Reading Groups: Principles, Motivations, and Methods (Podcast available)

Read the Book in Front of You Carefully

At the end of a promotional post for an upcoming reading group, its organizer YD wrote:

The basic principle of our reading group is to be problem-and-argument oriented. Do not spend too much time on background knowledge, unless lacking it would prevent us from understanding the relevant content. Do not casually suspect the author’s deep theoretical presuppositions, unless you can specify exactly how those presuppositions damage the author’s argument in the present text. Do not force connections to current affairs. Concerns about history, society, and life must be mediated by careful, professional thinking; concerns that are too direct only produce cliches. We need to bracket those concerns for now and first read the book in front of us carefully.

This principle feels unfamiliar, even strange. It is far from what most people imagine or expect from a reading group. In a WeChat group, YD sent another message:

Some friends may still be unfamiliar with our reading-group format. We simply read section by section, then summarize each paragraph and sort out the argumentative thread. In essence, it is the same as middle-school reading comprehension: basic, not something advanced.

I suspect this understated message would not even draw much attention, and even if it did, people might take it as modesty.

I learned from YD early on, and in reading groups led by YD I received many hard lessons and benefited greatly. I have long wanted to write an article to organize those lessons systematically.

Why Reading Groups?

A reading group is a mode of learning different from classroom teaching, and it is especially beloved by people in philosophy and the social sciences. Unlike classes, reading groups focus on specific texts and proceed through close reading and discussion. A reading group is a small circle, intimate and free: people gather because of shared interests, and can both read seriously and meet like-minded peers.

Classic texts in philosophy and the social sciences are usually difficult, with endless disputes and competing interpretations. Reading alone and reading with others cannot substitute for each other.

First, when we read by ourselves, we often think we understand the text. But whether that interpretation is accurate or well-grounded is hard to tell without exchanging views. Second, hearing others’ interpretations and comparing them with our own strongly stimulates thought. In addition, face-to-face discussion often gives us intense intellectual energy: we must express our views quickly, accurately, and concisely; we must stay ready to receive criticism; we must also understand others’ criticism quickly and accurately, and then respond. This kind of “intellectual contest” cannot be gained through solo reading alone.

Of course, the value of reading groups is not only that exchange with others improves our understanding of the text itself. It also lies in sensing and learning others’ ways, attitudes, and principles of reading classic texts. This is likely overlooked by many people.

In reading practice, we may notice the following: some people often say they do not understand and have questions, but cannot clearly state what they do not understand or what the questions are; some people speak in endless digressions and boundless associations; some people argue heatedly with others but repeatedly hear, “You still haven’t understood what I mean”; some people habitually say, “This reminds me of what so-and-so once said,” and then offer impressions; some people focus only on selected key sentences or paragraphs, but if you ask about the relation between this paragraph and the previous one, the claim and evidence of this whole section, or the argumentative relation among sections of this chapter, they become hesitant and incoherent, and may even dismiss such questions as turning a reading group into a language-class reading-comprehension exercise.

Few people seriously reflect on how much these behaviors damage reading groups. Instead, they dismiss a less entertaining, even somewhat dry format - the very “reading-comprehension-style reading group” advocated by YD.

Through reading groups, we not only deepen textual understanding but also learn others’ scholarly methods. Perhaps this is the best answer to the question “Why reading groups?” A good reading group may well reshape our academic interests and aspirations, with lifelong benefits - and such benefits are often unavailable in the classroom.

Reading Groups: Different People, Different Motives

A reading group is formed by people with different backgrounds and different motivations.

Some people already have deep and systematic understanding of the text and want to communicate their own positions in the group. These people are often the organizers. Of course, not all organizers have this motive; even when they do, the intensity of their educational ambition varies. Some simply want to provide an intimate setting for reading exchange. Others treat the reading group more as a demonstration, guiding participants toward proper methods of reading classic texts. I call this type the “educator.”

Similar to the previous type, some people also have deep or systematic understanding of the text, but unlike educators, they mainly want to display their own interpretations, sometimes expecting criticism, especially high-level and unexpected criticism. I call this type the “presenter.”

Some people are unfamiliar with the text, or have only skimmed it before, and now hope to regain the passion and momentum for close reading and intense thinking through a reading group, so that their understanding can rise to a new level. I call this type the “learner.”

Some others have little experience but strong enthusiasm or vague interest, and hope to meet “big names” in the reading group. I call this type the “beginner.”

Finally, there are people who join only to watch the scene or make friends. I call this type the “onlooker.”

The Tension Between “Teaching” and “Learning”

In general, the stated aim of reading groups is equal exchange, but needs for “teaching” and “learning” still exist within them. Differences in members’ backgrounds and motives create a characteristic tension between teaching and learning.

