Sunday, November 18, 2012
Advocating without Understanding
Can we fully advocate for a certain social group if we cannot critically think about the issue?
Once again, if we look at what it means to critically think then we understand it means to think logically, analytically, and without prejudice. Also, we know that not everyone is a critical thinker and there are some who never will critically think.
So, can we as people advocate for a certain social group, like the LGBTQA community, if we do not critically think about the issue? To me, that does not make a lot of sense. For us to consider the rights of another group then we must be able to think critically, thereby leaving all prejudgments, religious beliefs, and other personal feelings aside. However, not everyone is able to do that, and not everyone involved with these groups can do so. To consider and understand the issues of these parties we must know enough details well enough to analyse them and offer help to them without other matters getting in the way.
So no, I do not believe that we can fully advocate for a social group if we are not critical thinkers ourselves.
To End All Isms
If everyone was a critical thinker, would we still have isms?
It occurred to me that being a critical thinker means to be someone who thinks of things clearly, analytically and without allowing personal beliefs to skew one's thoughts. If that is true, then if we could all be critical thinkers it would be possible to no longer have negative isms. Now, to make it clearer, negative isms are a way to belittle a group of people - for example, racism, sexism, heterosexism and so on. These terms are used against a group of people to lessen them as individuals.
With that in mind, it is not fair to say that everyone is a critical thinker, but if everyone became a critical thinker they would be more able to identify and analyze the differences between themselves and others without a stigma based on past beliefs or religious affiliation affecting their point of view. Critical thinkers would be more able to see another from a logical point of view. For instance, a critical thinker would not use racism against an African American because their skin color will have nothing to do with understanding them as a person. Overall they would be able to evaluate different people without the stigmatizing them based on their ethnicity or orientation or gender identity. It would be a less hypercritical situation and more of a critical analysis of the person as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)