Tomorrow's Teaching and Learning
Misunderstandings of Critical Reading
One of the barriers students face in writing critically
is their misunderstanding of exactly what this process entails. For example, if
a student thinks a critical analysis of a major theorist in the field, a
canonical text, or a widely accepted theorem involves showing how the theorist,
author, or proof is wrong, this is an incredibly intimidating prospect. It
would take an extremely confident, or extremely foolish, student to produce a
demolition of a piece of work that was widely referenced, published in several
languages, and generally regarded as authoritative. So one of the first things
teachers have to do is wrestle learners away from the mistaken notion that
criticism is inherently negative, which brings us to our first
misunderstanding.
That It?s Negative
For many of us the word critical carries negative
connotations. Being critical is equated with cynical pessimism, with taking
great pleasure in knocking down what other people have created; in short, with
attacking and destroying what we portray as the na?ve and shortsighted efforts
of others. It is important to say from the outset, then, that critical reading
is a process of appraisal, involving the recognition of positive as well as
negative elements. In fact, using the words positive and negative is mistaken
because it only serves to reinforce a false dichotomy that we have to reach a
verdict that something is good or bad. What critical reading and writing are
all about is assessing the accuracy and validity of a piece of work. This means
that we will usually find aspects of research, philosophy, or theory that we
dislike, disagree with, and find incomplete or overly narrow. But we will also
find aspects that seem to us well described, recognizable, and informative. Few
pi
eces of writing we
read in a doctoral program will be so unequivocally wonderful or awful that we
can adopt a film critic approach to its appraisal, giving it an intellectual
thumbs up or thumbs down. If we are reading critically we will almost certainly
find that our appraisals are multilayered, even contradictory (as in when the
same passages both excite and disturb). But central to all critical reading is
the acknowledgment of what we find to be well grounded, accurate, and
meritorious in a piece of scholarly writing, as well as what we find wanting.
That It Always Leads to Relativism
Critical reading and writing makes us aware that
knowledge is always culturally and disciplinarily constructed?always the
product of particular people thinking in particular ways at particular times in
particular places. A common response to this discovery on the part of readers
is to lapse into a relativistic state of defeatism. They conclude that because
nothing seems to have universal certainty (even what passes for the laws of
physics change according to time and place), no ideas have any greater
legitimacy than any others. This conclusion can induce a kind of intellectual
lethargy, a disconnection from the world of ideas.
In fact, critical reading can increase our sense of
connectedness to a text by increasing our ability to give an informed rationale
as to why we hold the convictions and beliefs we do. When we give a piece of
literature a careful critical appraisal we have a sense of its strengths and
weaknesses. The intellectual convictions we derive from this appraisal are
informed by this same even-handed sense of what is strongest and weakest about
our convictions and about why, on balance, we hold these even as we recognize
their shortcomings. The point at which the best critical readers operate is the
point of informed commitment so valued by the pragmatic tradition summarized in
Chapter Two. Informed commitment means being able to give a rationale and to
cite evidence for our ideas while always being open to reexamining and rethinking
these in the light of further experience.
That It?s Only for the Philosophically Astute
Because so much academic writing on critical thinking is
grounded in the paradigm of analytic philosophy and concentrates on argument
analysis, it is easy to conclude that critical thinking is not for the
philosophically challenged. But critical reading (one form of critical thinking
in action) is not restricted to those who pursue majors in logic. I prefer to
think of it as a survival skill within the competence of all, irrespective of
their formally defined educational level. In fact, as extensive research into
how people reason in everyday situations shows (Sternberg, Forsyth, Hedlund,
Horvath, Wagner, and others, 2000), the ability to clarify assumptions, analyze
evidence quickly, assess the importance of contending contextual variables, and
come to informed decisions is evident in many non-academic contexts of adult
life. Indeed, critical thinking informs how many of us negotiate and survive
what we see as transforming episodes in our adult lives (Taylor and Cranton,
for
thcoming).
