis, what Hegel and others call the Synthesis, the best work will reflect considerable cognitive distance between the original thesis and its antithesis, a distance that implies significant reflection upon the tension between the two opposing points. The reformation of the tension, its resolution if you will, is then set forth in a cogent synthesis, all of which is your own. Indeed, and if you are very lucky, someone will commence their own dialectic using your synthesis as the starting point, the new Thesis!
One last point going to the nature of critical thinking (in my opinion) is what Gandhi had to say about accepting the words of others:
You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.
~ Mahatma Gandhi