Because reading groups are not classrooms, they do not have a two-level homogeneous teacher-student structure. In class, teachers usually hold advantages in knowledge and experience, while students are roughly at similar levels, so the teaching-learning relation is easier to manage. In reading groups, however, if educators are too committed to transmitting their own views, presenters may feel displeased, while beginners and onlookers may enjoy it. Presenters and learners usually prefer quite professional dialogue and criticism, which may make beginners feel lost. In addition, presenters and educators often deny that any teaching relation exists in reading groups; they refuse to yield to one another, and this can easily turn the group into a “chaotic performance.” As for beginners, they are often either anxious because they cannot keep up with the pace of presenters and educators, or bored by their restrained style of interpretation.

As core members of reading groups, educators, presenters, and learners should consciously coordinate conflicts arising from differences in members’ backgrounds and motives.

Making a reading group strict and professional, with no expansive commentary, is certainly suitable for core members, but it can be disastrous for beginners - and even for some core members. A reading-comprehension-style reading group is highly restrained: interpretation and commentary are kept within the current text. So-called expansive commentary means introducing authors and texts not mentioned in the current text in order to interpret or assess it. Members committed to the reading-comprehension style dislike endless expansive commentary, yet such expansion can be highly beneficial for broadening beginners’ horizons.

Reading Comprehension and Scholarly Reading

Some reading groups are little more than emotional reactions and key-sentence highlighting. Participants circle around selected lines and say whatever comes to mind. For example, if the current text mentions “virtue,” members start associating and bring in every author or work they know that has discussed “virtue.” After such discussion, it may seem as if knowledge has expanded, but in fact it contributes little to understanding the text.

Generally speaking, one principle for reading classic texts by classic authors is this: resolve our doubts within the text as much as possible, and avoid seeking support from authors and works outside the text. There are two main reasons.

First, good texts naturally try to resolve important issues within their own scope. Some authors do expect readers to know detailed discussions in their other works beforehand. In such cases, if possible, we should certainly read those works first. But once we enter the current text, we should still try to handle all important issues within its scope. Of course, important issues are not all issues. Some issues do belong to the current text, but if they cannot be solved within the text, then they are not important issues - at least not central ones.

Second, when different works by different authors in different periods seem to discuss the same concept, their contexts and meanings may differ drastically, so they cannot simply be used as references for one another. Scholarship is not a collection of famous quotations or key sentences. Boundless association only ruins reading.

A good reading group’s method is extremely plain. In fact, it is not essentially different from the reading-comprehension training we received earlier. In middle school we repeatedly divided texts into levels, summarized paragraph meanings, and identified central ideas. These basic language-training skills should not be discarded after graduation; they should become the basic method of our later reading.

Many people fail to do solid scholarship and thus appear flashy or shallow partly because they never truly learned to use reading-comprehension skills in school. They pick up a text, skim it, look for touching passages and lines, and excerpt them. They may also ponder those passages intensely, trying to figure out their meaning and issues. Yet they are often unwilling to do basic reading-comprehension work honestly - that is, to consider questions like these:

1. What does this paragraph mean, and what is its key point?
2. What relation does this paragraph have to adjacent paragraphs in argument and composition?
3. What are the key points of this section, and how are they connected?
4. What are this chapter’s claims and evidence, and how are they developed in specific subsections?
5. What relation does this chapter have to nearby chapters in argument and composition?
6. What are the book’s main claims and evidence, and how are they developed across chapters?

Only after we use these plain methods to clarify the text’s skeleton can we move to proper commentary. Understanding is always the precondition of criticism. And our criticism ultimately asks basic questions such as:

1. What did the author say?
2. What does the author mean by saying it?
3. Is it convincing? Which parts persuade me, and where do I have doubts?
4. If I am not persuaded, why exactly?
5. Do I have better claims and evidence than the author?
6. Beyond what is shown in the current text, are there other resources that can be cited and consulted for the author’s claims and evidence?

In reality, a reading group cannot spend much time commenting on the text. A reading group is first and foremost a reading group. Our goal is interpretation, not commentary. On the one hand, interpretation is already difficult; on the other hand, commentary often becomes empty generalization.

As for solving problems within the current text, more concretely:

1. If the current text does not cite certain other authors or works on an issue (or there is no evidence of hidden citation), then we too should refrain from bringing them in.
2. If an issue is not discussed in the current text (or there is no evidence that the author is implicitly engaging it), then for this text, it is temporarily irrelevant for both us and the author.
3. If we find that the current text explicitly cites (or probably implicitly cites) certain authors or works, but the author provides only brief citation cues, then generally we need not focus our discussion on those cited materials, because the author’s writing itself indicates that, for this text’s purpose, a rough understanding is already sufficient.
4. Only when, under the previous condition, we cannot reach smooth understanding without focusing on the cited authors or works, should we consider expansive discussion.

