What are the key philosophical principles of Dialecticts?
The
Philosophical Basis of Materialist Dialectics
Text by Prof. Marco Querol
Activity Theory—and consequently the Change Laboratory—is
based on materialist dialectics, an approach developed by Marx and Engels,
based on Hegel's contributions. However, dialectical thinking is much older,
dating back to the earliest Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus, Socrates,
and Aristotle. One of the particularities of materialist dialectics is the
emphasis on history and material reality as central elements for understanding
the world and its transformations.
Thinking dialectically is particularly challenging for
people trained in the Western tradition. We are accustomed to understanding the
world from the assumption that the elements exist separately and stably, and
that change, when it occurs, results from external influences, following a
linear logic of cause and effect. In my case, it took several years before I
began to understand and apply the principles of dialectics—both in
interventions and in everyday life. So don't feel alone or despair — this is a
continuous learning process.
Materialist dialectics is based on three fundamental
principles: motion, contradiction, and internal relations.
Movement
We humans don't always like the idea that everything
is constantly changing. We tend to seek certainty and stability. We need to
believe that things are fixed, stable, and long-lasting—otherwise, making
decisions becomes difficult and uncomfortable. Our relationship to change and
learning is contradictory: at the same time that we have the instinct of
curiosity and exploration to adapt to the changing environment, learning
something new—literally speaking—requires energy. Although we are able and need
to constantly learn, the emergence of cognitive discrepancies (i.e.,
contradictory information and knowledge) causes us psychological and even
physical discomfort, which we naturally tend to avoid. Therefore, we prefer to
think that the world is made up of static and stable elements.
The notion of movement is not new, it dates back at
least to the sixth century B.C., with the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who
stated that the world is in continuous flux and is made up of opposites.
Nothing is permanent. Things arise, exist in different ways over time, and will
never be exactly the same in two consecutive moments—until they cease to exist.
That is, things are not stable objects, but are in perpetual transition.
Heraclitus suggested that while things appear to be fixed objects, they are not
actually fixed (Magee, 1999). However, Heraclitus and dialectics remind us that
stability is an illusion: change is the law of life and the universe.
In dialectics, movement does not mean only process,
but implies that everything is in constant transformation. Everything has a
beginning and an end; Things are born and die. Motion is not a property of
matter—it is its essence, its form of existence.
Internal relations
In everyday life, we tend to see things as separate
and independent. The sciences, for example, are divided into biology,
mathematics, languages, etc. Systems are composed of elements or parts,
processes are organized into stages, and so on. Things seem to exist by
themselves. These are abstractions that we make in order to understand the
world around us. In dialectics, however, the notion of internal relations
states that nothing exists in isolation. The essence of something is precisely
in its relationships. A thing "in itself" is an empty abstraction.
The world consists entirely of internal relations. Any element removed from
their relations ceases to exist as such(Tolman, 1981).
An example is the notion of tool. From a dialectical
perspective, a tool does not exist by itself: it is linked to the person who
created it, to those who use it, to the knowledge that sustains it, and to the
object it aims to transform. We could go further and say that it does not exist
outside of a historical, sociocultural, political and economic context.
To understand something in depth, from a dialectical
perspective, it is necessary to see it in its relations. Of course, due to
human limitations, analyzing all possible relationships would be unfeasible.
For this reason, dialectical analysis resorts to a historical and
developmentalist approach, using the so-called method from the abstract to the
concrete (Engeström, 2020; Miettinen,
2000; Vetoshkina & Paavola, 2021).
Contradiction
In common thinking, change is often seen as a response
to situations in which we fail to achieve what we want or to unwanted events.
These events are typically conceptualized as problems, disturbances,
challenges, conflicts, limitations, or barriers.
Such phenomena are usually understood in a
one-dimensional and unidirectional way — for example, as the lack of something
that needs to be filled or as something wrong that must be removed or replaced.
However, reality shows us that life is, in its essence, contradictory. If it
were just a matter of absence, the solution would be simple: it would be enough
to introduce what is missing. What really happens is that there are always
opposing forces in tension.
The notion of contradiction is not exclusive to
dialectics and also goes back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who proposed
the idea of the unity of opposites. According to him, the downhill path and the
uphill path are not two distinct paths, but the same thing, seen from different
perspectives. Everything is a meeting of opposites or opposing tendencies.
Heraclitus suggests that struggle and contradiction should not be avoided,
because it is from them that the world is constituted. To eliminate contradiction
would be to eliminate reality itself (Magee, 1999).
Although discrepancies and opposing ideas are
recognized in many theories of learning, in my view this concept remains
under-conceptualized, as it fails to recognize that these discrepancies are
actually manifestations of contradictions—that is, real opposing forces that
exist in the world. Opposition is often interpreted as a consequence of
external changes, something that must be corrected or avoided.
In dialectics, however, contradictions are understood
as opposite, mutually exclusive internal forces. Contradiction is seen as the
origin of movement and vitality, for it is precisely in the attempt to resolve
internal contradictions that movement occurs. As the philosopher Hegel pointed
out, contradiction must be understood as a law that expresses the truth and
essence of things. Dialectics seeks to offer means to deal rationally with
contradiction and understand its role in the self-movement of systems (Tolman,
1981).
Development
The concept of development overrides the other three
principles, so I do not consider it a fourth principle. In dialectics,
development is understood as the very movement generated by the resolution of
the contradictions of a system. In other words, to develop means to resolve
contradictions. However, unlike the concept of change, which can occur randomly
or without a defined direction, development follows a direction — although not
linear or predictable, it points to qualitative transformations in the structure
of the system.
For example, the modern and industrialized form of pig
production — based on a large number of animals in reduced spaces, with
intensive use of technologies — leads to consequences such as environmental
degradation, animal suffering, and general reduction in product quality, among
others. So there are two opposing forces, one toward productivity, efficiency
and cost reduction, and the other toward environmental degradation and quality
in general. This contradiction is internal to the system of production, and
sooner or later these opposing forces will lead to the emergence of a new
system that will seek to solve them. However, new contradictions will
inevitably arise, continuing a constant movement of development.
References
Engeström,
Y. (2020). Ascending from the abstract to the concrete as a principle of
expansive learning. Psihologičeskaâ nauka i obrazovanie= Психологическая наука и образование, 25(5), 31–43.
Magee,
B. (1999). História da filosofia.
Edições Loyola.
Miettinen,
R. (2000). Ascending from the abstract to the concrete and constructing a
working hypothesis for new practices. Evald Ilyenkov’s Philosophy Revisited,
Helsinki: Kikimora Publications, 111–129.
Tolman,
C. (1981). The metaphysic of relations in Klaus Riegel’s ‘dialectics’ of human
development. Human development, 24(1), 33–51.
Vetoshkina,
L., & Paavola, S. (2021). From the abstract to the concrete and beyond: The
winding road of constructing a conceptual framework. Outlines.
Critical Practice Studies, 22, 125–169.
Comentários
Postar um comentário