Stop Telling People to “Think for Yourself!”

Summary

The article critiques the superficial use of the phrase "Think for Yourself," arguing that it often masks a desire for others to conform to the thinker's own beliefs, and advocates for a deeper engagement with traditions and ideas to truly think independently.

Abstract

The article discusses the problematic nature of the common exhortation to "Think for Yourself," particularly in educational settings. It highlights theologian Stanley Hauerwas' approach, who encouraged his students to engage deeply with his own beliefs before forming their own. The author suggests that the call to independent thought frequently disguises an expectation to align with the speaker's views. The article argues for the importance of understanding and choosing one's intellectual heritage, rather than simply rejecting all tradition in pursuit of individualism. It emphasizes that true independent thinking involves recognizing the influence of past and present ideas and consciously deciding which traditions to follow and why.

Opinions

Stanley Hauerwas' educational philosophy is presented as a counterpoint to the "Think for Yourself" mantra, suggesting that students should first grapple with their mentor's deeply held beliefs.
The author criticizes the hypocrisy of those who preach independent thought but actually expect conformity to their own ideas.
Educators who promote "thinking for yourself" may hypocritically only accept answers that align with their own teachings during assessments.
The article points out that the phrase "Think for Yourself" can be used to dismiss differing worldviews without genuine engagement or understanding.
It is argued that the modern emphasis on individualism and non-conformity often leads to a different kind of conformity, as people's beliefs end up being more similar than they realize

And Then Think Like Me When Explaining Why

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas has an unconventional take on his student’s educational sovereignty. He told them he didn’t want them making up their minds. Instead of thinking for themselves, Hauerwas wanted them to believe as he did.

For those raised in Western culture, this objective appears outrageously backward (and it doesn’t help that it comes from a theologian). But what at first seems moronic, Hauerwas has a point.

His reasoning allows students to find their respective voices, but only after grappling with what Hauerwas cared for so deeply. When someone says, “Think for Yourself!” it often disguises that the person stating this wants you to think like them. Hauerwas is honest. We all want others to believe things in the same manner we do.

The goal in education is indeed to move forward in our thinking and self-identification. Mindless repetition or blind acceptance is what we’re concerned about here.

And yet, the irony of “thinking for yourself” is how it does this exact thing today — that is, blindly deferring to the person who’s telling you to think for yourself.

I’ve still found many educators using the “think for yourself” mantra when teaching their subjects. But come assessment time, the very same educators look for the solutions provided in their classwork. Free thinking is acceptable only when it is in conjunction with the instructor’s parameters.

Even worse is when “thinking for yourself” is employed to dismiss another worldview outright without investigation. Entire belief systems get ignored under the banner of a brainwashed interlocutor. The assumption is they’ve failed to think independently.

In these cases, “thinking for yourself” claims the high ground. These lost souls warrant no more engagement.

Of course, a problem occurs when the brainwashed person has thought through their position with reasonable and genuine conviction. If the “thinking for yourself” person fails to address these convictions, how much thinking are they doing?

Today’s sensibilities steer clear from uniformity. It’s a hallmark of our modern individualism. And it’s no better summarized in the romanticized plea to think for oneself.

Still, this self-reliant freethinking produces a whole lot of conformity. The reality is people believing they “think for themselves” aren’t as different as they’d like to admit (and wearing eccentric fashion or consuming unknown eco-products doesn’t count).

The thing is, I don’t see this as a bad thing. Admitting we place ourselves in a thinking tradition is a solid place to start with one’s self-identity.

We lie to ourselves if we believe that “thinking for yourself” arrives without a guiding heritage. We are all storied beings with a past and will continue to be so in the future. You cannot escape traditions (be it traditional Christianity or progressive secularism), only differently chosen.

Once admitted, the real question becomes, “Who do you want to think like and why?” It’s here where things get off the ground with self-identity. The ability to answer this question allows one to know both the story they follow and why they have chosen it.

Only then is a person capable of thinking independently. Being well-informed is understanding these traditions and people that form us — either by choice or assimilation. It’s less “thinking for yourself” and more “I’ve chosen to think like this because ___________.”

Next time you hear someone say, “Think for yourself!” ask them whether they’re doing it themselves. Can the person articulate what “thinking for yourself” means? If not, they’re likely less of a free-thinker than they suppose.