Remember: the primary goal of a reading group is to read, not to debate. Otherwise, we may lose the opportunity for close reading of the current text while also failing to gain deep understanding of the authors and works involved in expansive discussion.

Expressing Views, Listening, and Criticizing

There are many reasons for bad reading groups. One important reason is that members lack sound principles and methods of communication. This may appear in the following ways.

First, in expressing views, members do not prepare adequately beforehand. Their summaries, syntheses, and questions are mostly improvised on the spot. They claim to have ideas or doubts, yet speak hesitantly and verbosely, without clear meaning.

Second, in listening and criticizing, there are various problems, such as:

1. Being overly eager to perform oneself and rushing to object while others are still speaking.
2. When failing to understand others, instinctively either ignoring them or opposing them.
3. Commenting immediately after others finish speaking, instead of first trying to restate or even reconstruct their view, confirming that restatement with them, and then commenting on disagreements within a shared frame.

These three points are arguably the most typical and most fatal problems in listening and criticism. Any one of them can cause communication failure. If they become habits, they can even destroy a scholar’s character.

On the first point: many people speak to others simply to tell them something. Worse, their communication serves only to prove “I am right.” This seemingly plain attitude is in fact startling. To be sure, proactively conveying what we understand can clarify and refine our own understanding - this is the so-called “learning by teaching.” But at the same time we should remember that gaining others’ valuable insights through communication is just as important. If we listen seriously, we lose nothing we already have and gain more from others. That is a blessing.

On the second point, I have long reflected on one question: what exactly happens when we fail to understand another person’s view? There are two basic cases. First, the other person is indeed wrong, and their insistence on that mistaken view truly makes me unable to understand. Second, the other person is not wrong; rather, we are wrong. Our own understanding has not yet reached that level, so we genuinely cannot understand. This also includes the fact that many people prefer to state cherished views briefly and forcefully, while disliking background explanation and argument.

So my suggestion is this: when we cannot understand others’ views, set them aside for a while. A view we cannot understand is a reminder; it may contain clues about where our own cognition is truly powerless. The more bizarre a view initially appears to us, the more we should remind ourselves this way. What we do not understand now may be understood later; what we disagree with now may be accepted later. Our non-understanding and disagreement are not, by themselves, proof that “the other side is wrong” (yet this is exactly many people’s reflex).

On the third point, one major reason daily discussion turns into people talking past one another is that we do not know how to criticize in an orderly way. First determine whether something is indeed the case; only then ask why. Some people begin criticizing immediately after hearing others speak, but the target of their criticism is not even what the other person actually holds. So I suggest a “three-step method of criticism”:

First, reconstruct. Try as fully as possible to understand the other person’s view, and restate it in your own words. Understanding is the premise of criticism, and criticism is not for humiliating others.

Second, ask. Confirm with the other person. Only after receiving affirmation should you continue the discussion; otherwise return to step one.

Third, criticize. After receiving confirmation, present criticism. After the other person responds, repeat the three steps.

These three steps may make dialogue seem plain, but they are indeed necessary for ordered and deep conversation. They also have broad significance for reading and thinking. To avoid talking past others in communication, and to avoid intellectual isolation in our own reading, repeating these three steps is beneficial.

Views, Questions, and Follow-up Reflection

A good reading group is not a temporary conversation. That is, the views expressed and questions raised in the meeting should not be merely improvised. Good reading groups depend on careful preparation beforehand by their members. Such preparation is in fact simple “preview work,” mainly in two aspects:

First, write down key points of sections and paragraphs, and sort out claims and evidence.

Second, write down the questions that arise in this process.

Instead of speaking hesitantly and verbosely, we should present our understanding and questions smoothly, accurately, and clearly. To state one’s views and questions clearly, rather than wasting everyone’s time, is a virtue.

In addition, sustained review and reflection after meetings are also very important. If problems were unresolved then and are still unresolved now, we should continue thinking about them. Given the importance of follow-up reflection, a good reading group should adopt two strategies: first, strictly follow the text as suggested above; second, after that work is completed, leave room for relatively free discussion.

I believe strict textual discipline also has problems. One is this: having consistent summaries of a text’s claims, evidence, and composition does not mean we truly have the same or similar understanding. This is imaginable: understanding requires context or background materials, and each person’s context and background differ greatly. “Reading comprehension” is a fundamental principle, but not the only principle. Our reading goal should never be merely to reach the same formulation of the text, but to reach the same understanding as far as possible.

Even so, my greatest concern about strict text-following reading groups is this: is it possible to reach the same or similar understanding, and do we need to? I remain open to the following thought: perhaps even the best real-world reading group only achieves “shared formulation, separate understanding” for each member. If so, the idea of “criticizing and dialoguing about disagreements within a framework of consensus” is only an ideal of reading groups.