Thanks for writing this very useful analysis of another ideological document. Yes, we all have our own belief systems . . . .. including liberals like me. It does look like there's more intolerance and unwillingness to listen or engage with others, though, in a weaponized intolerant document like this one that claims to be about "inclusion" but isn't including other perspectives on especially complex and fraught matters. I also think the language included here is very imitative of other documents from other associations--it's kind of a "recombinant" social justice language. It's constantly reworked and repackaged for the "right" purposes.
I don't like to respond to anonymous posts, as I believe people should own what they are willing to share, but in this case ... the basic weakness of this post is the definition of critical thinking. It is actually the most inclusive of philosophies because as Richard Paul and Linda Elder write: "Critical thinkers ... question information, conclusions and point of view. They strive to be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. They seeks to think beneath the surface, to be logical and fair." (The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools). Note that, unlike many others, they don't claim to be "right". They do, however, elevate the practice of investigation. This ability and willingness to question can lead to new knowledge which can instigate revised world views. It doesn't advocate any particular world view, just the right to investigate.
The author described "Critical theory", not "critical thinking". I agree with you that critical thinking is an inclusive philosophy. Unfortunately, "critical theories" are not. They do, as the author of the article describes, view the world through a lens of power dynamics and reject nuanced and thoughtful examinations of difficult issues. In my own line of work - cataloging - "critical cataloging" seems to mean suppressing access to materials deemed "problematic" and proposing lots of subject headings relating to "marginalized groups". Whenever someone questions these critical catalogers' actions, they cry "bigot". Pretty much as far away from critical thinking as can be.
I think the answer to your question is to be found in the book "Cynical Theories" (https://www.librarything.com/work/24335173). But I think that Critical Theory (note the caps, because it is a proper name, not a description) is inexpressibly tedious; I haven't been able to read the book, although I tried once. The most enjoyable thing about the book is the blurb by Richard Dawkins, which is available on the Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023. It's short, so I'll quote it here: "Is there a school of thought so empty, so vacuous, so pretentious, so wantonly obscurantist, so stupefyingly boring that even a full-frontal attack on it cannot be read without an exasperated yawn? Yes. It is called postmodernism. If you sincerely want to understand what postmodernism is, read this exceptionally well-informed book by two noble heroes of the enlightenment project. If you have better uses for your neurons and your time, stick to science. It’s the real deal."
Thanks for writing this very useful analysis of another ideological document. Yes, we all have our own belief systems . . . .. including liberals like me. It does look like there's more intolerance and unwillingness to listen or engage with others, though, in a weaponized intolerant document like this one that claims to be about "inclusion" but isn't including other perspectives on especially complex and fraught matters. I also think the language included here is very imitative of other documents from other associations--it's kind of a "recombinant" social justice language. It's constantly reworked and repackaged for the "right" purposes.
I don't like to respond to anonymous posts, as I believe people should own what they are willing to share, but in this case ... the basic weakness of this post is the definition of critical thinking. It is actually the most inclusive of philosophies because as Richard Paul and Linda Elder write: "Critical thinkers ... question information, conclusions and point of view. They strive to be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. They seeks to think beneath the surface, to be logical and fair." (The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools). Note that, unlike many others, they don't claim to be "right". They do, however, elevate the practice of investigation. This ability and willingness to question can lead to new knowledge which can instigate revised world views. It doesn't advocate any particular world view, just the right to investigate.
The author described "Critical theory", not "critical thinking". I agree with you that critical thinking is an inclusive philosophy. Unfortunately, "critical theories" are not. They do, as the author of the article describes, view the world through a lens of power dynamics and reject nuanced and thoughtful examinations of difficult issues. In my own line of work - cataloging - "critical cataloging" seems to mean suppressing access to materials deemed "problematic" and proposing lots of subject headings relating to "marginalized groups". Whenever someone questions these critical catalogers' actions, they cry "bigot". Pretty much as far away from critical thinking as can be.
Yes, but where does critical theory come from? The application of critical thinking to domains of analysis. It began with law.
I think the answer to your question is to be found in the book "Cynical Theories" (https://www.librarything.com/work/24335173). But I think that Critical Theory (note the caps, because it is a proper name, not a description) is inexpressibly tedious; I haven't been able to read the book, although I tried once. The most enjoyable thing about the book is the blurb by Richard Dawkins, which is available on the Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023. It's short, so I'll quote it here: "Is there a school of thought so empty, so vacuous, so pretentious, so wantonly obscurantist, so stupefyingly boring that even a full-frontal attack on it cannot be read without an exasperated yawn? Yes. It is called postmodernism. If you sincerely want to understand what postmodernism is, read this exceptionally well-informed book by two noble heroes of the enlightenment project. If you have better uses for your neurons and your time, stick to science. It’s the real deal."