The paper compares and contrasts the differences involving critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic reasoning. All the above mentioned processes aim at solving particular relevant issues in the society. When incorporated in the people’s activities and lifestyles, they are able to change one’s way of reasoning and their attitude toward particular issues in society. Despite their differences, critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic reasoning are all important aspects in personal development. Critical thinking is the capability of an individual think to clearly and wisely.
In the 1990s, feminists began to realize that women are being treated differently within their own gender, thus the term intersectionality was coined. Intersectionality became –especially more recently – a vital role in the feminist movement, in what is now called the fourth wave of
Intersectionality is described by Davis as “the interaction between gender, race, and other categories of difference in individual lives, social practices, institutional arrangements and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these interactions in terms of power”(p. 456, Davis). In relation to inequality and intersectionality, Browne and Misra discuss the anti-categorical approach which explains how by placing people in categories of race, class, and gender, we are only perpetuating inequality by continuing to acknowledge our differences. These categories are inherently intersectional, with race being gendered and “classed”, and gender being “raced” and classed”. (p. 468, Browne, Misra) In conclusion, race, gender, and intersectionality play a major role in understanding inequality. Intersectionality is about focusing on all the aspects of an individual or group's identity and how society treats them.
Learning things with this method doesn’t require critical thinking. Despite being pushed towards this learning process, the two students expressed their opposition to it. Each has their own thoughts of how material should be absorbed. This article is applicable to my research because it connects the relationship between critical thinking and writing by looking into how these students from another culture go about using critical thinking in their classes. Mehta, Sandhya Rao, and Rahma Al-Mahrooqi.
In Joe L. Kincheloe’s chapter on “Critical Constructivism” (2005) he argues that teachers and students aren’t challenged in their profession, liberal arts, and science. He supports that critical constructivism goes hand and hand with learning because it’s concerned about research, the practice of teaching, and its connection. He argues “knowers” construct the known and that what everyone else internalizes as truth. The places we come from shape our ideas of the world and our understanding. Collectively peoples social, historical, and cultural knowledge shapes who they are.
The concept of intersectionality refers to the interdependence of multiple socially constructed categories and how they interact and shape different levels of social inequality, oppression or privilege. Through the analysis of multiple, and often complicated, intersections of race, gender, religion, this essay exposes the institutional and interactional dimensions of in the narratives of gender and sexuality, heteronormativity and homosexuality. Before we explore the intersection of social identities within our environments, it is important that the meaning and significance of the term ‘social identity’ is explored. ‘Social identity’ refers to the social category which on belongs to; for example, this may include elements such as your race, class, gender, age, education, sex and religion to name a few (Shields, 2008:300). Using this, examples of social identify could be ‘female’, ‘white’ or ‘Christian’.
Critical Discourse Analysis regards language as a social practice (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, p. 2). It is a form of sociolinguistics. It considers the context of language use to be crucial (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, p. 2). As mentioned in the above paragraph that synthetic personalisation is not necessarily used in adverts only but in any text that has the function to persuade; so does Critical Discourse Analysis. It considers political, gender, institutional and also media discourses.
Critical discourse analysis is concerned to analyze how social and political inequalities are manifest in and reproduced through discourse. It is associated with researchers such as Norman Fairclough, Teun A. ven Dijk, and Ruth Wodak. Critical Discourse Analysis provides theories and method for the empirical study of the relation between discourse and social and cultural developments in different social domains. Critical Discourse Analysis is used as a label in two different ways: Norman Fairclough uses it both to describe the approach that he has developed and as the label for a broader movement within discourse analysis of which several approaches, including his own, are parts. Fairclough’s approach consists of a set of philosophical premises,
Discourses reflect social practice and the type of language used in discourse reveal the social relations. Fairclough and Wodak (1997, 271-80) describe the following points as tents of critical discourse analysis. 1. Social issues are discussed by CDA 2. Power relations are discursive 3.