Reading :: Dialectics as Mode of Thought and Method in History

Dialectics as Mode of Thought and Method in History

by Manolis Dafermos

I read this book on the history of dialectics a few months ago, but have been dragging my feet in reviewing it because it’s such a massive undertaking. This review, unfortunately, won’t do justice to the book, which is lengthy (over 400pp) and covers dialectics from the ancients (Chinese, Indian, Greek) to the present. As someone who feels like he is perpetually catching up to this term and the concept(s) it expresses, I found it to be immensely valuable.

Dafermos begins in this way: “One of the most striking paradoxes of our time lies in the simultaneous intensification of the contradictions inherent in the world capitalist system and the widespread rejection of the very mode of thought best equipped to comprehend them: dialectics” (p.1). Alas, he says, dialectics has become misunderstood: “Over time, the dialectical mode of thought has been neglected, discredited or distorted” (p.2), noting two strands of objections to dialectics: Popper’s complaint that dialectics is too vague, and poststructuralist objections to “the core assumptions of dialectical reasoning” (p.2). 

Dafermos says that “These objections require careful and critical engagement. They reveal both the widespread misunderstanding surrounding dialectics and the broader intellectual climate that has contributed to its marginalisation” (p.2). The misunderstanding, he says, comes from both political motives and dialectics’ “complexity that is fundamentally at odds with the dominant culture of intellectual production—increasingly shaped by managerial logics [and] academic commodification” (p.2). To be honest, this argument does not sound like the “careful and critical engagement” that Dafermos promised: it seems dismissive to claim that people object to dialectics because they are either politically averse to it or they can’t think complexly enough. But based on other recent works on dialectics, I was not surprised by this line of argument.

Dafermos adds:

This book pursues three closely interrelated objectives:

1. To explore dialectics as an advanced mode of thought and dynamic method, with particular emphasis on its historicity—its emergence, formation, and continuous transformation across diverse intellectual traditions and historical epochs.

2. To trace the major milestones in the historical trajectory of dialectics, from its early formulations in antiquity to its diverse and evolving modern manifestations.

3. To advocate for the renewed relevance and further development of dialectics, especially in light of the complex and interrelated challenges facing science and society at the current critical juncture. (pp.3-4)

And he cautions: “Far from being a static framework, dialectics constitutes an advanced mode of thought that develops within the broader historical trajectories of philosophy and science. It does not emerge in isolation but is constantly redefined and developed in response to intellectual and social challenges, particularly in addressing complex, real-world problems.” Thus “this book traces the development of dialectics as it unfolds within the broader currents of social history” (p.5). 

Chapter 2 provides a conceptual outline of dialectics, emphasizing that “Dialectics is fundamentally distinguished by its emphasis on the relational and dynamic nature of reality” (p.13). “Beyond merely acknowledging the dynamic nature of reality, dialectical thinking positions contradiction as the driving force of change and development” (p.14). He overviews ontological and epistemological approaches to dialectics as well as characterizing dialectics as “an inherently reflective and self-reflective mode of thinking that takes thought itself as its object,” referencing Hegel here (p.15). “From a dialectical perspective, logic is not conceived as a fixed, ahistorical system of rules, but rather as a theoretical generalisation of the development of human thought and social practice in history” (p.16). And “Dialectics as a method is oriented toward processes of inquiry and knowledge generation intrinsically linked to the particular object of study, rather than applying external, formalised procedures” (p.17). He argues that “A fuller understanding of dialectics emerges only when we situate it within its broader historical trajectory—a mode of thought deeply entwined with humanity’s intellectual and social development” and “Consequently, any rigorous engagement with dialectics must itself be dialectical—responsive to its evolving nature rather than imposing fixed, external set of principles onto diverse fields of inquiry” (p.20). For someone like me, who is trying to figure out dialectics “from the outside,” this claim is mildly discouraging: Dialectics is always changing, and you can only understand it through dialectics itself. 

Dafermos covers the development of dialectics in crushing detail, detail that I won’t get into in this review, which is more like a stone skipping across the surface of a deep lake. What can I say? I can’t cover all of these details, but I’ll give you an overview of the book’s major parts and encourage you to pick it up yourself.

Chapter 3 examines spontaneous dialectic in ancient Chinese and Indian thought, while Chapter 4 turns to spontaneous dialectics in ancient Greece. Chapter 5 examines dialectic across the Middle Ages and Renaissance, while Chapter 6 connects dialectics with metaphysics during the rise of modern science. Chapter 7 gets to dialectics in German philosophy (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Feuerbach). 

