Critical Thought versus the Culture of Criticism

The roots of critical thought have been traced back twenty-five centuries to Socrates, who showed how skillful but empty rhetoric was often plagued with confused meanings, a lack of evidence, or contradictory conceptions, and that a person’s authority is no guarantee of sound knowledge and insight. He emphasized the need to ask deep questions before accepting ideas. In his “Rules For the Direction of the Mind,” Descartes argued for the need for mental discipline as a guide to achieve clarity and precision, and proposed systematic doubt as a method of critical thought. He said thinking should be based on carefully developed foundational assumptions and that each step in the thought process should be subject to question, doubt, and testing.

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” It includes being curious about the world, asking creative questions, taking into account the entire context, seriously considering points of view other than our own, being sensitive to the feelings of others, realizing our own biases and ignorance, and being willing to change our positions on things. It means not accepting or rejecting ideas at face value, but rather seeking to understand them as fully as possible in terms of their origins and motivations, internal and external consistencies and inconsistencies, implications and outcomes, etc. This is now the basis of all modern thought, whether scientific, philosophical or religious, and is in accordance with the Bahá'í principle of a free, unfettered investigation of truth. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says, “we must not shrink if necessary from beginning our education all over again. We must not allow our love for … any one personality to so blind our eyes that we become fettered…”

CRITICAL THOUGHT VS. FACILE CRITICISM:

Today, however, many seem to have confused critical thinking with facile criticism, and to have defined critical thought based merely on the name. This actually makes it what is called a Janus term – one that has two opposite and contradictory meanings. Today’s brand of facile critics, thinking that it will make them look modern and smart, will attack any and all ideas without having fully understood them first, with only a superficial understanding or even without any real intention to understand. Frequently, it is impossible to complete one full sentence before the facile critic butts in and starts to find fault with what (they assume) you were trying to say.

Today’s wide-spread superficial approach of facile criticism is actually the exact opposite of true, deep critical thought. This gross misunderstanding of what the term really means has given rise to an entire culture of criticism, argument, debate, polarization of issues, and false dichotomies. In “Beyond Critical Thinking,” professor Michael Roth warns,

“A common way to show that one has sharpened one's critical thinking is to display an ability to see through or undermine statements made by (or beliefs held by) others. Thus, our best students are really good at one aspect of critical thinking­—being critical. For many students today, being smart means being critical… these are marks of sophistication, signs of one's ability to participate fully in the academic tribe. But this participation, being entirely negative, is not only seriously unsatisfying; it is ultimately counterproductive. The skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not completely without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of self-satisfied debunkers, [or] we may be depriving students of the capacity to learn as much as possible from what they study.

Roth goes on to say,

“In a… culture in which being smart often means being a critical unmasker, our students may become too good at showing how things DON'T make sense. That very skill may diminish their capacity to find or create meaning and direction in the books they read and the world in which they live. Once outside the university, our students continue to score points by displaying the critical prowess for which they were rewarded in school. They wind up contributing to a cultural climate that has little tolerance for finding or making meaning, whose intellectuals and cultural commentators delight in being able to show that somebody else is not to be believed… Our contemporary version of this trend… has become skeptical even about skepticism. We no longer have the courage of our lack of conviction. Perhaps that's why we teach our students that it's cool to say that they are engaged in "troubling" an assumption or a belief. To declare that one wanted to disprove a view would show too much faith in the ability to tell truth from falsehood. And to declare that one was receptive to learning from someone else's view would show too much openness to being persuaded by an idea that might soon be deconstructed (or simply mocked).”

Roth concludes,

“The confident refusal to be affected by those with whom we disagree seems to have infected much of our cultural life: from politics to the press, from siloed academic programs… to warring public intellectuals… [W]e must find ways for our students to open themselves to the emotional and cognitive power of history and literature that might initially rub them the wrong way, or just seem foreign. Critical thinking is sterile without the capacity for empathy and comprehension that stretches the self.” [Ref: http://chronicle.com/article/Beyond-Critical-Thinking/63288/]

The most notorious sign and active promoter of this culture is probably the mass media, with its win-lose debates on talk shows, interviews, and others. TV stations even contract specialists in contradicting and criticizing what is said by world-class experts in any field, in order to offer a façade of “journalistic objectivity”, whether or not the critic actually knows anything about the subject. The public has learned from this that there are, and always must be, two sides to any issue: proposition and opposition – those who defend an idea and those who reject it, black and white. And since it is more satisfying to criticize someone else’s proposals than to have one’s own thoughts criticized, many tend to avoid being seen as having an actual opinion or committing to any idea, but rather limit themselves to cutting down other people’s conclusions. In this regard, Bahá’u’lláh advised us “not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men, [but] rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329)

