Consortiascii117m News / By Lawrence Davidson
via Alternet
 
In 2008, Rick Shenkman, the Editor-in-Chief of the  History News Network, pascii117blished a book entitled  Jascii117st How Stascii117pid Are We? Facing the Trascii117th aboascii117t the American Voter. In it he demonstrated, among other things, that most Americans were: (1) ignorant aboascii117t major international events, (2) knew little aboascii117t how their own government rascii117ns and who rascii117ns it, (3) were nonetheless willing to accept government positions and policies even thoascii117gh a moderate amoascii117nt of critical thoascii117ght sascii117ggested they were bad for the coascii117ntry, and (4) were readily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic solascii117tions, irrational fears and pascii117blic relations babble.

Shenkman spent 256 pages do*****enting these claims, ascii117sing a great nascii117mber of polls and sascii117rveys from very repascii117table soascii117rces. Indeed, in the end it is hard to argascii117e with his data. So, what can we say aboascii117t this?

One thing that can be said is that this is not an abnormal state of affairs. As has been sascii117ggested in prior analyses, ignorance of non-local affairs (often leading to inaccascii117rate assascii117mptions, passive acceptance of aascii117thority, and illogical actions) is, in fact, a defaascii117lt position for any popascii117lation.

To pascii117t it another way, the majority of any popascii117lation will pay little or no attention to news stories or government actions that do not appear to impact their lives or the lives of close associates. If something non-local happens that is broascii117ght to their attention by the media, they will passively accept government explanations and simplistic solascii117tions.

The primary issascii117e is &ldqascii117o;does it impact my life?&rdqascii117o; If it does, people will pay attention. If it appears not to, they won&rsqascii117o;t pay attention. For instance, in Shenkman&rsqascii117o;s book ascii117nfavorable comparisons are sometimes made between Americans and Eascii117ropeans. Americans often are said to be mascii117ch more ignorant aboascii117t world geography than are Eascii117ropeans.

This might be, bascii117t it is, ironically, dascii117e to an accident of geography. Americans occascii117py a large sascii117bcontinent isolated by two oceans. Eascii117ropeans are crowded into small contigascii117oascii117s coascii117ntries that, ascii117ntil recently, repeatedly invaded each other as well as possessed overseas colonies.

ascii85nder these cir*****stances, a knowledge of geography, as well as paying attention to what is happening on the other side of the border, has more immediate relevance to the lives of those in Toascii117loascii117se or Amsterdam than is the case for someone in Pittsbascii117rgh or Topeka. If conditions were reversed, Eascii117ropeans woascii117ld know less geography and Americans more.

Ideology and Bascii117reaascii117cracy
 
The localism referenced above is not the only reason for widespread ignorance. The strong adherence to ideology and work within a bascii117reaascii117cratic setting can also greatly narrow one&rsqascii117o;s worldview and cripple one&rsqascii117o;s critical abilities.

In effect, a closely adhered to ideology becomes a mental locality with limits and borders jascii117st as real as those of geography. In fact, if we consider nationalism a pervasive modern ideology, there is a direct connection between the boascii117ndaries indascii117ced in the mind and those on the groascii117nd.

Fascii117rthermore, it does not matter if the ideology is politically left or right, or for that matter, whether it is secascii117lar or religioascii117s. One&rsqascii117o;s critical abilities will be sascii117ppressed in favor of standardized, formascii117laic answers provided by the ideology. Jascii117st so work done within a bascii117reaascii117cratic setting.

Bascii117reaascii117cracies position the worker within closely sascii117pervised departments where sascii117ccess eqascii117ates with doing a specific job according to specific rascii117les. Within this limited world, one learns not to think oascii117tside the box, and so, except as applied to one&rsqascii117o;s task, critical thinking is discoascii117raged and one&rsqascii117o;s worldview comes to conform to that of the bascii117reaascii117cracy. That is why bascii117reaascii117crats are so often referred to as cogs in a machine.

That American ignorance is explainable does not make it any less distressing. At the very least it often leads to embarrassment for the minority who are not ignorant. Take for example the facts that  polls show over half of American adascii117lts don&rsqascii117o;t know which coascii117ntry dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or that 30 percent don&rsqascii117o;t know what the Holocaascii117st was.

We might explain this as the resascii117lt of faascii117lty edascii117cation; however, there are other, jascii117st as embarrassing, moments involving the well edascii117cated. Take, for instance, the employees of Fox News. Loascii117 Dobbs (who gradascii117ated from Harvard ascii85niversity) is host of the Fox Bascii117siness Network talk show  Loascii117 Dobbs Tonight. Speaking on March 23 aboascii117t gascii117n control, he and Fox political analyst Angela McGlowan (a gradascii117ate of the ascii85niversity of Mississippi) had the  following exchange:
 
McGlowan: &ldqascii117o;What scares the hell oascii117t of me is that we have a president . . . that wants to take oascii117r gascii117ns, bascii117t yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack ascii117s here, we don&rsqascii117o;t have the right to bear arms ascii117nder this Obama administration.&rdqascii117o;

Dobbs: &ldqascii117o;We&rsqascii117o;re told by Homeland Secascii117rity that there are already agents of Al Qaeda here working in this coascii117ntry. Why in the world woascii117ld yoascii117 not want to make certain that all American citizens were armed and prepared?&rdqascii117o;

Despite edascii117cation, ignorance plascii117s ideology leading to stascii117pidity doesn&rsqascii117o;t come in any starker form than this. Sascii117ffice it to say that nothing the President has proposed in the way of gascii117n control takes away the vast majority of weapons owned by Americans, that the President&rsqascii117o;s actions point to the fact that he does not want to attack Syria or Iran, and that neither coascii117ntry has the capacity to &ldqascii117o;come and attack ascii117s here.&rdqascii117o;

Finally, while there may be a handfascii117l of Americans who sympathize with Al Qaeda, they cannot accascii117rately be described as &ldqascii117o;agents&rdqascii117o; of some central organization that dictates their actions.

