‘Dialectic’, in the modern sense (not Socratic), names an approach to thinking about differences as primarily oppositions. The opposition is resolved through synthesis which transcends the opposition. Typically, opposition is understood negatively: “A is opposed to B” is the same as
“A = not B” or A is the negation of B.
The appeal of this arises in two ways:
- A person (or party) finds oneself in a disturbing condition of opposition to something, and thinks of this dialectically, i.e., as a challenge of getting beyond the opposition through “synthesis” of some kind (“situated transcendence,” for example: ch. 7 here).
- One comes to a disturbing situation already thinking dialectically, so the disturbance is understood oppositionally (e.g., disagreement; or alienation which objectifies the other).
But the etymological history of the notion isn’t dialectical in any sense,
not even in the Socratic sense, which pertains to a conception of pedagogical debate.
I responded via email to Professor Eliot Cohen’s Atlantic article “The Strategy Than Can Defeat Putin.” Cohen is Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins School of Strategic International Studies. He replied “I think we are in agreement.”
What America is really about now pertains to the validity of U.S. leadership along the lines you've detailed; and pertains to…how the American Idea should be understood now, in this first half of this century.
There is validity to the often-dismissed notion of American Exceptionalism, which is vested in the superiority of democracy vis-à-autocracy that is at the root of the "rules-based international order" which is misrepresented by Putinism—and China!—as a U.S. hegemony.
This day, Our humane planet—the True humanity of Us—continues
an historic show of coordinated global response to the invasion
of Ukraine, whose men are fighting to death for their democracy.
Whatever the outcome, this March marks a milestone in Our decade.
