Stony Brook University - SUNY Digital Repository

that dynamic essence, is for that world sun wheel to stop
moving. I do not want to sound overly dramatic, but it is the
truth, at least for me - my “truth.” And the necessity of this
dynamic, for thinking and writing and teaching, is a “truth”
shared by others I have brought to my discussion already,
whether it is referred to as the “dialogue” or the “dialectic.”
Knoblauch wrote of the former in his article, “Rhetorical
Constructions: Dialogue and Commitment,” which I had discussed
in the last chapter by way of his criticisms of “dialogical or
sociological [rhetorical] statement” and its “inevitable
limitations.” Knoblauch begins the work with an explanation of
Paulo Freire’s “concept of ‘praxis,’ by which he signifies the
two dimensions of authentic discourse, that of reflection and
that of action, the process of naming reality and the process of
changing reality” (261). It is here that Knoblauch introduces
“dialogue,” which was not only essential to Freire’s “praxis”
but also his very own contrasting of those different, and
“contrary,” rhetorical statements throughout the essay. Of this
“dialogue,” he writes:
The ultimate motive for any transformation is […] the
need to be more fully human, the need to participate
more completely and more freely in the world. The
instrument of transforming is dialogue, where
competing representations of reality dynamically
challenge each other to compose alternative forms of
action. In the absence of dialogue, with the erasure
of anyone’s “word,” with the prohibition of critical
inquiry, with the maintenance of dominating
conditions, however subtly validated as necessity,
tradition, or evolution, the possibility of becoming
142