THE SCOURGE OF SKEPTICISM:

Today's popularity of facile criticism has also given rise to a growing culture of skepticism. What personal benefits does skepticism offer, that so many should have chosen that route? On the one hand, people often assume the skeptic is smarter, better informed, more highly educated, or more "modern", while belief in our ability to build a better world is seen as naive, ignorant, uneducated, traditional.

As mentioned above, part of this is due to a misunderstanding of what "critical thinking" really means, as many interpret it as criticizing everything, always looking for what is wrong or bad in what others say or do. The true meaning of critical thinking is trying to understand things more deeply than just their face value, but today's easy or "facile" criticism is actually shallow, because it automatically assumes that the matter is not worth the effort to really investigate it thoroughly. And in today's world of win-lose arguments, having a skeptical position is the same as having no position, which frees skeptics from having to support their positions with well-thought-out arguments and proofs. This form of facile criticism thinking has become a negative filter through which people see the worst in everything, which is closely related to skepticism.

Another benefit of skepticism is that, because it denies the possibility of a better world, it frees people from the uncomfortable challenge of doing something to achieve that better world. If I can claim that things will never get better but will only get worse, especially if others support that claim, then that allows me to wash my hands of the need to make the personal sacrifices required to achieve a better world, and I can continue my life attending to my own well-being and enjoyment. 

PSEUDO-AGNOSTICISM AND FALSE DICHOTOMIES:

One outcome of this culture of criticism and skepticism is the recent upsurge of pseudo-agnosticism. The original agnostics were deeply religious philosophers, avid seekers of truth who believed that Ultimate Truth or Reality existed but was humanly unattainable. The word comes from the Greek and means simply “not knowing”. However, today’s brand of pseudo-agnostic is often committed only to not committing to anything, out of fear of having their opinions criticized by others. Their stance is: I don’t know and I don’t care, but would love to point out the errors in your own thinking.

This culture of facile criticism includes the assumption that any discussion of serious issues must necessarily lead to a win-lose argument or debate. Issues are polarized. Opposites are automatically assumed to be contradictory and rarely seen as complementary. Criticism has become so ubiquitous that it has infected all aspects of life, including children who bully others for being different, spouses who bicker and badger each other constantly, co-workers who continually cut each other down, believers who find fault with other religions, etc. This was already so common in 1912 when ‘Abdu’l-Bahá visited the West, that He was compelled to lovingly counsel the friends, “Some of you may have observed that I have not called attention to any of your individual shortcomings. I would suggest to you, that if you shall be similarly considerate in your treatment of each other, it will be greatly conducive to the harmony of your association with each other.”

In today’s culture of criticism, false dichotomies abound: conservative versus wild-eyed radical, science versus religion, pro-life versus pro-choice, liberal versus fundamentalist, hawk versus dove, capitalist versus communist, religious fanatic versus atheist, supporting our troops versus anti-American, pro-gay marriage versus homophobe, pro-black versus pro-police, and so on. In a letter dated 28 December 2010, the Universal House of Justice speaks to this: “Closely related to the habit of reducing an entire theme into one or two appealing phrases is the tendency to perceive dichotomies, where, in fact, there are none. It is essential that ideas forming part of a cohesive whole not be held in opposition to one another.”

This polarization of the issues of the day hampers the type of win-win, synergistic dialogue that can give way to the valuable new ideas we so urgently need in order to move forward. It also means that many intelligent, creative, valuable people prefer to remove themselves from the discussion because they do not feel comfortable with the win-lose, argumentative, conflictive, painful environment that, unfortunately, characterizes much of academia. This is a true tragedy, considering that the lamentable situation of today’s world requires an increasingly intense dialogue among all of its peoples in the search for novel solutions to replace old ways of thinking and acting that have brought us near the brink of collapse of the old world that we inherited. Only critical thought in the true sense of open, deep analysis and search will enable us to achieve the profound transformations that are needed.

PRINCIPLES OF SYNERGISTIC DIALOGUE:

What principles can we apply to answer this need for synergistic dialogue? Perhaps that in itself is a subject for dialogue, but here are a few thoughts to start with, based on the Bahá'í concept and practice of what we call “Consultation”.

