Teaching Critical Thinking or Teaching Empathy

What such an approach fails to recognise is that it is often very difficult to recognise false news, or at least false arguments (those which you do not happen to agree with?). At the extremes, in a small number of cases, this might be possible. However, most commentators do believe what they are writing, and do believe that they have arrived at that position rationally and through a process of critical thinking, a position that, if the other side had all the facts, they would also agree with. It is obviously the case that those who post on social media use dog whistle phrases and sensationalist statements, with little care about their veracity, to incite others and to stir up trouble. The only people who respond to this, however, are largely those who agree with the positions that the commentators are propounding.

No amount of critical thinking, without either coming from a specific (and different) perspective, or without creating a cynical attitude to all online information, can really stop any of us being attracted to those posts, and those commentators, or those arguments, that already support what we are thinking. And when we do find these posts, we are far from likely to want to engage in a critical analysis of what the writer is saying (and that probably includes those of you who are reading this and share my, rather bizarre, perspective…)

I emphasise again, the teaching of critical thinking skills, the basics of hermeneutics, and an understanding of ideology is valuable and essential. I would clearly endorse that, but I would also say that that is only half the battle.

It is well known that both the algorithms contained in social media, and individual’s natural attraction to sites and to information, mean that most of us are drawn to, and shown, primarily that material that already conforms to our own interests and values. It is also clear that we are far less critical of that material that does reinforce what we already think. Critical thinking, therefore, can only take us so far. None of us really have the detachment necessary to be critical of all that we read, and that level of disengagement is very difficult to teach, even if we think it might be desirable.

Alongside critical thinking, therefore, we also need to teach empathy. I had originally thought to say that we needed to teach ‘values’, and part of me still wants to say that. ‘Values’, however, does not fully capture what it is that I am trying to suggest. There are clear ‘values’ that underpin empathy, including openness, tolerance, respect of the other, etc. and we cannot teach empathy without inculcating these values. However, it is empathy, the willingness and ability to listen to, and to hear, the views and perspectives of the other, that I think is what we need to be teaching. Empathy, and the results of engaging empathetically, can also provide the first step in critical thinking, in recognising what a statement or post is trying to say and engaging with it appropriately.

Some people say that empathy is taught primarily through the arts and the humanities, and that this is one reason we need to sustain these disciplines within our universities. I agree with that, but I have also met many scientists who show exemplary empathy and know of many sciences that benefit from the application of empathy, including social sciences such as anthropology, but also many others. It is also the case that many products of the arts and humanities express something that is antithetical to what I might call ‘empathy’, but that is probably a different discussion. Empathy, therefore, is not the preserve of the arts and humanities, but they may certainly be a good place to start.

Finally, therefore, just a reflection on my own experience. I have found that there are two groups in society for whom it is particularly difficult, but perhaps particularly important, to teach empathy. The first are those who are already excluded and ostracised. If others do not recognise a particular group, engage with them through stereotypes and expect nothing but trouble from them, then they are far less likely to be empathetic to the ones who are excluding them, and nor, perhaps should we expect them to be so. There are, of course, many in such situation who do show exemplary skills at empathy, especially for others in a similar situation, although perhaps of a different group from themselves, but my point that it becomes so much more difficult to teach empathy for those who are not the recipients of it from others. There are many in society who fall into this category, but young men from our more deprived communities are perhaps the most obvious group.

The second group may be more of surprise. This is the group of those who are privileged. Not all privilege is white. By ‘the privileged’ I am thinking of all those who assume, without reflection, that society is organised in a way that will benefit them, those who have the knowledge, experience and social capital to expect everything to go their way. It is a very difficult concept to define, but we do all know it when we see it. Such privilege often means that those who have it do not recognise or even see those who are excluded. It is this self-containment, perhaps even self-satisfaction, the assumption that everything is as it should be simply because that is what they have come to expect, that makes it difficult to teach ‘empathy’. However, we must attempt to do this among this group, just as much as amongst the dispossessed, if we are going to begin to reduce the levels of intolerance and violence within our society.