Humphrey has been doing some thinking – you might even call
it critical thinking – after hearing about the recent Republican Party of Texas
2012 education platform that seems to want people to free their minds from any semblance of thought! Here is a direct quote from
the platform itself:
Knowledge-Based Education – We
oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a
relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior
modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs
and undermining parental authority.
Now, this doesn't come as a big surprise to Humphrey. He's read about the objections to critical thinking for some time. And in fact, he's pretty sure employers really don't want critical thinkers working for them - because let's face it, those who think critically are kind of pains in ass, always questioning and never blindly following instructions; sometimes even getting into arguments.
He remembered some things Neil Postman has said on the matter. Though Postman is in favour of critical thinking as a
central aim of education, he suggests that there are a variety of popular
arguments against it. Proponents of the neo-conservative position, Postman
suggested back in 2000 (what a visionary!), might perceive critical thinking as dangerous:
[1]
if we allow, indeed, encourage, our children to
think critically, their questioning of constituted authority would almost
certainly be one result. We might even say that ‘critical thinking’ works to
undermine the idea of education as a national resource, since a free-thinking
populace might reject the goals of its nation-state and disturb the smooth
functioning of its institutions.
This highlights an argument against critical thinking that’s
quite consistent with the GOP position in Texas. There are two important aspects to
this argument: first, the worry that authority might be questioned, and second,
that the status-quo of education would be disrupted. Now, these concerns are
not unwarranted. But should challenging authority and the status quo in
education be of concern in a society that values democratic beliefs? Without a
doubt, critical thinkers would be compelled to challenge authority in various
contexts – in schools, in government, and in the workplace. Though we this is
not a negative result in Humphrey’s opinion, some in positions of authority may
not relish engaging in discussion, nor being accountable to respond to
questions of their authority.
Now, Humprhey's canine pals Dieter and Toby from New Brunswick reminded him of something important: critical thinking is not a "skill" that can be taught, and so perhaps the GOP has arrived at the right stance, but for the wrong reasons. And moreover, the eastern dogs fear that "critical thinking" (if over-emphasized) can interfere with other equally (or more) important educational aims. While Humphrey doesn't disagree, he also believes that critical thinking does have an important place in education. And of course what people mean by critical thinking is still highly disputed! Is critical thinking skills? Dispostions? Both? Neither? Can it even be taught? Well, that all depends on what you read. Humphrey will elaborate on this in some future post, probably.
Now, Humphrey adores the work of the late, motorcycle-riding philosophical renegade Paul Feyerabend (his essay,
How to Defend Society Against Science, rocked Humphrey's world). While he doesn't use the term , here's what Feyerabend says about something that Humphrey definitely thinks is the equivalent of critical thinking (and Humphrey prefaces this by stating Feyerabend's position is that education often consists of teaching some basic myth):
What we need here is an education that makes people contrary,
counter-suggestive, without making them incapable of devoting themselves to
the elaboration of any single view. How can this aim be achieved?
It can be achieved by protecting the tremendous
imagination which children possess and by developing to the full the spirit of
contradiction that exists in them. On the whole children are much more
intelligent than their teachers are. They succumb, and give up their
intelligence because they are bullied, or because their teachers get the better
of them by emotional means.
This type of education, Feyerabend says, liberates people. He continues, Why would anyone want to
liberate anyone else? Surely not because of some abstract advantage of
liberty but because liberty is the best way to free development and thus to
happiness. We want to liberate people so that they can smile.
Feyerabend had Humphrey at "smile", something he loves to do. But how can education do this? Certainly not the way that the GOP suggets! Rather, as Feyerabend says, The hardest task needs the lightest hand or else
its completion will not lead to freedom but to a tyranny much worse than the
one it replaces.
Think on, people and dogs!
