Critical thinking, unlike thinking in general, refers to the ability for realizing the differences and similarities between the objects of analysis – from the academic to one’s everyday surroundings, empathizing with the Other(s), and most importantly evaluating things from multiple viewpoints and perspectives. It is a deeper thought, processed through your heart, rather than just your brain, that involves putting yourself in somebody else’s shoes and thinking using all your senses.
Critical thinking is about material things that you can touch, feel, and visualize. You can merely think through texts, you cannot make a direct emotional connection with the printed word. Reading texts is more about following the author’s biases while artefacts and images are raw and give you the whole picture. You get to visualise perspectives and find your truth, which resonates with you and only yourself.
For instance, horrifying images from war have a significant impact on society. If a newspaper published an image of a war-torn of a kid, it wouldn’t let the viewers know what exactly happened, but the photograph would create an emotional connection in the minds of the viewers and stimulate empathy. Similarly, visualize the same war was featured in the same newspaper, in a report form - It would give you knowledge about the event, but it wouldn’t create feelings of empathy, the way the image of the young kid did. This verifies that the language of form is superior to the language of words, as it allows you to communicate emotions, rather than just facts.
The case of an artefact or an object is especially significant in that, when apprehended it evokes in the perceiver a certain attitude towards the reality which resonates with the maker’s attitude. This work of art can be treated as an autonomous artistic sign which acts as an effective link with the culture that called it into being, because of our shared physiological experience as perceivers and our sensory overlap with the maker. Studying artefacts allows you to avoid and step out of the confines of your own cultural biases. Undertaking cultural interpretations through artefacts allows you to engage in another culture not with your mind but with your senses. This allows us to put ourselves in the skins of individuals who made or used these objects, to see with their eyes and touch with their hands. Unlike texts, which merely give a superficial understanding of things, artefacts can give you a complete picture. This complete picture is a prerequisite to critical thinking.
Getting a complete picture is not about being deeply absorbed in the environment; this is not the way to theorise. When it comes to theorizing about one’s objects of observation, it is thought that theoretical ideas are traced to and seen embedded in experiential fieldwork – when you ‘are there’ - this exercise is however, more about the practice of comparative theorizing. And to theorize in this manner, a critical distance is a necessity. This critical distance is what helps an ethnographer distinguish between the familiar and the unfamiliar, helping us arrive at a different perspective and thereby prompting us to think critically. While ‘being there’ makes possible a certain way of thinking, it is ‘not being there’ that opens the doors to thinking critically.
Theorizing is a work of critical thinking and perspective analysis. And these perspectives come to life only when we take the time to reflect between differences and similarities. In Nietzsche’s words, only through “the other shore,” and the worlds less familiar, will a traveller come to understand his or her own culture fully. And these perspectives will become visible to our minds only by maintaining this critical distance. Another peculiarity about this reflective exercise is that every individual reflects differently and arrives at different theoretical ideas. And these may even depend on the individual’s specific time and place. These reflective activities are drivers of high order thinking skills.
This critical distance required for realizing differences can be achieved in numerous ways. And, not being there permits us to take multiple perspectives and viewpoints, consciously or unconsciously, allowing us to dissect ideas, which physical presence may have left unnoticed. Not being there is your brain’s natural critical thinking mechanism, which drives creative thought and vicarious travel, making your mind aware of various new and unexplored dimensions.
Critical distances are an essential part of thinking critically. These distances can be of any form, physical distances, emotional distances and even ideological distances. One’s response to difference, is how you react to this distance. One who lacks higher order thinking abilities, will recognise differences and then alienate oneself from the distances. While a critical thinker, will acknowledge the differences, and use this critical distance to his/her advantage.
The act of acceptance is all about acknowledging the differences and tolerating them while focusing on the similarities. The similarities may be small and minute, but prioritizing them over the differences, is the key to acceptance. Even though it can be universally agreed upon that no two people are the same, as a community we possess common traits of humanity within us which cut across divisions of race, ideologies, culture, and creed.
Meanwhile, rejection is an outright dismissal of similarities, and not being able to look past the differences. Over-emphasizing the differences and failing to look at the commonalities is the basis for rejecting something. Rejection comes from a lack of critical thinking. It usually leads to marginalization and discrimination and the root cause for it is usually the belief that one is superior to the ‘other’.
