The meta-question: its description and characteristics
A meta-question is a question about a question. It is a bold questioning method that goes beyond seeking a straightforward answer. It embodies an inquisitive nature, investing its curiosity and inquiry into an open-ended and uncertain question. Rather than settling for a pre-packaged and comforting response, a meta-question is steeped in exploration and creativity. It acts as a can opener for questions, unlocking and expanding them through innovative and probing inquiries. For something to be opened, the opener must be stronger than what is being opened. Like a metal can opener that opens glass and wood, a meta-question possesses the strength to open and expand the boundaries of inquiry. It operates at a second-degree level, mathematically speaking, which distinguishes it from first-degree questions that seek direct answers to specific questions about meaning, topics, or issues.
The meta-question possesses several interconnected features, with its primary defining characteristic being that it is a question itself.
- Encompassing: The meta-question encompasses multiple dimensions of the phenomenon under investigation. It generates a multitude of inquiries that revolve around various aspects. For example, when exploring the question of why we write, the meta-question expands to encompass additional queries such as what, how, who, how much, where, and when. In practical terms, this text focuses on the inner motivations behind writing behavior by exploring the motivations of different writers in texts titled “Why do we write?” Suppose a second text addresses the question of where and when, while a third text addresses the question of how. Each text tackles a specific dimension, leading to a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. This approach allows for new perspectives to emerge, examining causality, location, timing, conditions, personality traits, thought processes, costs, efforts, and time, among other factors.
- Expressive: The meta-question possesses an expressive quality as it aims to unveil the underlying and often concealed structure of a subject, pushing it to reveal itself or come to the forefront. This characteristic allows us to expose what we may desire to hide, embellish, or postpone for various reasons. For instance, if our meta-question revolves around the “why,” we will be concerned with the mental, psychological, and biological motivations behind the behavior under analysis. This expressive attribute assists in crystallizing motives that may otherwise fade away or be obscured within the text that addresses the first-degree question.
- Coordinator: The meta-question serves as a coordinator by establishing connections between the various issues that are subjected to thought in a specific format. This coordination occurs after uncovering hidden contextual patterns, which may involve identifying incomplete patterns that can be captured or leveraging our ability to discover them based on their origin or the available data in our analytical exploration. This coordinating aspect proves valuable in categorizing the analyzed categories according to the patterns they align with. Such classification can deepen the analytical paths for the investigated phenomenon or shed light on previously obscure areas.
Three thresholds for questioning
Previously, we suggested that the meta-question resides on the second-degree level. Does that imply that a higher-ranking question exists? Absolutely. There is a third level, “beyond the meta-question”, which is challenging to grasp without concrete examples. To illustrate the connection between application and theorizing, let’s consider the question, “Why do writers write? Why do they write?” We can explore this question using three levels or degrees of questioning, hoping that we do not confine our thinking solely within the boundaries of this practical application, as it serves merely as an example and nothing more.
- The first-degree question: “Why do we write?” This type of question seeks a direct and intentional answer, often leading many writers to quickly provide reasons that motivate their writing. However, this question tends to be short-lived, as the answer given to it can extinguish its significance. In many cases, this question becomes repetitive and loses its impact, leaving a mark on literature with recurring themes and scenes.
- The second-degree question: “How do writers write ‘Why do we write?’” This question pertains to the methodology or approach writers employ when addressing the question of why they write. It shifts the focus from the content of their reasons to how they structure their response. Through this inquiry, we may discover that some writers organize their reasons into a few specific and possibly logical or systematic categories. Others may adopt an organized or random narrative format. Additionally, we may observe variations in how writers aim to make their answer comprehensive and persuasive, or whether they display indifference towards these aspects, either explicitly or subtly. Some writers may strive to infuse their response with creativity, introducing new ideas, styles, or language, while others may not prioritize such considerations due to personal preferences or other factors.
