Abstract

No one in the history of philosophy and the history of rhetoric, not even the sophists, has been more abused than Socrates.1 The sophists were merely scorned and maligned.2 was quite eliminated, his voice appropriated by another.3 As consequence, has traditionally been read as mere point of origination of Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy and rhetoric, and both he and the so-called method have been sharply dismissed from contemporary and composition studies. Vitanza, for example, characterizes Socratic dialogue as search for generic concepts-concepts that can be transferred to and acquired by another human being-and describes Socratic pedagogy as a series of questions [from teacher] that force an interlocutor [a student] to always give the desired answers, thereby leading the interlocutor to arrive at the predetermined conclusion to the inquiry (162, 166). Sosnoski, deploring the teacher/student relationship implied by such pedagogy, says simply Socrates Begone! from the and composition classroom (198). Nonetheless, has enjoyed revival in contemporary scholarship, most strikingly in the works of Jacques Derrida and Mikhail Bakhtin but also in the works of numerous contemporary historians and philosophers.4 This revival has potential interest for and composition studies, for it reveals different from the one handed down through the Western tradition: who speaks and listens to many voices, not just one; who is more concerned with living than he is with knowing; whose rhetoric is means of testing people and ideas rather than means of imposing his ideas upon others.5 Derrida's dramatic portrait of writing is at once characterization of the traditional way of reading and an invitation to imagine different Socrates. Bakhtin's is more detailed sketch of what such different might be. This different is figure with many voices, central figure in Bakhtin's dialogism, which has brought these many voices to contemporary and composition studies.6 This is also the less familiar figure who lives in Bakhtin's carnivalesque world of everyday experience. Finally, he is figure with links to the rhetorical tradition, the figure who appears in the early Platonic dialogues, whose is means of testing people and ideas, not means of persuading others to accept his ideas, thus imposing his ideas upon them. This has potential interest as an