Really listening:

As Steven Covey says, “seek first to understand and then to be understood.” This means not only refraining from butting in as soon as we can think of a good argument, but also trying to really understand where others are coming from, asking good questions, trying to put ourselves in their shoes and see the world through their eyes, allowing ourselves ample time to mull over what they say, and only then carefully formulating our own contributions to the dialogue. Bahá'ís try to follow the example set by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who would listen attentively and lovingly even to the ignorant, the arrogant and the opponent, encouraging them to speak their minds and empty their hearts before responding, and then only in a gentle, kindly and empathetic manner.

True humility:

Recognizing both what we do not know and what we CANNOT know. Realizing that our current thinking may change and MUST change if we are to learn and grow. Accepting that those most different from us – in terms of age, sex, talents, career, ethnicity, religion, etc. – may end up teaching us the greatest lessons of our life. Acknowledging no one person has all the answers, but that synergistic thinking is a collective effort in which our own input is just one among many. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says,

“The fact that we imagine ourselves to be right and everybody else wrong is the greatest of all obstacles in the path towards unity, and unity is necessary if we would reach truth, for truth is one.” He adds, “The prime requisites of them that take counsel together are purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment…, humility and lowliness…, patience and long-suffering in difficulties, and servitude…”

Courteous sincerity:

Different cultures value sincerity and courtesy differently, but synergistic dialogue requires a balance between the two. On the one hand we should not fail to speak our mind for fear of rubbing someone the wrong way; but on the other, there is no excuse for discourtesy and disrespect in the name of being frank. Dialogue means not only resolving intellectual problems, but also developing and fostering positive working relations of mutual trust and friendship. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá counsels those participating in such dialogue: “They must proceed with the utmost devotion, courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their views..., must with all freedom express their own thoughts, and it is in no wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of another...”

A seeker’s stance:

True seekers begin their quest with an assumption of ignorance and an intense eagerness to learn. When they give an opinion, they begin by acknowledging that it is only the best they have been able to come up with so far in their search, they make it clear that they are not the ultimate authority on the topic, they admit that they are eager to learn still more, and they put the fruits of their search on the table as a gift to the group, disentangled from their own ego, to be picked apart, changed entirely, or even discarded. In Some Answered Questions, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says,

“The state in which one should be to seriously search for the truth is the condition of the thirsty, burning soul desiring the water of life, of the fish struggling to reach the sea, of the sufferer seeking for the true doctor to obtain the divine cure, of the lost caravan endeavoring to find the right road, of the lost and wandering ship striving to reach the shore of salvation.”

Uncertainty and learning:

As good business managers know, it is not necessary to have found the whole, absolute truth in order to act. Even partial or erroneous understandings can be useful when applied. Isaac Newton’s atomic physics has been mostly replaced by the new physics, but for generations the worldview it generated, however limited, made it possible for most of today’s disciplines to graduate from mere philosophies to full-fledged sciences. Nobody’s understanding will never be complete, but that should not keep us from working with and making the most of what little or much we have found, and to learn together in the process. The Universal House of Justice says,

“…with a humble attitude of learning, they should come to view every task, every interaction, as an occasion to join hands in the pursuit of progress and to accompany one another in their efforts… In this way will the tendency to reduce a complex process of transformation into simplistic steps… be averted. Discrete actions are placed in context, and even the smallest of steps is endowed with meaning…. and bonds of friendship… are continuously reinforced.”

Commitment to the truth:

This means not coming to the table with a preset position to defend, but rather with an avid desire to discover the truth in all matters. It means being willing to accept that I was wrong if someone shows me a greater truth than what I had, even if it means having to review all my most cherished assumptions. Finally, it means being willing to make every effort to put into practice whatever truth we find, no matter how difficult or what personal sacrifices it may require. In Paris Talks, ‘Abdu'l-Bahá explains,

"know ye that God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate reality.  God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers and ancestors.  He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds real and true he must accept.  He must not rely implicitly upon the opinion of any man without investigation; nay, each soul must seek intelligently and independently, arriving at a real conclusion and bound only by that reality."

It is my sincere hope and prayer that we can replace today’s culture of facile, superficial, hurtful criticism and skepticism with a new culture of truly deep, critical thought, frank but respectful dialogue, and a process of joint learning based on action and humble reflection on the outcomes of that action.