- The third-degree question: How do we study or approach how writers write “Why do we write?” This question delves even deeper, as it explores the methodology involved in examining the way writers address the question of why they write. It can be considered a question about a question about a question, or a question that transcends the meta-question. This inquiry focuses on the methods employed by those who engage with second-degree questions. It requires the expertise of third-degree thinkers who possess the ability to formulate new concepts or revitalize existing ones, adapting them for this type of analytical and intellectual work. These thinkers also excel in creating analytical methods, studying approaches, and developing frameworks. In essence, they provide invaluable support to their peers by offering the necessary concepts and methods. They serve as concept builders, curriculum developers, and proponents of effective approaches.
Now isn’t there a fourth threshold? Indeed, there is. However, venturing there would plunge us into intricate analyses of ontology and epistemology, ultimately leading us back to the satisfaction of these three initial thresholds. With that, we turn to the practical application of this text. We have chosen to approach the question of “why do we write” from the perspective of the ‘why,’ as an applied aspect of this text. This exercise holds no pretense of exhaustively dissecting this multifaceted issue. Our aim lies not in the content itself, but rather in the structure of its application. This framework seeks to further complete and illuminate the initial theorizing presented in this text.
An inquiry into why “why do they write?”
As the writer progresses through various stages of his writing journey and attains an intermediate or advanced level of maturity in the craft, he often begins to articulate the reasons, or some of them at least, that drive him to write. It could be that the writing is commissioned externally by a publisher, magazine, or similar entity, or it could be initiated by the writer independently, creating a favorable opportunity for publication and dissemination.
Many writers have sought to uncover the reasons behind writing, sometimes even falling into affectation in their pursuit, often expressing them in their own texts. It is true that some writers have succeeded in presenting these reasons through various linguistic forms, creative stylistic approaches, and delightful parallels. However, writers may attribute their mood as a factor that influences the intermittent diversity of their answers. Nonetheless, these reasons typically belong to a limited and identifiable list, rarely extending beyond it. This prompts the question: Why do writers write on why do they write?
This question, obviously, contains two instances of the word “why” instead of the usual one. This indicates a desire for more resilience in order to open the “safe of a first-degree question.” It elevates our analysis and brings us nearer to unexplored territories or potential discoveries.
I have read numerous texts authored by Arab and foreign writers in an attempt to address the question: Why do we write? Before touching on my initial approach, which is essentially an applied exercise exploring the concept of a meta-question, and nothing more, I find it important to acknowledge that there exist many texts aimed at answering the question of “how do we write.” These texts focus on the craft of writing, its techniques, its intricacies, and so forth. However, in terms of quantity, they are outnumbered by the texts centered around the question “Why do we write?”
Interestingly, many of these “How do we write” texts weren’t authored by the writers themselves. Instead, they were penned by other writers, often with the veiled intention of ensnaring this or that novelist in the methodological maze of writing. Such critiques are rarely devoid of a certain agenda. The writer-analyst seeks to showcase their own prowess in uncovering the writer’s methods and dissecting them under the microscope. These analysts are typically denizens of the “academic” literary sphere, like Dinah Birch, a professor of English Literature at the University of Liverpool, analyzing Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes works. Similarly, Ilan Stavans, a professor of Latin American culture at Amherst College, dissects Gabriel García Márquez’s timeless One Hundred Years of Solitude.
The question posed by the remarkable George Orwell in his renowned essay “Why I Write,” which was published in 1946 in the magazine Gangrel, represents a unique form of meta-question. In this essay, Orwell conducts a profound and succinct analysis of various underlying motivations for writing. While this analytical endeavor holds considerable significance, it ultimately remains just that—an endeavor that we can acknowledge without dwelling on it exclusively. Acknowledging it does not imply disregarding its value, but rather utilizing it as a foundation and progressing towards subsequent stages.
