This philosophical essay is inspired by a four-year pedagogical relationship that continues in its altered form today. The main focus of this piece is the transformation of a mentor as an immediate addressee into mentor as a superaddressee, an influential third listener who oversees observable dialogues. I explore the mutual responsibilities of a student and a mentor in order to uncover the elements in the pedagogical chemistry responsible for the transformation of an addressee into a superaddressee. Confirmation (a (...) perfect form of understanding) of a student’s intellectual and moral uniqueness, incarnation of a particular value deemed desirable by a student, and education of a student into the dialogic ways of being on his or her own are the necessary ingredients of the process of becoming a superaddressee. Initially a mentor engages in the pedagogy of understanding whose ideal outcome is confirmation of a student’s intellectual and moral makeup. After the dialogue is over, a mentor often moves into the domain of inner speech from where he or she continues to offer perfect understanding, especially in the absence of such understanding from an immediate addressee. Two types of superaddressees are identified and their relationship with the invoking consciousness is explored. I conclude that becoming a superaddressee is the most generous pedagogical contribution to a student’s future: a mentor thus makes his or her voice available to a student’s inner dialogue, often without receiving anything in return. (shrink)

This article introduces a teacher as a being of relations?both internal and external?by exploring the nature of a figure of the internal plane that accompanies a teacher in her pedagogical adventure. This figure is a superaddressee, 1 a third listener, who, as the author argues, should be expected to enter a classroom together with a teacher. A superaddressee plays at least two roles. First, it serves as a shortcut to a meaningful relationship and, in this role, takes care (...) of a teacher's need to be known, as well as helps further dialogic relationships. Second, it offers a loophole from imperfect understanding and, in this role, addresses a teacher's need for noncoincidence and protection, as well as protects a pedagogical relationship from a proverbial dead end. It is argued that one of the ways for students to honor their teacher as a being of relations is to know and honor his or her superaddressee(s). In turn, a teacher is responsible for honoring her own superaddressees. In the end, both a teacher and students benefit from an enhanced relationship. (shrink)

This article explores the potential resources of the Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism and its core concepts for the development of the philosophy and methodology of the human sciences. Focusing on Bakhtin’s late essays: “The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences;” “From Notes Made in 1970-71;” and “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences,” the author deals with such concepts as sense, semantic whole, superaddressee, the third, and outsideness. Metalinguistics is interpreted as a philosophical approach (...) to the problems of humanities methodology. The specifics of the human sciences, which Bakhtin put to the question, are described in comparison and correlation with the natural sciences. The author elaborates the idea of the communicative three-part relationship or trilogue. The role of the superaddressee as the third participant of the trilogue between the researcher and the text is discussed. The notion semantic whole and its implementation in the process of the sense’s becoming are analyzed. (shrink)

The essay draws on a little-known fragment from M.M. Bakhtin’s Draft Exercise Notebooks of 1943 to highlight both the affinities and the divergences of the respective philosophical projects of Bakhtin and Emmanuel Levinas. The first part of the discussion follows their parallel itineraries through several points of convergence, from a sense of profound philosophical disenchantment to a conception of the ethical subject as living on borderlines, facing the other, irremediably vulnerable and infinitely responsible. The second part focuses on the “dialogic (...) impasse” and its attempted resolution through gestures of triangulation, evidenced in Levinas’s “third” and Bakhtin’s “superaddresee.” The third part of the discussion, beginning with Bakhtin’s and Levinas’s different readings of Dostoevsky, focuses on the ultimate divergence of their philosophical positions, and suggests that Bakhtin’s discursive conception of subjectivity may point the direction towards a more viable thinking of a post-metaphysical ethics. (shrink)