Critical Thinking is Not My Main Pedagogical Aim

A common view about the value of taking a philosophy course goes like this:

Taking a philosophy course is valuable because it helps enhance critical thinking skills. 

Suppose this actually happens in many philosophy courses. If so, then philosophy courses indeed offer something valuable. Critical thinking matters, both for the individual––as she navigates ideas that will shape her life––and for society––as we navigate policies and narratives that shape our lives. Skills in argument evaluation help us avoid error and equip us to see beyond popularity of opinion to the plausibility of claims. 

But there's a stronger stance one can take regarding the relationship between critical thinking and philosophy. If you're a philosophy instructor, you could endorse a popular view like this. Roughly:

The main pedagogical aim of a philosophy course is to enhance critical thinking skills. 

I call it the "critical thinking first approach." Some philosophers add additional learning outcomes like "expanding one's understanding of a given topic," "familiarizing oneself with differing points of view," "learning how to have productive conversations and disagreement," "epistemic humility," and so on. And, of course, many philosophers want to talk about topics that are fun and relevant as well. In what follows, I assume that the "critical thinking first" approach incorporates these outcomes into its pedagogical aspirations. 

Still, the "critical thinking first" approach makes critical thinking the pedagogical centerpiece. As the centerpiece, critical thinking shapes at least two things: learning outcomes and course content. If you're a "critical thinking first" person, some of the hoped-for learning outcomes in your course might be: the ability to construct and reconstruct arguments, spot fallacies, identify hidden assumptions and controversial premises, defend claims on the basis of evidence, construct counterexamples, and so on. The readings, assignments, exercises, and topics will also be structured around the goal of helping students become better thinkers. 

Finally (and here is where my attention is drawn), by holding the above view, instructors will be reluctant to overtly encourage deep moral formation in their students, to encourage conscientiousness and care over apathy. In a slogan, the "critical thinking first" view is captured by the slogan, "I teach how to think, not what to think." If the material happens to lead some students toward positive moral change, that's great, but those types of outcomes are not overt aims of the class. Moreover, recall that critical-thinking-firsters will want some virtues instilled in their students. They care about charitable engagement, conversational etiquette, curiosity, and openness to hearing the view points of others. They might even overtly encourage the development of these skills, crafting their courses accordingly. Still, critical-thinking-firsters will be reluctant to go far beyond these modest formative outcomes. The boundary of formation falls at critical thinking and, roughly, virtues for inquiry and discussion. 

Despite the popularity of the above approach, however, I think philosophers can (and many should) take a different path. I restrict my focus to ethics courses. I have in mind classes like Intro to Ethics, Contemporary Moral Issues, Business Ethics, and so on (ethics courses popular where I study and teach). The possibility for moral formation is most obvious in courses like these (rather than, say, in a metaphysics class), and it is these courses where I find it most appropriate to reject the "critical thinking first" view. 

With space for plenty of variation, an alternative vision goes something like this:

A key (and perhaps the main) pedagogical aim of an ethics course is the enhancement of moral ambition, social concern, and awareness of social harms, as well as the enhancement of skills and wisdom needed to live morally ambitious, caring, and socially impactful lives.

In other words, on this alternative approach, moral formation is an equally worthwhile goal (if not more worthwhile). The former view is structured around expanding students' understanding of arguments. The latter view is structured around enlarging students' social consciousness and awareness of injustice in the world. The former view narrowly devotes itself to the development of better thinking. The alternative view expands beyond that by devoting itself to the development of better changemakers. One view allows that moral growth may be an unintended, indirect consequence of the course material, though it does not (in fact, is reluctant to) structure the class toward the realization of that outcome. The latter view, on the other hand, makes moral growth an explicit aim of the class and structures the class accordingly. In bell hooks' terms, we could say that those who pursue the second pedagogical pathway "teach to transgress." Course content and activities are crafted around the goal of encouraging and preparing students to transgress harmful narratives, norms and practices in society. 

Don't be mistaken, though: the moral orientation of the alternative approach is not incompatible with care for critical thinking. Critical thinking enriches the individual and the world she inhabits. Moreover, it empowers her by giving her tools fit for the production of knowledge and the avoidance of error. Therefore, critical thinking should constitute part of the course objectives. In fact, a transgressive pedagogy will recognize the value of critical thinking for transgressive living. Critical thinking helps us evaluate harmful narratives and norms in society. It also helps us avoid errant arguments about justice, love, and paths toward peace.