The meta-question necessitates a search for one or more meta-words that extend beyond a direct response. It is the enchanting word that unravels the enigma of the meta-question. Upon analyzing these texts within the framework of our meta-question, why do we write on why do we write, I have arrived at the conclusion that these reasons can, in general, be encapsulated by the meta-word ‘legitimacy.’ Writing is essentially an embodiment of legitimacy, which can be categorized into two main types: the legitimacy of the writer and the legitimacy of the written content. The reasons for writing about the reasons why we write can be grouped into various categories, but I will present only six of them to the reader in a concise analytical framework. It is important to note that the inclusion of certain categories depends heavily on the type, purpose, and field of writing, as well as the writer’s attributes, circumstances, and other contextual factors. Although this analysis encompasses critical perspectives, it does not entail negative judgments of the intentions or actions behind the writing about the reasons why writers write. Rather, it offers a neutral description, and any negative aspects are associated with the motives and behaviors exhibited by the writers themselves in practical writing situations, which I have no involvement in whatsoever, neither directly nor indirectly.
- The 1st category: “I am a remarkable writer”
This category pertains to the writer’s legitimacy, an elusive quality that defies immediate comprehension even upon prolonged contemplation. It epitomizes a psychological dimension and represents the broadest and most comprehensive category, capable of encompassing or accommodating other categories in our analytical or written endeavor. Within this category lies what Orwell eloquently captured as the “desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death”, or, as Maurice Blanchot poignantly summed it up in this exquisite snapshot: “The biography of the writer: he died. He lived, and then he died.” Thus, the underlying motivation inherent in why we write about the reasons why we write is to attain the utmost degree of inner psychological satisfaction through “self-esteem.” This can manifest as an attempt to solidify “self-respect” by anchoring it in an external societal position, striving for a claim to “immortality.” Writers differ in their adeptness at concealing this motive and rendering it elusive to casual readers. The patterns of implication may vary depending on the writer’s standing – the celebrated, the unknown, or those occupying the space between.
- The 2nd category: “I read a lot”
This category is concerned with the legitimacy of written content. It primarily relates to the psychological aspect of writing, aiming to establish the credibility of the writer’s work, whether it be for short or long periods of time. At times, writers may suspect that some readers are not convinced of their authority to write, possibly due to issues like lack of readability (quantity), shallowness (quality), or narrowness (specialization). In response, writers may overtly or covertly showcase their extensive reading repertoire, which often evokes memories of childhood and early reading experiences. Some individuals may even surprise you with their early “creative” ideas. This is precisely what Saudi academic historian Abdullah Al-Askar conveys when he states: “I write because I find myself like a pool of water filled with fresh water, overflowing from every side. After countless years spent reading extensively across various scientific disciplines and fields of knowledge, I find myself brimming like a pool of water, inevitably spilling over. Hence, I choose paper as a vessel to pour forth clear revelations, as my soul overflows.”
- The 3rd category: “I am in love with language”
This category can be referred to as the “legitimacy of written content.” It encompasses the psychological and linguistic aspect of writing, where the writer expresses a deep connection with language and how it shapes their life experiences. This brings to mind Isabel Allende’s perspective on language, where she describes it as something as personal as blood. “I reside in California, surrounded by English, but my ability to write only comes naturally in Spanish. In fact, all the fundamental aspects of my life, from scolding my grandchildren to cooking and making love, unfold in Spanish”. Allende views writing as a form of therapy. This recalls to the mind that Kafka believed that if he didn’t write, he would go insane. Abdul Rahman Munif also perceived writing as something beyond a choice; it was closer to an illness or an obsession with illness. He found it challenging to view writing as a mere craft since it often felt futile. There is a connection within this category to the notion of “I am remarkable,” where writers aim to showcase their exceptional linguistic abilities in terms of style, connotations, or plot. Within this category, there are sub-categories, one of which is “I write to teach you how to write.” Some writers may resort to overtly lying to maintain the facade that they solely write for themselves. Umberto Eco explains this lie by suggesting that what a writer writes for himself is merely a shopping list that is discarded after the purchases are made.
