Critical Theory vs Critical Thinking
A few years ago, my youngest daughter returned to university and finished a B.A. in Psychology and an M.A. in Social Work. During this time, she would intermittently have difficulty expressing the precise intent of a thought or concept and would ask for my help. Not only did I assist, but I often challenged her on her conceptualization or the process or path in her deliberation. The response she would always provide was that the instructor did not allow for modification of thought, any philosophical alteration, or absolutely any equivocation.
My daughter, knowing the professor’s steadfast political viewpoint, claimed any change in a concept or view from what her instructor taught would result immediately in a failed grade. Much of academia has now turned into this rigidity of instruction or essentially their authoritative model of “my way or the highway”.
With 87% of professorships labeling themselves as liberal or progressive, you can expect indoctrination and subjective instruction. Progressives in all disciplines like to teach critical theories rather than critical thinking. Critical theory is a social theory that aims to critique and change society as a whole while critical thinking is the pursuit and analysis of facts, evidence, observations, and balanced arguments to form a rational and logical judgment.
The principal difference between critical theory and critical thinking is that the former is to be accepted without requiring further action with respect to the latter. In other words, a critical theory is to be recognized, not as a theory, but rather as an unassailable truth. One cannot learn about critical theory without learning of its origins at the German institute Frankfurt School and that much of critical theory relates to cultural Marxism.
While critical theories focus on progressive cultural issues such as race, colonialism, feminism, etc., it connects unconditionally with anthropogenic climate change because of allegations of environmental justice and the claim of ‘increasing’ exposure to calamitous climactic conditions on poor and marginalized communities. The fact that there have been no increases in any of these conditions is not of any concern to the critical theory enthusiast.
The late Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and a lead author with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it best when quoted with, “We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
While Schneider was referring to the science of climate and not critical theory, it aptly summarizes the position of eco-politicians, alarmist bureaucrats, social and legacy media, activist scientists, and the ‘wokistrocacy’.
Critical thinking, on the other hand, would be to review facts, evidence, and observations from every side of an argument, contention, or claim, and based on unbiased deliberation, determine the soundest or most sensible possibility or solution. This, because of political interference and intrusion, is, without a doubt, the greatest downfall of teaching today.
