means that theconversationcouldbeginwith adiscussionof an Englishwordandtransform intoa
discussion of a word from any language.
In my own experience using the Socratic method in culturally diverse classes, this is an
uncommon, but not unprecedented occurrence. On at least a few occasions, I have pushed students
to think about what, say,“justice”means and in response received a lesson on an equivalent term in
a student’s native language and what they think it means. When encouraged to bring to the con-
versation what they know, students will often do precisely that. Practitioners of the Socratic method
might better elicit such responses by inviting the non-native English speakers in the room to share
equivalent words in their language. In fact, in a culturally diverse classroom, this is arguably what a
Socratic teacher should do, for this kind of input can greatly enhance the discussion. When students
start to see that a word they take for granted means something different or perhaps has no place in
another culture, this pushes students to grapple with the universality of experiences they often take
for granted as universal. By contrast, sometimes a convergence of opinions on a particular concept
across different cultures can lead to significant insights.^13 Here we might remember that the
Cratylus, a dialog concerned explicitly with language, ends by concluding that the study of the
words used to describe a thing is inferior to the study of the things themselves. The dialog as a
whole, however, provokes readers to wonder why different names for the same object develop and
why foreign words sometimes become part of the lexicon of one’s own culture. In raising these
questions, the dialog suggests that comparing different languages can be helpful in inspiring deeper
examination of the naturalness of the understandings of phenomena that the words we use to
describe them convey.
Even without provoking students to bring other languages into the conversation, the Socratic
method arguably encourages significant self-reflectivity on the language in which it takes place.
Evidence of this emerges in numerous dialogs, whether in theRepublicwhen Socrates pushes his
interlocutors to consider more deeply the meaning of“justice,”or in theEuthyphrowhen he
examines the meaning of“piety,”or inHippias Majorwhen he and Hippias try to determine what
the“beautiful”is. In each of these dialogs and many others, Socrates submits to examination
conventional understandings of the term at hand. Oftentimes, this results inaporiaor perplexity
about what the concept under consideration truly means, showing that even within a single society
or person conflicting conceptions of a term often exist. The emphasis the Socratic method places on
ascending beyond localized understandings of a particular phenomenon and instead searching for a
definition that applies universally makes this self-reflectiveness possible. Additionally, Socrates’
frequent movements outside the conventions of Greek language help to present the language in a
different, strange light. InHippias Major, for instance, Socrates repeatedly uses language that
Hippias finds“ugly”or improper, such as mentioning pots and ladles in the context of a serious
inquiry. This move itself invites deeper examination of what“the beautiful”is. Likewise, near the
beginning of his defense speech in Plato’sApology, Socrates asks the jury to sympathize with him
just as if he were a“foreigner”being asked to speak in another dialect. For he will not, he says, speak
the language they are accustomed to hearing in the courts, but rather will speak as he always does in
the marketplace or elsewhere. Socrates’own form of speech, then, is not traditionally Greek–and
this is true even when he converses in places more typically open to philosophic dialog. Conducted
properly, the Socratic method challenges the conventions of the language in which it takes
place. Hence, even when occurring within the bounds of a single language, the Socratic method
works significantly against linguistic imperialism by providing opportunities for refashioning
the language.
The“Normative Imperialism”Critique
A second critique leveled at the Socratic method extends deeper, highlighting how the method
intrinsically promotes certain values over others and, in doing so, disadvantages students from
Is Socrates Culturally Imperialistic? 129