write a summary (th)
k.b.a1399
social_justice_discourse.docxSocial Justice as a Form of Discourse Impacting Identity for Action
By Philip S. Mirci, Ph.D. (2015)
Introduction
Richard Paul (1992) wrote:
Because we do not come to our experience with a blank slate for a mind, because our thinking is already, at any given moment, moving in a direction, because we can form new ideas, beliefs, and patterns of thought only through the scaffolding of our previously formed thought, it is essential that we learn to think critically in environments in which a variety of competing ideas are taken seriously. … Knowledge is discovered by thinking, analyzed by thinking, organized by thinking, transformed by thinking… There is no way to take the thinking out of knowledge, or the struggle out of thinking, just as there is no way to create a neat and tidy step-by-step path to knowledge that all minds can mindlessly follow … But thinking requires counter-thinking, opposition and challenge, as well as support. We need reasons meaningful to us, some persuasive logic, to move our minds from one set of ideas or beliefs to another. In other words, we must “argue” ourselves out of our present thinking and into thinking that is more or less novel to us if we are to gain genuine knowledge [Critical thinking: what every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking, p. xi].
The search for truth and knowledge is one of the finest attributes of man ― though often it is most loudly voiced by those who strive for it the least.
The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems that cannot be solved at the same level of thinking at which we created them.
Constructivism, as a learning theory, was consistent with neuroscience research: the brain makes sense of experience by accessing its own existing knowledge base in order to interpret that experience. Furthermore, one’s identity is connected to this sense-making process. Thus, one’s own knowledge about self, others, and the world is limited. Intellectual humility is the discipline of bringing this awareness to different methods of knowing. Stephen Freeman (2000) summarized three different methods of knowing that were first stated by Charles Peirce in 1940:
The second method of knowing is the method of authority or established belief. This method has the weight of tradition and public sanction behind it. Many of the things we think we know have been handed down by tradition. People have also traditionally sought knowledge from those in positions of authority. History is replete with examples of kings and clerics who have dictated truth to the masses. Even now, this source is still used. The amount of information one is faced with is often overwhelming, and the method of authority allows it to be accepted at face value, without validation…
The third method of knowing is the method of a priori. This method responds to the question: “If facts are known, what is it that is known?” … a fact in a foreign frame of reference is not false, it is simply meaningless [Freeman, S. (2000). Ethics: An introduction to philosophy and practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth /Thompson, pp. 41-42].
An examination of these three methods reveals the limitations of one’s knowing. The first represents the acceptance of whatever is transmitted “as true” to be “true” without the unexamined assumptions ever being surfaced and identified within one’s thinking. The second reveals the dangers of blind acceptance of authority “at face value without validation.” Attempting to challenge this way of knowing usually is met with resistance because such “knowing” constitutes established belief that is publicly sanctioned and/or comes from tradition. The third method provides a means for making sense from experiences in terms of “knowledge categories” that answer the question: “If facts were known, what actually would be known?” For example, with the third method of knowing, a person can address whether or not behavior is consistent with espoused values. How many authoritative books regarding leadership address the power of unexamined assumptions in individual and organizational behavior that perpetuate social injustices?
The danger of naiveté regarding the concept of “objectivity”
Embedded within the individual and collective psyche of the Western world is the concept of “objectivity” as being absolute and beyond any degree of subjectivity. Thus, one’s mental model of reality usually is perceived to be correct and true. The sense of identity emerging from such perception is assumed without critical self-reflection regarding the extent to which one’s thinking may be determined by a worldview and conformity within it. Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2001) revealed the deceptive nature of one’s own thinking:
Humans live with the unrealistic but confident sense that we have fundamentally figured out the way things actually are, and that we have done this objectively. … Here are the most commonly used psychological standards in human thinking:
· “It’s true because I believe it.” Innate egocentrism: I assume that what I believe is true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of my beliefs.
· “It’s true because we believe it.” Innate sociocentrism: I assume that the dominant beliefs within the groups to which I belong are true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of these beliefs.
· “It’s true because I want to believe it.” Innate wish fulfillment: I believe in, for example, accounts of behavior that put me (or the groups to which I belong) in a positive rather than a negative light even though I have not seriously considered the evidence for the more negative account. I believe what “ feels good,” what supports my other beliefs, what does not require me to change my thinking is any significant way, what does not require me to admit I have been wrong.
· “It’s true because it is in my selfish interest to believe it.” Innate selfishness: I hold fast to beliefs that justify my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.
[Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle Back, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 212].
The difficulty of such thinking is recognizing when it is happening. Emotional commitments to certain beliefs, attitudes, practices, and expectations often are operative at an unconscious level:
When we understand that the mind naturally uses numerous methods for hiding its egocentrism [and sociocentrism] … And only when we become adept at detecting them can we take steps toward changing them [Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle Back, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 354-355].
Definition of Worldview
The dominant worldview in a society inevitably means that those without the social, economic, and political power usually are marginalized. Anyone wishing to be a social justice leader needs to cultivate intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, and intellectual courage. John Studley (1998) wrote:
Most of us are not conscious of our worldview. We do not learn it so much as absorb it from our surrounding culture. It is passed on from generation to generation with minimal change, the assumptions rarely being reviewed or revised. A worldview gives a culture structure, a subconscious legitimacy in the minds of the people. It serves as the basis for evaluation, judging and validating experience. It is a yardstick with which people measure events and circumstances in the culture, providing criteria of acceptability. It provides psychological reinforcement for a society's way of life. It creates a "we-they" dynamic; through a common worldview people identify with their society as opposed to all other societies. [Studley, J. (May 1998). Dominant knowledge systems and local knowledge. http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/studj98a.htm ].
Development of a worldview occurs within the context of relationships resulting in the “absorption” of beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and practices. Influences can shape how a person understands self, others, and the world.
Sociocentric Thinking and Worldview
Many people calling themselves leaders are content to function within a worldview shared by others. This is a form of compliance that may rob a person from individuating to the point of being able to question the unexamined assumptions upon which a worldview often is based. Before proceeding further, a definition of sociocentricity must be presented because it is often the unconscious but operative assumption governing a worldview:
Sociocentricity is the assumption that one’s own social group is inherently and self-evidently superior to all others. When a group or society sees itself as superior, and so considers its views as correct or as the only reasonable or justifiable views, and all its actions as justified, it has a tendency to presuppose this superiority in all of its thinking and, thus, to think closed-mindedly. Dissent and doubt are considered disloyal and are rejected. Few people recognize the sociocentric nature of much of their thought [p. 414].
The “cure” for ethnocentrism or sociocentrism is empathetic thought (thinking within the perspective of opposing groups and cultures). Empathetic thought is rarely cultivated. Instead, many give lip service to tolerance while privileging the beliefs, norms, and practices of their own culture.
Critical thinkers are aware of the sociocentric nature of virtually all human groups and resist the pressure of group-think that emerges from in-group thinking. They realize that universal ethical standards supersede group expectations and demands when questions of an ethical nature are at issue. They do not assume that the groups to which they belong are inherently superior to other groups. Instead, they attempt to critique every group accurately, seeking to determine its strengths and weaknesses. Their loyalty to a country is critically based on the principles and ideals of the country and is not based on uncritical loyalty to person, party, or national traditions [Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle Back, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 400].
Conformity within a Worldview
Humans are social: they exist within relational contexts. The challenge of a person wishing to become an ethical leader is being able to examine critically these contexts through the development of ethical reasoning. This is difficult because of one’s subjectivity in interpreting the contexts. Becoming more aware, at deeper and deeper levels, of one’s natural tendency towards sociocentrism constitutes an essential building block in ethical reasoning:
Not only are humans naturally egocentric but we are also easily drawn into sociocentric thinking and behavior. Groups offer us security to the extent that we internalize and unthinkingly conform to their rules, imperatives, and taboos. Growing up, we learn to conform to many groups. … Our unconscious acceptance of the values of the group leads to the unconscious standard: “It’s true if we believe it.” There seems to be no belief so absurd but that some group of humans irrationally accepts it as rational.
Not only do we accept the belief systems of the groups to which we belong, but most important, we act on those belief systems. For example, many groups are anti-intellectual in nature. …
In addition to face-to-face groups we are in, we are influenced indirectly by large-scale social forces that reflect our membership in society at large. For example, in capitalist societies, the dominant thinking is that people should strive to make as much money as possible, though this form of thinking, it might be argued, encourages people to accept a large gap between the haves and have-nots as right and normal.
Or consider this: Within mass societies the nature and solution to most public issues and problems are presented in sensationalized sound-bytes by television and news media. As a result, people often come to think about complex problems in terms of simplistic media-fostered solutions. Many people are led to believe that expressions such as “Get tough with criminals!” and “Three strikes and you’re out!” represent plausible ways to deal with complex social problems.
What is more, the portrayal of life in Hollywood movies exerts a significant influence on how we conceptualize ourselves, our problems, and our lives. Sociocentric influences are at work at every level of social life in both subtle and blatant ways. There are many sociocentric forces in society them [Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle Back, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 355-356].
Complexity, Conformity, and the Illusion of Critical Thinking
The human person is complex. In examining Murray Bowen’s concepts of “togetherness force,” “individuality force,” “self-differentiation,” and “societal regression” or “societal emotional process,” the key understanding is that ethical development necessitates differentiating from unconscious, unexamined, and uninformed beliefs, attitudes, values, practices, and ways of behaving that we’ve absorbed from worldview influences shaping one’s perceptions of a sense of self, others, and the world.
Pursuit of personal development towards becoming an ethical leader can create within a person an identity crisis. This may occur as a result of consciously and intentionally realizing that ethical leadership is inseparable from one’s stance regarding social justice. Because social justice involves consciously and intentionally reshaping institutions, an ethical leader begins seeing unjust institutional practices and beliefs that previously were “invisible” to him/her. Coming to such insight may well be impossible as long as one remains immersed in his/her current uncritical worldview defined through habitual egocentric and sociocentric reasoning.
Richard Paul, in a text, now considered a classic defined critical thinking standards. These need to be developed within us. Without cultivation of these standards, people often operate in ways that constitute micro-aggressions towards other people. The following are four of the intellectual standards [Paul, R., 1992. Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking]:
Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand. (Paul, 1992, p. 652)
Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs. (Paul, 1992, p. 652)
Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe. (Paul, 1992, p. 651)
Moral Fairmindedness: Willingness and consciousness of the need to entertain all moral viewpoints sympathetically and to assess them with the same intellectual standards without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one’s friends, community, or nation; implies adherence to moral [intellectual] standards without reference to one’s own advantage or the advantage of one’s group. (Paul, 1992, p. 2530
Summary
Social injustices have existed in the United States in the forms of institutionalized oppression. Young people in schools have remained especially vulnerable to the following forms of hate:
· Racism
· Sexism
· Heterosexism
· Classism
· Ableism
· Sizeism
· Ageism
· Audism
· Religious Intolerance
Often religious intolerance has manifested itself in the very perpetuation of these “isms.”
Developing social justice discourse will be limited and distorted to the degree that a person remains committed to her/his egocentricity, ethnocentricity, and sociocentricity. Given the critical need for social justice leaders and advocates, people unwilling to pursue personal paradigm shifts (i.e., engage in transformative adult learning) remain liabilities within the education system and society.
2
1