Acceptance is about accepting somebody for who they are and acknowledging the “Otherness” in them – that makes them different from you. Acceptance is often confused with appropriation. Like the Jews in France, who are forced every day to become less Jewish and more ‘French’. In their race to gain acceptance, and no longer be discriminated against, they are forced to lose their true identity- as Jewish people. However, what they gain is not acceptance. They may be allowed to become a part of this society, but they are no longer themselves - their differences have vanished, and they are just one among the millions of Frenchmen who speak one language and follow one lord. They are no longer the “other” among the crowds.
Acceptance is not about reducing these differences, but about recognising the differences as a part of the person. Somebody who has been accepted into a particular community will never hold the same status as a native member - they will always be the “Other”, who is perceived as being in the group but not of the group. George Simmel describes a stranger as one who unites distance and closeness. The stranger's distance renders anything close distant while his closeness renders everything distant close. He is an insider and an outsider at one and the same time, an advantage only the accepted members receive. And this is what the ethnographers need to possess while theorizing: A critical distance while remaining immersed.
This is where appropriation differs from acceptance - it crushes the differences and the critical distance that those differences brought with them. This critical distance is what promoted critical thinking and gave the stranger the possession of objectivity and a bias-free thought process. This objectivity is what allows him to be open and free, both intimate and withdrawn, close yet far from the people of the group. The idea that you can accept a person despite their differences is what counts as true acceptance. That said, you can only receive and be open to the idea of acceptance if you are able to rise above the differences and see the similarities. Between any group of people, things or ideologies, there are a set of similarities amid the existing differences. And these similarities are what as human beings we can empathize with.
Many may argue that acceptance is impossible in circumstances where the ‘Other’ is one’s enemy. However, an enemy is somebody who you have a difference of opinion with. Being an enemy doesn’t extinguish the idea that you may have similarities with the person. Above all, you are people who share common traits of humanity. Regardless of the person's background and ideology, if you get a complete picture of a person and recognise why they follow such an ideology, you are sure to express humanitarian concerns for each other. You may not agree with any of their views and you may even still think of them as your enemy on some grounds, but after critically thinking about it, you will eventually come to terms with it, and choose the path of acceptance.
Individuals who are able to see similarities in the midst of the differences, have the capacity of empathizing with different others. They possess critical thinking capacities, to accept and humanise. As a professor, I hope my students come to accept my ideas on reception, travel and theory, as one of the multiple viewpoints that they shall visualise through thinking critically. I hope that this critical distance from my biases, that the lockdown has given them, pushes them to think critically, beyond me and their classroom. They shall be a part of the classroom but not in the classroom; They shall have classes on zoom and I aspire that they shall think using all their senses, respond and accept their classmates' viewpoints and above all learn, to accept each other for their thoughts.
For instance, horrifying images from war have a significant impact on society. If a newspaper published an image of a war-torn of a kid, it wouldn’t let the viewers know what exactly happened, but the photograph would create an emotional connection in the minds of the viewers and stimulate empathy. Similarly, visualize the same war was featured in the same newspaper, in a report form - It would give you knowledge about the event, but it wouldn’t create feelings of empathy, the way the image of the young kid did. This verifies that the language of form is superior to the language of words, as it allows you to communicate emotions, rather than just facts.
The case of an artefact or an object is especially significant in that, when apprehended it evokes in the perceiver a certain attitude towards the reality which resonates with the maker’s attitude. This work of art can be treated as an autonomous artistic sign which acts as an effective link with the culture that called it into being, because of our shared physiological experience as perceivers and our sensory overlap with the maker. Studying artefacts allows you to avoid and step out of the confines of your own cultural biases. Undertaking cultural interpretations through artefacts allows you to engage in another culture not with your mind but with your senses. This allows us to put ourselves in the skins of individuals who made or used these objects, to see with their eyes and touch with their hands. Unlike texts, which merely give a superficial understanding of things, artefacts can give you a complete picture. This complete picture is a prerequisite to critical thinking.
Getting a complete picture is not about being deeply absorbed in the environment; this is not the way to theorise. When it comes to theorizing about one’s objects of observation, it is thought that theoretical ideas are traced to and seen embedded in experiential fieldwork – when you ‘are there’ - this exercise is however, more about the practice of comparative theorizing. And to theorize in this manner, a critical distance is a necessity. This critical distance is what helps an ethnographer distinguish between the familiar and the unfamiliar, helping us arrive at a different perspective and thereby prompting us to think critically. While ‘being there’ makes possible a certain way of thinking, it is ‘not being there’ that opens the doors to thinking critically.
