His feedback was outdated, presumptuous, but worst of all, was delivered without an ounce of tact.
LAHORE: This is with reference to Chris Cork’s article, “The LUMS bubble” (March 20). The programme Mr Cork mentions in his recent article, known as The Hatchery, is one I have registered my own student organisation, Open Letters, for. I was looking forward to the session he was going to conduct until he sent in an initial round of feedback on everyone’s projects. I refused to attend his session once I went through his comments. The ‘feedback’ he sent in was anything but constructive. It was outdated, presumptuous, but worst of all, was delivered without an ounce of tact.
One of the things Open Letters, the organisation I co-founded, works on is the development of an artistic community actively engaged with one another and the wider public. Facilitating such groups for more than a year, I have learnt that feedback is only as good as how it is delivered. One can make an excellent point about the flaws of a certain piece, but the person for whom it is intended is likely to be unreceptive if the point is stated in an artless way. Most of Mr Cork’s comments were desperate attempts to be funny, when the situation really demanded a non-judgmental, sober tone. Even if you have wisdom to offer, it is better to not offer it like it is some privilege the other person does not deserve.
Another of Open Letters’ projects involves developing arts education programmes for schools, which may help young students think critically. I may still be new to the field, but I have done enough research to know that the issue of critical thinking is not as simple as Mr Cork makes it sound. Critical thinking is impossible without language proficiency (it’s harder to think creatively or analytically in a language one is not adept in) and Mr Cork’s ignorance of this has clearly swayed his conclusion. Neither is critical thinking particularly evident in other more advanced countries of the world. To say that the achievements of more advanced countries are the result of superior thinking is a weak argument to make, for it discounts the history and the specific contingencies of their rise. It also assumes a stage-driven view of critical thinking. As if there is only one specific path down which our thoughts should progress and that this path holds true for thinkers in all places and at all times. As if the standards for good thinking are immutable and eternal and not at all determined by certain moral or pragmatic considerations. However, what concerns me most about Mr Cork’s article is why he thinks that a half-day consultation with 15-odd students of a university is enough to form general conclusions about its entire student body.
I ask Mr Cork this: did he ever do the same during his own illustrious career in the Pakistani development sector? I wish I could talk at length about how problematic his views on ‘critical and analytic thinking’ are. But, for now, I think it’s enough to say that anyone comfortable with making such sweeping generalisations needs to look long and hard at their own thinking before they write about how others should think.
Ahmed Shah Durrani
LUMS, Class of 2014
Published in The Express Tribune, March 21st, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