In Chapter 8, we finally get to “the pivotal shift from the idealist dialectics of classical German philosophy, notably Hegel’s, to the materialist dialectics developed by Karl Marx” (p.213), especially examining historical vs. systematic dialectics. This lengthy chapter covers the basics of Marx’s theory as well as noting “two core methodological problems —the ascent from the abstract to the concrete and the relationship between the logical and the historical” (p.254).

Chapter 9 covers rejections of dialectic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as articulated by “three major philosophical movements [that] gained prominence: positivism, neo-Kantianism, and Nietzschean philosophy” (p.259). Dafermos ties these rejections to social and political changes during this time. 

In Chapter 10, Dafermos “examines the complex and multifaceted relationship between dialectics and social transformation, with a particular focus on the intense philosophical debates that unfolded in the Soviet Union. It explores the intellectual struggle between two competing schools of thought—the Mechanists and the Deborinites—who sought to define the essence and scope of dialectics, as well as its relationship to both the natural and social sciences. ” (p.277). Among other things, he discusses Stalin’s “dogmatization of dialectics” (p.288) and argues that this dogmatization should not distract us from “the richness and diversity of intellectual currents within the Soviet Union” (p.290), covering Ilyenkov and Vaziulin in detail. He concludes the chapter at the end of the USSR: 

The collapse of the Soviet Union also catalysed a profound intellectual shift that led to the widespread rejection and marginalisation of dialectics in academic and intellectual circles. Publicly associated with the Soviet Union, dialectics was increasingly dismissed as outdated or ideologically compromised. This marginalisation is particularly striking given the unique potential of dialectical thought to illuminate the complex, contradictory and non-linear character of historical processes. (p.303)

Chapter 11 is intriguingly titled “The Adventures of Dialectics in Western Marxism,” examining Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, and Althusser. Chapter 12 “offers a comprehensive examination of the complex relationship between the analytic tradition and Hegelian dialectics” (p.341). Chapter 13 gets to the postmodernist tradition “through a rigorous analysis of seminal works by Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault,” arguing that “despite their repeated efforts to dismantle dialectical thinking, postmodern theorists frequently remain entangled in the very conceptual terrain they seek to deconstruct” (p.359). 

Chapter 14 “examines the revival of dialectics in the intellectual landscape of the post-Cold War era, presenting it as a challenge to Francis Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ thesis” (p.380). Here, he argues that “At this pivotal juncture in human history, the necessity of dialectics becomes undeniable” because “Despite the efforts of certain intellectual traditions—most notably poststructuralism and postmodernism—to deconstruct or dismiss it, dialectics endures as a sophisticated mode of thought and a dynamic method of inquiry” (p.383). This final chapter has a triumphal tone, arguing that the current challenges faced by the world are problems that dialectics is meant to handle.

What did I think of this book? 

On one hand, it covers a huge sweep of history and examines the development of dialectics in great detail. Dafermos understands dialectics as it unfolds and develops across different time periods and intellectual milieux, and he presents it as a relatively coherent line of thought that sometimes branches or develops along separate tracks, but ultimately constitutes a unified field. I’m deeply impressed by his breadth of inquiry and the sheer number of sources he covers.

On the other hand, this book feels like one of those dense theological texts that assure other true believers of how systematic and rational their religion is. Since dialectics is presented as “fundamentally distinguished by its emphasis on the relational and dynamic nature of reality” (p.13) and since “any rigorous engagement with dialectics must itself be dialectical—responsive to its evolving nature rather than imposing fixed, external set of principles onto diverse fields of inquiry” (p.20), dialectics ends up being a very slippery term, and one begins to suspect that it can only be applied with precision by the theologians, er, theorists who have studied it for decades. At points, I thought about challenges brought to dialectics by other lines of inquiry that also emphasize the relational and dynamic nature of reality and that also refuse to impose fixed, eternal set[s] of principles — dialogism and actor-network theory come to mind — only to wonder whether Dafermos would simply argue that they are dialectical deep down. I’ve noticed this in other texts defending dialectics as well: They tend to portray other frameworks as either secretly based on fixed, eternal principles or as being based in dialectics without recognizing the fact. I don’t find this broad dividing line to be especially useful or convincing.

Nevertheless, I found this book very useful for understanding dialectics from the perspective of its advocates. Dafermos’ understanding of it is deep and broad, and it really helped me to think through the framework in its many historical manifestations. If dialectics intrigues you as well, definitely pick up this book.