Critical thinking in a time of crybabies

In the early 2000s, I was interacting with other Filipino writers on online forums. One day, a new writer came and shared Filipino history gossip that was so fascinating, I had to ask where she got her sources. Her reply: I don’t need to read; I’m a history buff.

The forum ignored her from that point forward. This was telling of a stigma attached to anyone too eager to prove expertise. They were only as good as their sources, their willingness to update themselves constantly, their excitement at reading and questioning.

We all knew our basic good sense and scholarship. The forum interactions were, implicitly, a national consciousness being formed in real time. No one could substitute bravado for research.

In recent years, we’ve seen a decline, at least on social media, of respect for history and truth. This is threatening to be more permanent and socially acceptable; however, the Commission on Higher Education proposed a new General Education (GE) curriculum that collapses history and other humanities subjects into purported interdisciplinary courses.

In a joint statement, Adhika ng Pilipinas, Inc., Bagong Kasaysayan, Inc., the Philippine Historical Association, and the Philippine National Historical Society warned that this would “[privilege] narrow utilitarian outcomes over holistic intellectual and civic formation” and reduce education to skills acquisition “without a coherent sense of purpose or responsibility.”

This runs contrary to the aims of higher education, which should “cultivate informed, reflective, and responsible citizens who are capable of critical thought, ethical reasoning, and meaningful participation in society.” History, in particular, can develop the capacity “to think critically, interpret complexity, and exercise sound judgement.”

Without deep engagement with history and without nurturing the disciplines that sustain our dreams and stories as a nation, we risk weakening our collective memory. We lose our sense of direction. We lose the ability to see our lives as a product of context, the past, our stories, and our culture. We therefore need to educate our students meaningfully so that their understanding of the world is cultivated and deepened.

Those of us who had a large menu of GE courses often employ tools from history classes in our daily habits. We keep tabs on current events, recognize the threads of colonization and culture permeating them, project the future based on knowledge of the past. We read and acknowledge our limits. We archive evidence.

These habits were on full display last week, when the Senate once again exploded into drama.

One senator cried foul after being publicly corrected by another and threatened to file an ethics complaint. Internet users were quick to remind him that he had once called the youth “weak” because they could not stomach criticism—a statement for which he no longer had the moral high ground.

Another senator wailed about why no one had cared enough to ask how she was doing after she endured the so-called direct attack on the Senate.

A casual observer would have attributed the outpouring to a belated processing of trauma manifesting as raw emotion—except social media also had receipts to trot out.

There were photos of some of the senators smiling and enjoying dinner on the night of the so-called attack. Some of them had even posted live videos on social media. A senator showed a screenshot of the Senate group chat, where the senators who had left had actually checked on the senators left behind inside the Senate when the attacks supposedly took place. Later, an assessment of the CCTV footage showed no evidence of any such attack.

The people actually caught in the crossfire? The media, who continued to report and archive, with no meltdowns or whining.

The internet dug deeper into its archives. People asked if the sobbing senator had ever thought of asking how people were doing after major floods, considering that she had not signed the flood control corruption report.

Had she ever asked about the everyday lives of Filipinos who had to deal with traffic, inflation, and other problems much bigger than someone moaning about an event that looked less like an attack and more like a smokescreen to enable a fugitive’s escape?

True appreciation of history allows people to recognize good senators as those who actually follow the law that they say they uphold, and enforce the law that they are tasked to safeguard.

Critical thinking and archiving aren’t just for history buffs. They are a product of good education in the criticality of the humanities and the logic of the social sciences. That kind of education teaches people to read and remember, to link principles to actions, track records to words—and then decide for themselves which pleas to believe, and which tears to ignore.

That’s good citizenship—and education has to ensure that it continues, or we’ll keep suffering under second-rate Senate dramas that insult our intelligence and waste our taxes.

—————-

iponcedeleon@ateneo.edu

******

Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber