The title of this post is not directly, but at least tangentially related to the subject matter.
When I do schoolwork outside of a library setting in a public place, there's usually some form of radio on that I do not want to listen to, so I tune myself into Pandora.com and listen to trance/techno music (that way I don't have to listen to lyrics most of the time, and I don't have to get distracted by hearing songs I already know the lyrics to). Before I started to write today, I looked at our classes general blog and read the post by Professor Ng. Part of that post deals with the critical thinking, and that sparked an urge in me to write, so without further confusing ado, here are some thoughts:
In undergrad I thought for a while I might want to be a lawyer, so I got my LSAT prep book out and took a class entitled 'Critical Thinking.' Throughout the class we learned technique after technique used to make people look bad in debates or confuse their arguments. I still have the laundry list of terms. I was very engaged in the subject material because it shed some light on the ways my arguments as a feminist had been ignored/not taken seriously by people I had debated with. Out of nowhere I learned how to sharpen my skills and to thinking carefully about how I spoke and what battles to pick and leave alone. I did very well in the class, and was asked to lead the review session for it, and even though I didn't go to law school, I did learn a great deal about the power of speech.
Being careful about who we talk to in what ways, and what words we use is thinking critically. The title of the post is the title of a song by Madison Avenue, but it also is a way that some (usually older) men have tried to shut me up when we engage in conversation. By using terms of endearment to refer to someone, you may not be being nice, but actually attempting to assert power over them, and this may not be at all accidental.
This is a hard one because "critical thinking" is usually "masculinist thinking." Law is a field dominated by patriachal techniques to put down, dismiss, or otherwise not engage supposedly bad arguements. But as a result, no dialogue happens. Emotions are denigrated. Legitimate claims are rejected or minimilized simply because they are not 'argued well' in the eyes of masculinist rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, it sounds like you were able to learn the tools so that you could weild them against those who tried to dismiss you, which is indeed a beautiful thing! I hope that there is still a space for emotion, for dialogue, for listening. That space, I believe, will always be more transformative for us than the law's version of 'critical thinking.'
I absolutely agree with your conclusion. The way we learned the subject material was very similar to learning math, so there was not much room for anyone to dominate conversation. The really empowering thing was that you could break down written or verbal conversation using the techniques (similar to an equations)to assess what was going on. This made it possible for students to debate with anyone, because it instilled a sort of confidence in them that, if they lost a debate, they were not inferior to the competitor, but maybe they allowed themselves to be side tracked.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting that critical thinking is the skill set to allow you to argue effectively (within "masculinist thinking").
ReplyDeleteI have been wondering for a long time what I seem to be lacking when it comes to the realm of arguing those who hold strident patriarchal views, and fail to analyze the privilege of their social location. I often find myself being "gas-lighted," where I was so sure in my opinion, and am beginning to doubt myself simply because I cannot explain myself clearly to this person. Maybe I need to read up on some critical thinking...
It might be helpful to note here that the class was taught by a woman.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this falls into the attempting to dismantle the master's house with the master's tools syndrome. Critical thinking should not mean a set of tools, or a math course, it should mean thinking from different socially situated places. It is quintessentially masculinist, but, if the meaning changed, it might not have to be.