Critical thinking isn’t just any kind of thinking. To think well, to think critically is an art—a skill—requiring study, practice, and conscious effort to master.
As a long-time social justice activist, I have spent a lot of time interacting with many activists who fit the description you have used here to describe students who understand critical thinking to be only about what is required to successfully navigate their educational goals. It is quite common for activists (especially those who are would-be "allies") to cling rigidly, as if they are iron-clad rules, to the concepts of what I call "Social Justice 101." It very often becomes apparent that decisions, judgements, etc., based on this level of understanding end up being more harmful than helpful, sometimes even achieving exactly the opposite of what was intended. A good example of this is the case from several years ago when a Black school employee was fired because of the zero-tolerance rule against the n-word, though he had said the word as a retort to a student who used the word on him. He said, "Don't call me [n-word]." He was fired for it (his job was later restored, but even so, the harm that caused him had to have been significant).
So thank you for this! Your article is helping me think of several new ways of trying to educate activists about the importantance of context, nuance, and flexibility.
Thanks for reading and sharing your own perspective. I think your example is a great example of rigid and uncritical thinking. Context matters. A person quoting another is certainly different than a person using the same word as a pejorative. How can any of us even hold meaningful dialogue without being able to quote and summarize views we are opposed to? What's more we need to be careful not to give words so much power that they overtake the meaning they are used to covey. I am not arguing that people are not or should not be responsible for their choices of language and communication. I am simply saying that we should never lose sight of the fact that words are symbols meant to bridge the gulf that exists between two people or more. To put it another way, we cannot expect words, by themselves to do the work of human beings in conversation. I have found both Eric Fromm and bell hooks so helpful and reminding us that much of what needs to be accomplished in this world will begin with a serious good faith dialogue. Speaking of which, thank you for the dialogue!
As a long-time social justice activist, I have spent a lot of time interacting with many activists who fit the description you have used here to describe students who understand critical thinking to be only about what is required to successfully navigate their educational goals. It is quite common for activists (especially those who are would-be "allies") to cling rigidly, as if they are iron-clad rules, to the concepts of what I call "Social Justice 101." It very often becomes apparent that decisions, judgements, etc., based on this level of understanding end up being more harmful than helpful, sometimes even achieving exactly the opposite of what was intended. A good example of this is the case from several years ago when a Black school employee was fired because of the zero-tolerance rule against the n-word, though he had said the word as a retort to a student who used the word on him. He said, "Don't call me [n-word]." He was fired for it (his job was later restored, but even so, the harm that caused him had to have been significant).
So thank you for this! Your article is helping me think of several new ways of trying to educate activists about the importantance of context, nuance, and flexibility.
Thanks for reading and sharing your own perspective. I think your example is a great example of rigid and uncritical thinking. Context matters. A person quoting another is certainly different than a person using the same word as a pejorative. How can any of us even hold meaningful dialogue without being able to quote and summarize views we are opposed to? What's more we need to be careful not to give words so much power that they overtake the meaning they are used to covey. I am not arguing that people are not or should not be responsible for their choices of language and communication. I am simply saying that we should never lose sight of the fact that words are symbols meant to bridge the gulf that exists between two people or more. To put it another way, we cannot expect words, by themselves to do the work of human beings in conversation. I have found both Eric Fromm and bell hooks so helpful and reminding us that much of what needs to be accomplished in this world will begin with a serious good faith dialogue. Speaking of which, thank you for the dialogue!
Thank you! I'm thrilled to have found your Substack and am looking forward to reading more!