Hi Robyn. I appreciate this piece, and I have a comment and a question. I looked in it for more about the argument that adversarial systems are one form of critical engagement, the general process systematized in peer review procedures and practices. This argument does not engage with the moral problem of offering one exclusive perspective. It does, though frame the process of critical reflection on, and publiuc response to an argument or case, which is at the heart of most understandings of "the scientific method" and "critical thinking." Importantly, this is exactly what you are doing in this essay.
Your piece offers an adversarial comment about the adversarial system. I'd say you have reflected, in an informed and engaged way, on the adversarial system and you are making public some of your conclusions. Do you view what you're doing differently?
Great comment John—thank you. And to answer your question, it is both a “yes” and “no”. Yes, I have reflected in an engaged and informed way on the adversarial system as practiced in courts and in our parliaments/congresses. And no, I do not view what I have done as an adversarial comment on the adversarial process. I am not offering an exclusive perspective and insisting my view is true, and nor am I exploiting an inherent institutional power differential; rather I am offering a different perspective that may be useful for going on in ways that matter to us. There is very much a moral dimension to this consideration—one that I believe is sadly lacking from much of the adversarial processes practised today.
Thanks Robyn - this is an important point, and reminded me of Laura Nader's paper on controlling processes, in which she argues harmony ideology and associated alternative dispute resolution approaches have mostly undermined justice (although interestingly they were also readily adopted by the Zapotec to resist the Spanish crown).
Thanks for that comment Hugo. Laura Nader's work on controlling processes in the practice of law raises a number of important points re social control.
Hi Robyn. I appreciate this piece, and I have a comment and a question. I looked in it for more about the argument that adversarial systems are one form of critical engagement, the general process systematized in peer review procedures and practices. This argument does not engage with the moral problem of offering one exclusive perspective. It does, though frame the process of critical reflection on, and publiuc response to an argument or case, which is at the heart of most understandings of "the scientific method" and "critical thinking." Importantly, this is exactly what you are doing in this essay.
Your piece offers an adversarial comment about the adversarial system. I'd say you have reflected, in an informed and engaged way, on the adversarial system and you are making public some of your conclusions. Do you view what you're doing differently?
Great comment John—thank you. And to answer your question, it is both a “yes” and “no”. Yes, I have reflected in an engaged and informed way on the adversarial system as practiced in courts and in our parliaments/congresses. And no, I do not view what I have done as an adversarial comment on the adversarial process. I am not offering an exclusive perspective and insisting my view is true, and nor am I exploiting an inherent institutional power differential; rather I am offering a different perspective that may be useful for going on in ways that matter to us. There is very much a moral dimension to this consideration—one that I believe is sadly lacking from much of the adversarial processes practised today.
Thanks Robyn - this is an important point, and reminded me of Laura Nader's paper on controlling processes, in which she argues harmony ideology and associated alternative dispute resolution approaches have mostly undermined justice (although interestingly they were also readily adopted by the Zapotec to resist the Spanish crown).
Thanks for that comment Hugo. Laura Nader's work on controlling processes in the practice of law raises a number of important points re social control.