Hadi Hakim Shafaei's Essay “The Decline of Critique in Iranian Society and the Necessity of Critical Thinking”

The Decline of Critique in Iranian Society and the Necessity of Critical Thinking

Author: Hadi Hakim Shafaei

Critique and the culture of dialogue in Iranian society, even among the educated, enlightened, and elite, are far from the desired state. If one could use the best word to describe this situation, the word "banality" is the best possible descriptor for expressing this issue. It seems that the word critique or the act of critiquing has not been properly understood or practiced. By referring to dictionaries, we find the definition of critiquing as: "separating the wheat from the chaff" or "discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a work." Considering these meanings, it becomes clear that critiquing, in its lexical sense, encompasses the expression of both good and bad, errors and correctness, services and betrayals, and advantages and disadvantages; in other words, the process of critiquing is carried out based on "critical thinking." The term critical thinking means the rational evaluation and analysis of an issue, skillfully, fairly, impartially, and empathetically. Therefore, critiquing is not necessarily equivalent to criticizing, rejecting, ostracizing, and the like, although methodical rejection can be only a part of the critiquing process. Richard Paul and Linda Elder consider critical thinking a higher level of ordinary thinking that provides us with conceptual tools to understand the workings of the mind in the process of searching for meaning and truth. According to these authors, critical thinking is a kind of "inner voice of reason" that examines our thoughts, emotions, and actions and reconstructs them in a wiser manner‌[1].

From these definitions, it emerges that critique based on critical thinking requires the fulfillment of several conditions: 1. Using the tools of rationality, not emotions 2. Acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills for critique 3. Observing the ethics of critique 4. Empathetic reading or observation of the object and avoiding bias 5. Recognizing the components of thought: background, assumptions, rational reasons and empirical evidence, implications and consequences, perspectives

But what we witness in Iranian society, among the common people, the educated, and the enlightened, is not critiquing; it is rejecting, criticizing, eliminating, ostracizing, denying, destroying, and proving oneself. The majority of Iranians, whether they are called enlightened, traditional, or common, lack the ability and skill for critique or dialogue based on critical thinking when encountering opinions, beliefs, religions, intellectual and cultural works, thinkers, and social activists. Not only are the conditions mentioned for critical thinking often not met, but there are educated and enlightened individuals who even consider "not reading" a book or "not listening" to the words of a political figure or not paying attention to an artist's work as a source of pride and a mark of their enlightenment! There are people who, when they see someone reading the holy book of a religion, the first question they ask with astonishment and sarcasm is: "Why read this book?!" As if the wheat and the chaff, good and bad, correct and incorrect, bad religion and good religion, bad book and good book, bad art and good art, correct opinion and incorrect opinion, are already obvious, known, and determined! Furthermore, there are many university professors and speakers who, in their classrooms or from their pulpits, within a few seconds, completely demolish a thinker, social figure, social event, or book, and unfortunately, because they are adorned with the title of professor, lecturer, speaker, Ayatollah, etc., they are approved by their audiences. This is the deplorable state of thinking and critique in Iranian society, and being common or elite, illiterate or educated, traditional or enlightened, has not changed the equation; most individuals are engaged in the absolute affirmation of themselves and the rejection of the other.

In the book An Introduction to Critical Thinking[2], the characteristics of non-critical thinking and the non-critical thinker are listed. Characteristics such as:

1_ Closed-mindedness and selectivity 2_ Intellectual laziness and haste in judgment 3_ Belief in authority 4_ Intellectual self-centeredness 5_ Emotional approach 6_ Absolutist thinking

These traits are found in all human beings, regardless of education and class, to varying degrees; therefore, awareness of what critical thinking is and its continuous practice are among the necessities of a flourishing, successful, and cohesive society. Given the characteristics mentioned regarding critical and non-critical thinking, several steps are necessary for critiquing an issue:

۱_ The first condition of critical thinking is the maximal reduction of emotional involvement with the issue and, instead, the use of the tools of reason. It seems that the emotional involvement of the critic with the issue under critique cannot be absolutely eliminated, because preferences, interests, discomforts, angers, interests, and self-centeredness are part of every human being's lived experience that has settled into their psychological body; however, it is possible for a person, in the position of critique and dialogue, to minimize the intervention of emotions as much as possible. One practical method for maximally reducing the intervention of emotions is for the critic, when encountering any issue, to continuously ask themselves: "Is it possible that I am mistaken about this issue? Am I impartial regarding this issue? Do I have sufficient reasons to defend my belief?" and with these "Cartesian" skeptical questions, remind themselves that it is necessary to constantly re-examine their own beliefs in rejecting or defending the issue. The main tools of reason are "rational argument" and "empirical evidence"; the methodical use of these two reduces the possibility of emotional involvement with issues.

