Well, I would regale readers with my very own elevator encounters, as one of my fellow writers did last week, except I have none. No Magic Johnson, no Moses, no phenomenal Ali. Nope, nary a one.
Well, there was one which might qualify as a “minor encounter.” I shared an elevator for three floors with a kind of well-known ultra conservative female speaker named Phyllis. I think I safely can quote another well known female, Shania Twain, when I say “It don’t impress me much.” To be fair, the non-impression was completely mutual. I recognized her. She, however, did not recognize me. I am almost certain high school English teacher infamy only travels so far.
She did, however, appear to read the writing on my T-shirt. At which point we managed to stand physically and philosophically as far apart as two people can be in a four-foot elevator.
Well, that’s all I got. Recalling that momentary encounter brought to my mind the concept of flexible inflexibility. I know, sometimes it doesn’t seem clear even to me how those connections evolve in my fuzzy, at best, thinking process. But there it is.
Flexibility in thinking is a rare animal in today’s world. Listening to almost anyone talk or to read any number of columns in print, one could get the impression that there is absolutely no room out there for anyone to even consider that his position — personal, political, philosophical — could perhaps benefit from a little open-mindedness. It’s like everyone knows exactly what he thinks and further, knows that his position is absolutely the right one — the only right one. Consequently, people having conversations are flummoxed and honest debate is virtually nonexistent.
To converse and to debate successfully, individuals involved need to agree to some pretty basic ground rules. Voice volume does not equal “right.” Name calling is detrimental to furthering a civilized discussion. People can disagree with something said without totally invalidating the other person’s existence. Statements such as “please share with me where you got your facts” or “I hear you; have you considered this possibility…” are not causes for going on the offensive.
Discourse is a reliably tried and true method for people to explain, question, dissect, handle, and closely monitor what they are thinking and what they hold as truth. The flexibility and inflexibility comes in about here. One can be inflexible about the goal or the main point but also be flexible when considering other aspects of the goal. This is not a contradiction; it is critical thinking.
As an example, let’s look at Winston Churchill. He was adamantly unwavering in his ultimate goal — to defeat Adolph Hitler. He was inflexible here. But, and this is a crucial but, he was flexible in hearing and considering different ideas, observations, thoughts about tactics and methods to achieve this goal. His goal was inflexible; his thinking was flexible.
One of the problems, in my humble opinion, when it comes to people who think differently trying to have a conversation is that each one sees his goal as inflexible, ok, I can live with that, but simultaneously these same people often cannot see the possible advantages of looking at and considering other information which may impact on that goal. Flexibility in thinking might allow differing ideas to enter the equation.
In the classroom, I called this a “win-win” situation. When a student was tied to one thought, opinion, idea, and then asked to question that thought or idea in light of differing ones, one of two things generally resulted. When, after handling and discerning the value of the new information, the student said, “Well, I looked at it. I understand it, but it does not change my view because (and here the student stated why the new information did not alter his original position).” This is a “win.” Faced with differing information, a person must review his thinking considering the new information and come to a conclusion. The process may not alter his thinking, but it forces him to consider his position, thus reinforcing his original thought. Win.
Or, faced with new information, a student who heard, listened, and handled that information may have discovered that he had not considered that information before and maybe, just maybe, he might need to think about it a bit further and see how or even if it impacted his thinking in any way. This, too, is a “win.” If a thinker discovers that indeed the differing information or idea conflicts with his original thought, then he must discern to what degree he might need to alter his original thought. Win.
Being able to change one’s mind is not a sign of willy-nilly thinking. It is not an announcement of some puddle-mucking, middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby person who cannot “make up his mind.” Rather, it is the opposite. Changing one’s mind because of the direction of the wind or because someone else tells us to are not valid causes to alter one’s thinking. But regularly re-evaluating our positions because of new information, insight, or because we question if our original position deserves another careful look … that is critical, isn’t it?
Here’s the thing: All of us have thoughts and opinions which we see as rock solid — infallible, even. Sometimes we do not want to question or review our position because we already know exactly what we think. We are inflexible. But, maybe it is in that process of questioning and reviewing that we can actually strengthen our thinking. We are flexible. Thoughtful and careful consideration of where we stand and what we think can never be anything but positive.
The poet, Mary Oliver, sums it up nicely. “Let me keep my distance, always, from those who think they have the answers. Let me keep company always with those say, “Look!” and laugh in astonishment, and bow their heads.” It is in the very act of “looking” that we have the best chance of “seeing.”
———
Editor’s Note: This is one of a series of articles written by a group of retired and current teachers — Ken Ballinger, Billy Kreigh, Marianne Darr-Norman, and Anna Spalding. Their intent is to spur discussions at the dinner table and elsewhere. You may also voice your thoughts and reactions via The News-Banner’s letters to editor.
