By Anas Khan, Local Coordinator, SASFL

Socrates, during his glorious time of challenging the establishment and prevalent convictions within the Greek socio-political landscape, challenged his own beliefs. He did this by pursuing a simple form of dialogue with his students. A dialogue that did not have winners or losers, but ensured that wisdom and reason would prevail.   The term Socratic Seminar or  Colloquium is used to define this form of dialogue. It is an exercise of collective deliberation, aimed at better understanding of a text.  

Such collective deliberation is not untouched by the human tendency of diversity. Every text is a mirror which reflects differently to different people. The reason, therefore, remains an objective result of a subjective deliberation. An individual claim to infallible reasoning and the arrogance of knowledge are things that one must always avoid – for these are triggers of stagnancy.

I am reminded of my first colloquium as a Local Coordinator for Mumbai SFL. I personally had adverse apprehensions of colloquia. I thought of it as a futile exercise of relentless debate.  But, the first colloquium that I organised changed my entire perception of this practice.

Our very first colloquium of  2018  was held in Mumbai at Tata Institute of Social Sciences on 13th January. We had 14 participants who discussed and tried to comprehend our reader on ‘Class Struggle and Individual Liberty: A Market for Socialism’.

We had participants from diverse backgrounds such as Psychology, Engineering, Management, Humanities etc.  At the outset of the colloquium, participants raised important questions. These included questions like – What is Equality? Do we actually need an equal society and if so what are those parameters of equality? etc. I experienced that the text prompted them to ask these questions and think in a way which we normally avoid while reading something in isolation.  

I joined the colloquium midway as I could not resist being a part of the discussion as to how the socialist utopia can be achieved through free-market means. At the end when we had our feedback session, it was indeed a very good response as the colloquium acted as a trigger to think within the box and to understand the box in its entirety. It helped us to comprehend the parts which we would normally miss out on.

It is also pertinent to note, that the role of a moderator is of great importance. The colloquium needs ‘moderation’ in order to move forward in the direction of the topic of the reader. This does not equal any kind of ‘regulation’. I have come to the much-contemplated conclusion that Colloquia are the most efficient way of understanding a text.

Differentiation is an inevitable reality. We are not on an equal footing with respect to our intellect, our ideas, our reasoning or our colloquial routine.  One may wonder how all of this relates to a colloquium. These are things that form part of the same transaction. 

A Colloquium involves a group of people deliberating over a text to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of it. In the process, every individual carries with him a specific background that adds to his or her reasoning; and that is a result of differentiation.

At South Asia Students for Liberty, we believe that ideas are not self-sufficient and they need people to nourish them. SFL colloquia do not in any way wish to persuade you to believe in what we say or what the text says. The most important task which they accomplish is to allow us to question, to introspect and to broaden our horizons of reasoning.

A colloquium is not a forced dialogue where the ‘tyranny of numbers’ wins the game. They are spaces where individual reasoning is capable of shattering that tyranny. Thus, they remain to be the best form of collective voluntary effort that recognises reason as the only authority.

Our experiences in organising colloquia have not just earned positive feedback but have had an indelible impression in the minds of those who participate. Colloquia are also an efficient way to ‘revolutionalise’ the plaguing chalk and board method within the subcontinent. They allow for freer spaces of discussion and dissent. Such a ‘revolution’ though is not to be a cataclysmic upheaval in the system, but a gradual result of dialogues with reason.