Having said that, the transgressive view denies that an article, a discussion, or a topic, is worth including in the class only if it serves the function of enhancing critical thinking (or of expanding students' understanding of the theoretical terrain, or of enhancing epistemic humility, etc.). Critical thinking is not the only goal. It is not even the dominant goal, even though it is an important goal (perhaps even an equally important goal). Following transgressive teaching, some course content will be more prophetic and "eye opening" than argumentative. Some class discussions will be more about self-evaluation than argument evaluation. Some activities will involve developing action items (to address harms like sexism, racism, toxicity in the workplace, poverty, and so on), rather than developing counterexamples. Some discussions are meant to promote empathy and familiarize students with marginalized experiences, rather than (or in addition to) familiarizing them with argument forms. And so on. In other words, the choice-worthiness of a topic, article or discussion protocol will often have more to do with how it promotes moral formation and whether it invites students into new paths of care. The enhancement of critical thinking is not the only pedagogical focal point. 

This orientation impacts decisions about the choice-worthiness of certain class topics. To illustrate all this, consider: critical-thinking-firsters might have their students discuss race issues because doing so provides an opportunity to expand their understanding of an important issue and engage arguments about, say, equality, reparations and the concept of racism. Indeed, these topics provide really fun and illuminating opportunities for students to see how philosophers do conceptual analysis. The literature on the concept of racism, for example, is really valuable in this respect (see this blog post for one such analysis). Similarly, the reparations debate raises all sorts of important conceptual distinctions (blame vs. responsibility, compensation vs. restitution, benefitting vs complicity, etc.) and related arguments that help students hone their evaluative skills and understanding of the issue. However, while those who teach to transgress are happy to explore these arguments, theories, and distinctions, they deny that the justification for discussing racism must be its connection to argument evaluation, theory exploration, or learning philosophical techniques. Discussing racism is an opportunity to grow, to resist, and to expand one's circle of concern. Those outcomes alone are often enough to make race worthy of consideration in class. Beyond this, proponents of this view may be motivated to have their students consider topics like implicit bias, the legacy of Jim Crow, the experience of African Americans in the U.S., the legacy of white indifference, and so on. They may be motivated to get their students thinking about paths toward racial healing, opportunities for undoing racism, and so on. Racism is just one example, of course, and many instructors may feel better suited to address other topics (e.g., sexism, poverty, immigration, etc.). The point is this: those who teach to transgress are not concerned to make each reading assignment, each class discussion, and so on, fit into the overarching goal of philosophical analysis and the enhancement of critical thinking. 

In fact, I think proponents of the transgressive approach should recognize just how limited critical thinking (traditionally construed) is when it comes to their aims. While argument construction, fallacy spotting, and being a more charitable conversationalist are each important, wisdom and discernment are also key. For example, the capacity to discern when language stigmatizes, to identify toxic relationship dynamics, to exercise creativity in using one's wealth to promote sustainable change, to recognize bias when it starts to surface, to respond lovingly to others who express grievances, to imagine how certain practices, norms, and proposed solutions for social problems could harm others, and so on, are capacities formed by hearing stories, following exemplars, understanding the empirical literature, listening to marginalized voices, and humbly wrestling with hard cases in the context of diverse community. We need more than critical thinking (traditionally conceived) for these outcomes. We need wisdom, discernment, empathy, and contact with others. 

In sum: transgressive teaching differs from the "critical thinking first" view in terms of the content emphasized in the course as well as the justification for including that content. Content is not included or excluded merely on the basis of how well it fits into the overarching goal of teaching students about arguments and debates. 

A student can take an ethics class, come out knowing how to spot a fallacy, and yet miss an opportunity to journey deeper into morally rich, socially concerned, transgressive living. I think that's unfortunate. It's a wasted opportunity and a real loss––for me, my students, and the world we all inhabit. That's why critical thinking is not my main goal in an ethics class.

In future posts, I consider common (and understandable) worries about all this. Is this approach overly political? Is it dogmatic? Does it push beliefs onto students? Does it "appeal to emotion"? Is it an attempt to convert students into "social justice warriors"? Done thoughtfully, I think transgressive teaching survives the worries underlying these criticisms.