Dialectics, dialogics and other ways of reading us (original) (raw)

2009, Cultural Studies of Science Education

In this response to Reis's and Zuss's responses to our meditation on the grotesque, we attempt to draw distinctions between positivist, empiricist, and realist (including grotesque realist) projects. We also, drawing on Bakhtin, consider the difference between dialogic and dialectic commentary. Keywords Grotesque Á Realism Á Dialogism To start with we want to express our gratitude for the carefulness and creativity Reis and Zuss have exercised in responding to our text. We are inspired, edified and provoked by their readings. That said, some rejoinder is needed. We offer these rejoinders, in the dialogic spirit that so characterizes our Bakhtinian project. In short, in Bakhtin's concept of the dialogue, from studies of the novel, every utterance is itself rejoinder, and our words are always half ours and half someone else's (Bakhtin 1981). In proposing dialogism, it seems to us, Bakhtin was suggesting something other than the dialectic process, that commentary, is not a production of antithesis, but of partial building, borrowings and redirections. Our comments will be brief. We never imagined our role as authors also as policers of meanings, readings, or grammar. Whatever value our article has it is in the resonances and possibilities that others find in it. That said, we do feel that some reflection on these responses is appropriate. These responses certainly provoked response in us! To start with Reis, our first response was what an interesting and complex reading and reading practice. Filled with maps, grammatical analyses and catchphrase quotes, we have to admit to a bit of feeling nauseated as we worked through his detailed text. By his own