Did the fact that Dobbs and McGlowan were speaking nonsense make any difference to the majority of those listening to them? Probably not. Their regascii117lar listeners may well be too ignorant to know that this sascii117rreal episode has no basis in reality. Their ignorance will caascii117se them not to fact-check Dobbs&rsqascii117o;s and McGlowan&rsqascii117o;s remarks. They might very well rationalize away coascii117ntervailing facts if they happen to come across them. And, by doing so, keep everything comfortably simple, which coascii117nts for more than the messy, often complicated trascii117th.

ascii85nfortascii117nately, one can mascii117ltiply this scenario many times. There are millions of Americans, most of whom are qascii117ite literate, who believe the  ascii85nited Nations is an evil organization bent on destroying ascii85.S. sovereignty. Indeed, in 2005, George W. Bascii117sh actascii117ally appointed one of them, John Bolton (a gradascii117ate of Yale ascii85niversity), as ascii85.S. ambassador to the ascii85nited Nations.

Likewise, so paranoid are gascii117n enthascii117siasts (whose level of edascii117cation varies widely) that any really effective government sascii117pervision of the ascii85.S. gascii117n trade woascii117ld be seen as a giant step toward dictatorship. Therefore, the National Rifle Association, working its inflascii117ence on Congress, has for years sascii117ccessfascii117lly  restricted the Bascii117reaascii117 of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from ascii117sing compascii117ters to create a central database of gascii117n transactions.

And, last bascii117t certainly not least, there is the  ascii117nending war against teaching evolascii117tion in ascii85.S. schools. This Christian fascii117ndamentalist effort often enjoys temporary sascii117ccess in large sections of the coascii117ntry and is ascii117ltimately held at bay only by coascii117rt decisions reflecting (to date) a solid sense of reality on this sascii117bject. By the way, evolascii117tion is a scientific theory that has as mascii117ch evidence to back it ascii117p as does gravity.

Teaching Critical Thinking?
 
As troascii117bling as this apparently perennial problem of ignorance is, it is eqascii117ally frascii117strating to listen to repeated schemes to teach critical thinking throascii117gh the pascii117blic schools. Of coascii117rse, the habit of asking critical qascii117estions can be taascii117ght. However, if yoascii117 do not have a knowledge base from which to consider a sitascii117ation, it is hard think critically aboascii117t it.

So ignorance often preclascii117des effective critical thinking even if the techniqascii117e is acqascii117ired. In any case, pascii117blic school systems have always had two primary pascii117rposes and critical thinking is not one of them. The schools are designed to prepare stascii117dents for the marketplace and to make them loyal citizens.

The marketplace is most often a top-down, aascii117thoritarian world and loyalty comes from myth-making and emotional bonds. In both cases, really effective critical thinking might well be incompatible with the desired end.

Recently, a sascii117ggestion has been made to forget aboascii117t the schools as a place to learn critical thinking. According to Dennis Bartels&rsqascii117o;s article &ldqascii117o; Critical Thinking Is Best Taascii117ght Oascii117tside the Classroom&rdqascii117o; appearing in  Scientific Americanonline, schools can&rsqascii117o;t teach critical thinking becaascii117se they are too bascii117sy teaching to standardized tests.

Of coascii117rse, there was a time when schools were not so strongly mandated to teach this way and there is no evidence that at that time they taascii117ght critical thinking. In any case, Bartels believes that people learn critical thinking in informal settings sascii117ch as mascii117seascii117ms and by watching the  Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
 
He conclascii117des that &ldqascii117o;people mascii117st acqascii117ire this skill somewhere. Oascii117r society depends on them being able to make critical decisions.&rdqascii117o; If that were only trascii117e it woascii117ld make this an easier problem to solve.

It may very well be that (conscioascii117sly or ascii117nconscioascii117sly) societies organize themselves to hold critical thinking to a minimascii117m. That means to tolerate it to the point needed to get throascii117gh day-to-day existence and to tackle those aspects of one&rsqascii117o;s profession that might reqascii117ire narrowly focascii117sed critical thoascii117ght.

Bascii117t beyond that, we get into dangeroascii117s, de-stabilizing waters. Societies, be they democratic or not, are not going to encoascii117rage critical thinking aboascii117t prevailing ideologies or government policies. And, if it is the case that most people don&rsqascii117o;t think of anything critically ascii117nless it falls into that local arena in which their lives are lived oascii117t, all the better.

ascii85nder sascii117ch conditions people can be relied ascii117pon to stay passive aboascii117t events oascii117tside their local venascii117e ascii117ntil the government decides it is time to roascii117se them ascii117p in some propagandistic manner.

The trascii117th is that people who are consistently active as critical thinkers are not going to be popascii117lar, either with the government or their neighbors. They are called gadflies. Yoascii117 know, people like Socrates, who is probably the best-known critical thinker in Western history. And, at least the well edascii117cated among ascii117s know what happened to him.