۲_ Acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills for critique is the second essential principle. The critic must have sufficient mastery over the subject of critique and, as much as possible, gather enough data to comment. If the subject under discussion is specialized, the critic must either be a specialist themselves to offer an independent opinion, or, if they are not a specialist, they must cite the independent opinion of one or more specialists.

۳_ The ethics of critique includes "human ethics" and the "ethics of belief." If the critic does not have sufficient mastery over a subject, ethically, they must either remain silent or, while commenting, declare that their opinion and critique are based solely on limited data and information or unreliable news, and therefore, the possibility of error exists. This declaration of the limited nature of the data, the unreliability of the news, or one's own lack of specialization is part of the "ethics of belief," to which every believer must ethically adhere to safeguard the principle of "commitment to reality" and the principle of "responsibility for the requirements and consequences of belief." It is noted that today, regarding the sciences and philosophy, due to the vastness of knowledge and its ever-increasing expansion, the possibility that one person can master all dimensions and angles of a specific knowledge is low. A jurist often cannot master all trends and angles of the science of law, and likewise a physician and a scholar of religion. Therefore, even in dialogue and critical relationship between two specialists, the condition of the relativity of mastery over knowledge and skills holds true, and the principles of the ethics of belief will govern their relationship. The human ethics of critique also requires that if "speech" is to be critiqued, the personality of the speaker must not be labeled or slandered. Otherwise, the critique will deviate from the epistemological path.

۴_ Empathetic reading or observation means that the critic maximally refrains from the intervention of their own preferences, loves, and hatreds towards the object of critique, whether it be a person or a book, a religion or a work of art, and with maximal rationality, sets the goal as attaining "what is" rather than "what I would like it to be." Furthermore, avoiding cherry-picking and montage-making is also a requirement of empathetic reading and fair critique. Instead of trying to prove their own prejudices and imposing them on the text, the critic should seek to understand the author's message from the author's perspective.

۵_ The original works of the author or artist under critique must be read and heard; not just once, but sometimes several times are necessary.

۶_ Many writers or political figures have left behind extensive works and productions; therefore, by reading only one or two works or seeing one or two documents, one cannot judge the entirety of the writer or figure.

7. Authors, thinkers, and artists, in different periods of their lives—adolescence, youth, middle age, and old age—sometimes publish different works that arise from their mental states, the conditions of the time, and their intellectual developments. An author may recant or revise a theory from their youth in middle age. Therefore, criticizing a behavior or work without taking into account the individual's life stages will distance the critic from reality.

8. Critique without providing evidence, reasons, and references lacks epistemic value. Every claim must be justified with sufficient evidence.

9. Fair evaluation requires stating both the good and the bad. Absolute negation and ignoring the positive dimensions is not the product of critical thinking. Hence, both positive and negative dimensions must be examined together.

10. Some thinkers, due to being prolific and the breadth of their works and ideas, have presented many theories on various subjects. Therefore, they must be critiqued by subject; that is, one cannot reject the entirety of a thinker by rejecting one idea. Each idea, separated by subject, must be evaluated individually.

11. In critical thinking, the critic's goal is to approach reality. Thus, the love of reality must overcome the desire for self-aggrandizement.

12. In critiquing a work, words are of paramount importance. Words do not have fixed meanings, especially socially constructed words such as freedom, justice, right, religion, Islam, revolution, democracy, despotism, ideology, etc. Therefore, the critic must strive to understand the definition of the words used in the author's work from the author's perspective in order to succeed in a critique that is close to reality.

