> Isn't there something of a contradiction between developing ability to
> think rigorously (vigorously ?) and developing critical thinking
> skills ? Rigor requires strict adherence to complex thoughts of
> others, and it is difficult simultaneously be critical of what one
> develops the ability to strictly adhere to. The enthusiasm for ideas
> necessary to discipline oneself to handle them rigorously is
> undermined by thinking about the same ideas critically.
>
> It is difficult to read more than forty pages of something in a state
> of mind that is highly critical of what one is reading.
>
> Charles
>
>
Nope, no contradiction. Critical thinking - individual or collective,
instructional or political - absolutely necessitates analytic rigor. So
many students of read without rigor and, at best, generate utterly exogenous
critiques... critiques inconceivable to anyone who read closely, rigorously
and fairly. I am not saying that exogenous critiques are unfair or
useless. I am saying that it takes rigorous thinking and fairness to
generate good and fair endogenous critique.
Good criticism is rooted in rigorous efforts to fairly understand a text,
its context, its production, etc. You don't have to be civil, as Doug
argued, but to be critical you do need to be rigorous.
As a teacher, it IS a struggle to teach both close reading, analytic
distance and critical engagement. But a good part of this difficulty lies
in the fact that my students often do no reading, usually do cursory
readings, sometimes do a single good reading and just about never do
repeated readings.