Theorizing is a work of critical thinking and perspective analysis. And these perspectives come to life only when we take the time to reflect between differences and similarities. In Nietzsche’s words, only through “the other shore,” and the worlds less familiar, will a traveller come to understand his or her own culture fully. And these perspectives will become visible to our minds only by maintaining this critical distance. Another peculiarity about this reflective exercise is that every individual reflects differently and arrives at different theoretical ideas. And these may even depend on the individual’s specific time and place. These reflective activities are drivers of high order thinking skills.
This critical distance required for realizing differences can be achieved in numerous ways. And, not being there permits us to take multiple perspectives and viewpoints, consciously or unconsciously, allowing us to dissect ideas, which physical presence may have left unnoticed. Not being there is your brain’s natural critical thinking mechanism, which drives creative thought and vicarious travel, making your mind aware of various new and unexplored dimensions.
Critical distances are an essential part of thinking critically. These distances can be of any form, physical distances, emotional distances and even ideological distances. One’s response to difference, is how you react to this distance. One who lacks higher order thinking abilities, will recognise differences and then alienate oneself from the distances. While a critical thinker, will acknowledge the differences, and use this critical distance to his/her advantage.
The act of acceptance is all about acknowledging the differences and tolerating them while focusing on the similarities. The similarities may be small and minute, but prioritizing them over the differences, is the key to acceptance. Even though it can be universally agreed upon that no two people are the same, as a community we possess common traits of humanity within us which cut across divisions of race, ideologies, culture, and creed.
Meanwhile, rejection is an outright dismissal of similarities, and not being able to look past the differences. Over-emphasizing the differences and failing to look at the commonalities is the basis for rejecting something. Rejection comes from a lack of critical thinking. It usually leads to marginalization and discrimination and the root cause for it is usually the belief that one is superior to the ‘other’.
Acceptance is about accepting somebody for who they are and acknowledging the “Otherness” in them – that makes them different from you. Acceptance is often confused with appropriation. Like the Jews in France, who are forced every day to become less Jewish and more ‘French’. In their race to gain acceptance, and no longer be discriminated against, they are forced to lose their true identity- as Jewish people. However, what they gain is not acceptance. They may be allowed to become a part of this society, but they are no longer themselves - their differences have vanished, and they are just one among the millions of Frenchmen who speak one language and follow one lord. They are no longer the “other” among the crowds.
Acceptance is not about reducing these differences, but about recognising the differences as a part of the person. Somebody who has been accepted into a particular community will never hold the same status as a native member - they will always be the “Other”, who is perceived as being in the group but not of the group. George Simmel describes a stranger as one who unites distance and closeness. The stranger's distance renders anything close distant while his closeness renders everything distant close. He is an insider and an outsider at one and the same time, an advantage only the accepted members receive. And this is what the ethnographers need to possess while theorizing: A critical distance while remaining immersed.
This is where appropriation differs from acceptance - it crushes the differences and the critical distance that those differences brought with them. This critical distance is what promoted critical thinking and gave the stranger the possession of objectivity and a bias-free thought process. This objectivity is what allows him to be open and free, both intimate and withdrawn, close yet far from the people of the group. The idea that you can accept a person despite their differences is what counts as true acceptance. That said, you can only receive and be open to the idea of acceptance if you are able to rise above the differences and see the similarities. Between any group of people, things or ideologies, there are a set of similarities amid the existing differences. And these similarities are what as human beings we can empathize with.
Many may argue that acceptance is impossible in circumstances where the ‘Other’ is one’s enemy. However, an enemy is somebody who you have a difference of opinion with. Being an enemy doesn’t extinguish the idea that you may have similarities with the person. Above all, you are people who share common traits of humanity. Regardless of the person's background and ideology, if you get a complete picture of a person and recognise why they follow such an ideology, you are sure to express humanitarian concerns for each other. You may not agree with any of their views and you may even still think of them as your enemy on some grounds, but after critically thinking about it, you will eventually come to terms with it, and choose the path of acceptance.
Individuals who are able to see similarities in the midst of the differences, have the capacity of empathizing with different others. They possess critical thinking capacities, to accept and humanise. As a professor, I hope my students come to accept my ideas on reception, travel and theory, as one of the multiple viewpoints that they shall visualise through thinking critically. I hope that this critical distance from my biases, that the lockdown has given them, pushes them to think critically, beyond me and their classroom. They shall be a part of the classroom but not in the classroom; They shall have classes on zoom and I aspire that they shall think using all their senses, respond and accept their classmates' viewpoints and above all learn, to accept each other for their thoughts.