13. Recognizing and analyzing the components of thought is the most important operational part of the critique process. Richard Paul and Linda Elder[3] enumerate the main components of any thought as follows:

1. The origin and background of the thought 2. The assumptions of the thought 3. Reasons and evidence 4. Point of view 5. Implications and consequences of the thought

Every thought has an origin and a background that provides its source and the course of its historical and social development. The background of a thought is, in fact, its identity and can assist the critic in understanding, evaluating, and diagnosing the pathology of the thought.

Assumptions are usually belief statements that we are either unaware of—consequently, they often contain prejudiced and biased beliefs—or, if we are aware of them, their truth or falsehood requires examination. One of the exercises that must specifically be addressed is identifying the assumptions of a discourse and then examining their justifiability. Incorrect assumptions are the root of most of the defects in our thinking[4].

Our assumptions form the substance of our inferences. If the assumptions are incorrect, the inferences will also be incorrect. Extracting the assumptions of a thought and examining their truth or falsehood helps the critic discover the strengths and weaknesses of the thought. If the assumptions are true but the inferences are incorrect, then the critic turns to the method of reasoning.

Reasons and evidence are used to justify statements and claims. Whenever we think, we are reasoning, but we are usually unaware of the vast range of reasoning that takes place behind our minds; therefore, the majority of our reasoning is unconscious, and we only become aware of our reasoning when someone challenges it, casts doubt upon it, and we are forced to defend it[5]. However, reasons and evidence have the power to support and justify only when they are used in a methodical manner. A reason or piece of evidence justifies only as long as its contrary has not been found. As soon as a contrary reason or piece of evidence is found, the previous reason or evidence loses its validity. In critiquing a thought, the critic, while examining the supporting reasons and evidence for the thought, must seek to find contrary reasons or evidence so that the caliber of the presented reasons and evidence is determined.

Among the components of thinking, point of view is more closely related to the critic's open-mindedness and truth-seeking than the other components. Examining different points of view on an issue is important because it opens the mind in encountering opposing ideas. Richard Paul and Linda Elder believe that every argument takes place within the framework of a point of view. We often ignore other points of view because they might cause us to abandon some of our desirable beliefs or goals[6]. One of the characteristics of a critical thinker is the readiness to look at a subject from various angles and, if necessary, according to the dictates of evidence, to set aside their own point of view and adopt another.

Implications and consequences are claims or truths that logically result from other claims or truths, some of which are probable and some inevitable[7]. According to Richard Paul and Linda Elder, a precise examination of the implications and consequences of any thought requires "comprehensive thinking" and demands the ability for multi-level thinking. In evaluating thought and predicting future errors and harms, the critic must be able to logically articulate the implications and consequences. Of course, the history of ideas testifies that in the social realization of any thought, not all consequences may be predictable, and other intervening factors may exert influence.

These are the set of conditions, principles, skills, and ethics necessary for critical thinking and dialogue, which cannot be realized except through awareness and practice. Iranian society today is in the throes of transition to another political and social system. The transitional period, due to its complexity and predominantly emotional nature, makes the work of critical dialogue difficult, but practicing critical thinking in this very period is of great importance because it organizes the foundation of the future social system. What is as important as the political matter, and what will bring the future society to solidarity, peace, and mutual understanding, is the acquisition of critical thinking and dialogue skills. Merely changing political systems will not resolve all social, political, and cultural problems. Valuing dialogue and critical thinking will build a durable foundation for future democracy and human rights.

.

---

.

[1] Paul, Richard, and Elder, Linda. (2022). An Introduction to the Art of Socratic Questioning, p. 12. Tehran: Akhtaran Publishing

[2] Ghazi Moradi, Hassan. (2022). An Introduction to Critical Thinking, pp. 217-310. Tehran: Akhtaran Publishing

[3] Paul, Richard, and Elder, Linda. (2022). An Introduction to the Art of Socratic Questioning, p. 29. Tehran: Akhtaran Publishing

[4] Paul, Richard, and Elder, Linda. (2021). An Introduction to Analytical Thinking, p. 27. Akhtaran Publishing

[5] Ibid., pp. 13-14

[6] Ibid., p. 29

[7] Ibid., p. 30

.

---

.