That It?s the Preserve of Politically Correct
Left-Wingers
Because one stream of writing on critical thinking,
critical analysis, and critical reflection emanates from adherents of the
Frankfurt School of Critical Social Theory?a body of work interpreting and
revising Marx for the contemporary era (Brookfield, 2004)?there is a tendency
to equate any activity with a name that includes critical with left-of-center
political views. Students sometimes complain that for some teachers critical
reading has a predetermined ideological outcome of turning the student into
anything from a liberal to a neo-Marxist. In adult education programs where I
have taught, this feeling sometimes expresses itself in the charge that my
choice of texts shows I am anti-business. Given that critical theory?s main
critique is of the logic of capitalism, this complaint from students is hardly
surprising.
However, it is important to remember that one of the most
frequent responses to reading texts critically is for students to become much
more skeptical of ascribed authority and much more likely to question ideas
that were previously taken for granted. Since we live in a culture in which
capitalist ideas are invested with such taken-for-granted authority that they
constitute the dominant ideology, one possible consequence of critical thinking
and reading is the student?s questioning of the moral basis and universality of
this ideology. Critical theorists are quick to point out, however, that,
critical reading in a totalitarian communist society would call into question
the taken-for-granted authority of those dominant left-wing ideologies.
The point about critical reading, properly encouraged, is
that critical questions are asked of all ideologies, disciplines, and theories.
So a critical social science turns a skeptical eye on all claims to universal
validity. For a teacher to mandate in advance?either explicitly or
implicitly?that only one ideological interpretation or outcome is permitted in
a discussion or assignment is to contradict a fundamental tenet of critical
thinking. That tenet holds that all involved?including teachers?must always be
open to reexamining the assumptions informing their ideological commitments.
For teachers this imperative is particularly important, since one of the best
ways in which they can teach critical thinking is for them to model the process
in their own actions. I hope, personally, that a critical reading of texts
results in students becoming more skeptical of conservative ideologies, and
more aware of the inhumanity of monopoly capitalism. And I feel a duty to make
my bias
known. But I also
must continually lay out my own assumptions, and the evidence for these, and
invite students to point out omissions in my position and to suggest
alternative interpretations that can be made of the evidence I cite. For me to
decree that ?proper? or ?real? critical thinking occurs only when students end
up mimicking my political views would be the pedagogic equivalent of papal
infallibility. I would kill at the outset any chance for genuine, searching
inquiry.
That It?s Wholly Cognitive
Critical reading, like critical thinking, is often
thought of as a purely intellectual process in which rationality is valued
above all else. The concept of rationality figures so strongly in work of
critical theoreticians such as Habermas that it?s not surprising to find it
prominent in discussions of critical thinking and reading. However, critical
reading as it is outlined here recognizes that thought and reasoning is infused
with emotional currents and responses. Indeed, the feeling of connectedness to
an idea, theory, or area of study that is so necessary to intellectual work is
itself emotional. Even our appreciation of the intellectual elegance of a
concept or set of theoretical propositions involves emotional elements.
So in critical reading we pay attention to our emotions,
as well as our intellect. In particular, we investigate our emotional responses
to the material we encounter. We can try to understand why it is that we become
enthused or appalled, perplexed or engaged, by a piece of literature. As we
read work that challenges some of our most deeply held assumptions, we are
likely to experience strong feelings of anger and resentment against the writer
or her ideas, feelings that are grounded in the sense of threat that this work
holds for us. It is important that we know this in advance of our reading and
try to understand that our emotional reactions are the inevitable accompaniment
of undertaking any kind of intellectual inquiry that is really challenging.
REFERENCES
Brookfield, S. D. The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating
Adult Learning and Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
Sternberg, R. J., Forsyth, G.B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J.
A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., Snook, S. A., and Grigorenko, E. Practical
Intelligence in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Tomorrow's Professor: Misunderstandings of Critical Reading
