Back in the 70’s at Penn State, I had an English teacher by the name of Mrs. Smythe. I remember her for two reasons. Firstly, she could never get my last name right. It’s a relatively simple name with only 2 vowels, if you don’t count the “Y”, and they are both the same letter (E). Yet every time she called on me in class, what came to her mind was Keany, Sweeney, or perhaps Denny, but she never really got to Deeny. Secondly, and more importantly, I remember her for an essay she assigned and discussed in class which I have thought about all of these years later. I have tried several times since to locate this essay entitled “On Thinking” without success, but I do remember the basic themes.

The author proposed that there are 3 levels of thinking; Level 1 is characterized as acceptance without critical analysis as is evident in one who follows the lead of someone else without applying their own critical judgement. There is not always a negative connotation for this level; we all do this, particularly on the basis of trust. As an example, when my wife gives me driving directions, I’ve learned to suspend my own critical analysis, because she is always right. I’ve learned to trust her judgment. Such is also true for family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, or leaders with whom we have developed a trustful relationship. For these relationships, trust is a mutual experience.

Level 2 is characterized by critical analysis of what we see, experience, or receive as information. We obviously need this skill to navigate in a complex world. As much as we would all like it to be otherwise, not all relationships are based on mutual trust. Healthy skepticism then becomes an important tool we use to intellectually challenge what we may not understand or agree with. The result of this process of critical analysis can be acceptance or rejection. Acceptance leads us back to the comfort of Level 1 and rejection can lead us further on to Level 3.

The real work is done at Level 3 where criticism is developed into constructive criticism. This requires work – it requires thoughtfulness and it requires trust. Because this does require work, I find that I spend the least amount of time here, yet it is the most important.

What I’ve come to believe all these years after reading that assigned essay is that the levels of thinking that the author proposed didn’t represent a hierarchy at all; I look at it more as a matrix – a thoughtful fabric we all weave. The trust that is required to suspend our criticism at Level 1 is also required at Level 3 to give and accept constructive criticism. Thoughtful discourse requires trustful mutualism. Critical analysis is a key component that can lead us to trust or carry us forward to constructive input or action.

Warning signs are everywhere that we may be stuck at one point or another in this matrix. In the absence of trust, we must use the tool of critical analysis to make our own judgments, but it is important not to stop at the level of criticism and call it done. There is still work to do. In many ways we have forgotten how to have a thoughtful discourse; criticisms are shouted through the megaphone of social media and leaders hide behind electronic firewalls from their constituents. Thoughtful discourse is the casualty of our time.

Our thoughtful relationships begin with trust and when it is lost, we must find it where we will and rebuild it. It begins with family, friends and neighbors and spreads out from there.

 

 

by Kevin Deeny, a lifelong resident of Levittown, PA.