(DOWNLOAD) "Editor's Introduction: Who Are Our Contemporary Gadflies?" by Journal of Thought # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Editor's Introduction: Who Are Our Contemporary Gadflies?
- Author : Journal of Thought
- Release Date : January 22, 2006
- Genre: Education,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 167 KB
Description
Socrates is well known for being an intellectual gadfly, questioning many popular or unpopular ideas that were unreflectively assumed by the masses or individuals to be true. He is often viewed as eroding confidence in a host of cherished beliefs, whether ancient or contemporary from his perspective. Many others, both before and after Socrates' time, have been gadflies, too. The value that is placed on Socratic questioning, however, was in his time and still is frequently diminished or dismissed, especially by those who overemphasize economy and efficiency when pursuing goals and outcomes. The dogmatic and ideologically driven of all persuasions have likewise often questioned the value of others' doubts and inquiries. In addition, so-called practical- and action-oriented people are sometimes inclined to write off important controversies as they rush toward simple solutions to complex and complicated issues. Listing oneself as a gadfly, therefore, on one's curriculum vitae may be ill-advised in many situations, especially if one is seeking a position in certain public policy circles or many education preparation programs, unless one can provide cogent evidence that her or his gadflyish tendencies are focused on the approved or sanctioned list of top ten ideas opposed by a set of policymakers or a cadre of professors. One-sided gadflies, so it seems, are commonly preferred over gadflies who engage in critiques of their own ideas as well as appraisals of the beliefs of their family members. Why would any of us welcome criticism of our own deeply admired assumptions, theories, data, paradigms, fads, practices, and prescriptions? Certainly, reigning, advancing, and passing ideologues too infrequently look favorably on those who critique familial presuppositions and pursuits. Since we seem more inclined to cross-examine others rather than ourselves, Octavio Paz's claim that we should begin our criticisms with a critique of ourselves appears worth remembering. Likewise, John Dewey's complementary notion that we should allow both orthodox and unorthodox ideas to be studied and examined in classrooms may be a thought that is worth practicing. Nor should we overlook Maxine Greene's ideas of the need for "criticism from within" as well as for seeing things through the eyes of strangers. Of course, there are many factors that may influence whether we or others are consistently or habitually gadflies. Undoubtedly, we may assume--even if such is partially unfounded--we are gadflies if we measure ourselves by the thinking we sometimes see in general society. But are we gadflies among ourselves? Or do we silence one another by our unwritten but newly enshrined beliefs when we attack colleagues rather then their arguments or employ logic stoppers to suggest that further inquiry could only issue from a deep misunderstanding of a sacrosanct idea? Do we look for people who think like we do when we pursue faculty searches or do we want iconoclasts? Do we offer either traditional or progressive candidates in our fields faculty positions? Do we prefer mainstream conservatives, liberals, or radicals instead? Do we welcome intellectual diversity or do we seek to homogenize and indoctrinate our students? If our colleagues have resisted our ideological melting pot, can they earn tenure and be promoted? Do we listen to those who think otherwise in order to learn from them or are we mostly preparing our counterarguments to rebut what we consider an antiquated or dangerous idea that we have heard or inferred? Do we yield to the temptation to believe that our paradigmatic friends are the real gadflies?