- The 4th category: “I am a puzzle solver”
This category can be referred to as the “legitimacy of what was written about.” It represents a mentality that seeks to dismantle ambiguity, break down complexity, confront problems, and dispel superficiality. It presents itself as a “superior and triumphant” mindset, rising above others and offering solutions to puzzles that it actively clarifies as necessary. Those who fall into this category often align with a systematic mentality, believing in a methodology that leads to codes for solving the puzzles at hand. Within this category, we encounter voices like Milan Kundera, who proclaim that great writers place the novel “on the path of discovering man’s inner life.” Kundera even responds to a question by stating that his texts are often prepared to grapple with “the mystery of existence,” saying that “Heidegger’s concept of ‘in-der-Welt-sein’ (being-in-the-world) describes the connection between man and the world as being akin to a snail and its shell. The world is an integral part of man, and as the world changes, existence also changes.” While Kundera may not place much importance on the linguistic aspect, he does not disregard the “music of style” in itself, citing the repetition found in Ernest Hemingway’s texts. Does this mean that a text strikes a balance between its depth and its style?
- The 5th category: “I care about my community”
This category can be referred to as the “legitimacy of the person it was written for.” This societal lens focuses on the writer portraying himself as a champion of rights, a guardian of justice, a weaver of a better future. Skilled writers navigate this motive with a certain finesse, avoiding the pitfall of appearing overly sentimental or self-serving in the eyes of their audience. Take Isabel Allende, who, when probed about her writerly calling, murmurs, “My life almost revolves around pain, loss, love, and memory.” On the other hand, “ideological” writers, those who carry and promote a particular ideology, are characterized by their explicit missionary inclination towards caring for society and safeguarding its rights. Abdul Rahman Munif, for example, explains his reason for writing as follows: “I do not write about what has passed and concluded, but I shape life.” In doing so, he points out that the writer calls for effective tools for expression and change, including the novel, drawing attention to the hypothesis that the writer will be able to “order the chaos of the world, and create a kind of logic and harmony in it.”
- The 6th category: “I am going against the prevailing norms”
This category can be described as a “mixed legitimacy” category, as it encompasses sociolinguistic psychologism. At the core of every writer, there exists a “rebel,” regardless of its magnitude. This rebellion may manifest itself in various ways, challenging linguistic or written norms as well as societal norms. The act of rebelling holds psychological value for the writer, instilling a sense of creativity, freedom, or both. When a writer incorporates elements of rebellion in their writing, they may feel that this “rebellion” has not received sufficient attention or appreciation. As a result, they resort to explicitly stating their motives, asking themselves: “Why do I write?” In response to this question, Egyptian novelist Amal El-Shazly candidly expresses her thoughts: “Am I writing to manifest my rebellion on paper, having failed to do so in reality? Do I write to freely express myself without any restrictions, or will I face criticism for my actions?” Similarly, Nizar Qabbani answers the question “Why do I write?” poetically with the following poem:
I write…
To disrupt,
For writing is an explosive force.
I write…
So light can conquer darkness,
The poem becomes a triumph.
I write…
So ears of wheat can read my words,
And the trees can read me too.
So that the rose, the star, and the bird can comprehend me,
As well as the cat, fish, shells, and oysters…
I write…
Until the world is saved from Hulagu’s tyranny,
From the rule of militias,
It is the madness of a gang leader.
This is a brief theoretical and analytical exercise exploring the concept of meta-questions, which go beyond conventional questioning. It is valuable to explore and develop the conceptual and practical aspects of meta-questions, as they have the potential to challenge stagnant and unthoughtful answers that have persisted for a long time. Meta-questions are not only about finding answers, but also about generating new and thought-provoking questions, leading to greater depth, discovery, and breadth of understanding. You can experiment with asking meta-questions about topics that you are familiar with and typically approach through traditional questioning methods. Elevate your thinking with meta-questions and venture into an uncharted jungle of profound and innovative answers.
T1641
