Critical Thinking and Monstrosity

This course teaches critical thinking, both in terms of literacy and production/design; how to think critically about the media you are exposed to -- literature, comics, essays, films, web-sites etc. -- and how to apply critical thinking to intelligently design your own media.

Critical thinking is a set of skills, habits and methods than can be applied to any type of knowledge, whether that knowledge is concerned with monsters or marketing, literature or computer science, history or medicine etc.  Whenever you work to objectively understand what something means, how it works, or you judge something's quality, you are applying critical thinking. Conversely, whenever you design something -- whether it's graphic, linguistic, material, mechanical etc -- that will be meaningful, functional and valuable, you apply critical thinking in your design/creative process.

Because the general critical thinking method is generally universal, learning how to think critically about one thing -- such as "monsters" -- prepares you to think critically about anything. The content changes, but the process, frame of mind and habits are generally consistent.

The basic elements of critical thinking are often considered to be objectivity, analysis and evaluation.

Objectivity refers to privileging factual, verifiable and verified/proven information or data and facts and logical, rational thinking above emotion, belief and doctrine. In this way, critical thinking is both a state of mind and an approach to knowledge. Objective thinking requires that one research and analyze before reaching conclusions and evaluating and that one privilege verifiable, factual or objective information over subjective perception and experience (note: different epistemes, contexts and cultures privilege different approaches to knowledge.)

Analysis is the process of breaking down a single thing (any idea, a story, an argument, a book, a film, a human body, a bridge, a motor, the essence of gravity, a crime -- anything) into its integral parts, identifying/naming those parts, and examining the relationship between the parts as they work together to form the whole, the original single thing.

Evaluation is the process of judging the relative merit or value of a thing, judging whether it is good or bad, better or worse than another thing, worthwhile or worthless, true or false etc.  We evaluate information all the time -- is an argument true or false? was a movie good or bad? is rap better than country? is my room-mate telling me the truth? am I having fun? who is the bigger liar, Kerry or Bush? --  but when we use critical thinking to evaluate information we base our judgment on our objective analysis of factual information. We withhold our judgment until we have verifiable facts to base it upon.

(Note: your teachers are supposed to grade you using these skills, habits, approaches to your work.)

Essence and Process

In this course, we are primarily interested in thinking critically about two sets of knowledge, which can analyzed (separated and labeled) into two different categories; there are many different terms used to define the two categories, but they essentially mean the same thing.

In each case it should be clear that the first element is the thing, idea, or the information and the second element is the method or means of presenting it, the media used to inform and persuade the audience of the content.   

 etcetera ad naseum

It should be clear that it is impossible to know anything about the first element of the set -- the thing itself: its essence -- without exposure to the second element: the process thru which we came to know it; the second element is whatever means is used to convey information about the first element. Therefore, the two elements are inherently linked in important ways, and understanding the thing itself or idea necessitates understanding the means or media. You cannot, for example, understand Frankenstein's creature unless you understand how Mary Shelley presented him to you.

Most importantly, we can also say that all you really see of the thing itself is the media; your perceptions of the idea are formed based on the persuasiveness, structure, design, composition etc used to inform you. You don't really "know" Frankenstein's creature because you've never really seen it; you "know" the book, the films, the lectures etc. You don't really know "cloning"; you know what you were told about cloning, and that probably includes hundreds of hours of movies and stories to every hour of actual study you've ever done on the topic. You cannot understand why you think cloning is bad (and idea) unless you understand Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Essence and Process in This Course

In this course, then, each time we examine a monster and the works (novels, films, web pages etc) the two categories are Monster Essence and Monster Process, or The Monster and The Work. Or we can think of these two categories as two sets of questions:

1) What is the essence of the idea (in this case "the monster")? What are the elements that make it a monster?

2) What process is used to make the idea interesting, clear and persuasive (why do we believe the monster is a monster?)? What are the media elements used to make the argument compelling?

Example:

1) Frankenstein's Creature. What are the essential qualities that made it a monster? What does it think, do and feel etc?

2) Mary Shelley's novel. How is the novel structured or designed, how is the story told or written, in ways that convince us to believe it is valid, accurate, true, interesting etc? How did the work persuade us to see the creature, morality, ourselves etc in a certain way?

Following are the key questions we will ask repeatedly as we seek to understand and evaluate: first, what is the essence of the monster and, second, what is the process or representation thru which we come to know it, and, often, third, how does the essence and process vary between different works or media portraying the same creature?

1) The Monster, Essence; the Thing Itself: What is the essence of monstrosity; what elements come together to form the structure of the monster?

Who is the monster?

Who is the hero?

According to the story, how was the monster physically created; what was the actual process through which the monster came into being? Why was the monster created; what was the creator or creators’ purpose in creating the creature or thing that became a “monster”?

What normative values does the creature transgress to become demonized; what does the creature do that earns it the right of becoming labeled a “monster”?

What is the creature’s motivation for transgressing these values? Why does it act in ways considered “monstrous”?

How does the culture or hero deal with the monster; what normative values does the culture or hero reaffirm as it deals with the monster?

What distinguishes the hero from the monster?

Evaluate the monster; is it really a monster? Does it earn its demonization?

2) The Process or Work, Structure and Argument; The Representation

How does the work use structure (information design, style, language or other compositional elements like lighting and music, color etc etc) to make the idea, story or argument compelling? What elements are employed to capture the audience’s attention and elicit an emotional response (specify which elements are intended to elicit which specific emotional responses).

How does the work use structure to make the monster persuasive?

How does the work use structure to make the hero persuasive?

What plot elements make it difficult to distinguish the hero from the monster?

What is the work’s central thematic message or argument concerning monstrosity? How are characters demonized and "othered"? Note and cite specific elements of the work that compel the audience to reach conclusions concerning the nature of monstrosity and just or “heroic” responses to that monstrosity.

In what ways does the work confirm common conceptions of the nature of monstrosity and heroism?

In what ways does the work revolutionize or undermine common conceptions of the nature of monstrosity and heroism?

Evaluate the work. Is it compelling and interesting, well or poorly crafted or designed? Is it persuasive? Is it accurate or true?

3) Same Monster, Different Work   How is the same creature or monster is treated in different works or different media.

Which media or work does a better job, and why?

How is the same story or general thematic message is conveyed and argued in different media.

What can be learned from the way some elements are radically changed or omitted while the message yet retains its central meaning?