Jason Xidias

In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau looks at old issues in new ways, asking: is there ever a time when individuals should actively oppose their government and its justice system? After a thorough review of the evidence, Thoreau comes to the conclusion that opposition is legitimate whenever government actions or institutions are unacceptable to an individual’s conscience. What is particularly interesting is that Thoreau’s creative mind took him deeper into the argument, as he concluded that this legitimate opposition really wasn’t enough. In Thoreau’s opinion, anyone who believed something to be wrong had a duty to resist it actively. These ideas were completely at odds with the prevailing opinions of the day – that it was the duty of every citizen to support the state. Thoreau connected ideas and notions in a novel manner and went against the tide, generating new hypotheses so that people could see matters in a new light. It is a mark of the success of his creative thinking that his views are now considered mainstream, and that his arguments are still deployed in defence of the principle of civil disobedience.

Thomas Paine’s 1791 Rights of Man is an impassioned political tract showing how the critical thinking skills of evaluation and reasoning can, and must, be applied to contentious issues. Divided into two parts, Rights of Man is, first, a response to Edmund Burke’s arguments against the French Revolution, put forward in his Reflections on the Revolution in France – also available in the Macat Library – and, second, an argument for how to run a fair and just society. The first part is a sustained performance in evaluation: Paine takes Burke’s arguments, and systematically exposes the ways in which Burke’s reasons against revolution are inadequate compared to the necessity of having a just society run according to a universal notion of people’s rights as individuals. The second part turns to an examination of different political systems, setting out a powerfully-structured argument for universal rights, a clear constitution enshrined in law, and a universal right to vote. Though Paine is in many ways a stronger rhetorician than he is a clear thinker, his reasons for preferring democracy to hereditary forms of government are compelling, coherent and clear. Rights of Man is a masterclass in how to use good reasoning to present a persuasive argument.

Nineteenth-century American politician John C. Calhoun occupies a paradoxical place in the history of political thought – and of critical thinking. On one hand, he is remembered as a committed advocate of slavery, consistently espousing views that are now considered indefensible and abhorrent. On the other, the political theories that Calhoun used to defend the social injustice of slavery have become the basis of the very systems by which modern democracies defend minority rights. Despite being crafted in defence of a system as unjust as slavery, the arguments that Calhoun expressed about minority rights in democracies in A Disquisition On Government remain an excellent example of how problem solving skills and reasoning can come together. The problem, for Calhoun, was both specific and general. As matters stood in the late 1840s, the majority of American states were anti-slavery, with only the minority, Southern states remaining pro-slavery. This boiled down to a crucial issue with democracy: the US government should not, Calhoun argued, only respect the wishes of the majority. Instead, democratic government must aim to harmonize diverse groups and their interests – governing, in so far as possible, for everyone. His analysis of how the Southern states could protect what he saw as their right to keep slaves led Calhoun to formulate solutions to the problem of ‘the tyranny of the majority’ that have since helped defend far worthier minority views.

Thomas Paine’s 1791 Rights of Man is an impassioned political tract showing how the critical thinking skills of evaluation and reasoning can, and must, be applied to contentious issues. Divided into two parts, Rights of Man is, first, a response to Edmund Burke’s arguments against the French Revolution, put forward in his Reflections on the Revolution in France – also available in the Macat Library – and, second, an argument for how to run a fair and just society. The first part is a sustained performance in evaluation: Paine takes Burke’s arguments, and systematically exposes the ways in which Burke’s reasons against revolution are inadequate compared to the necessity of having a just society run according to a universal notion of people’s rights as individuals. The second part turns to an examination of different political systems, setting out a powerfully-structured argument for universal rights, a clear constitution enshrined in law, and a universal right to vote. Though Paine is in many ways a stronger rhetorician than he is a clear thinker, his reasons for preferring democracy to hereditary forms of government are compelling, coherent and clear. Rights of Man is a masterclass in how to use good reasoning to present a persuasive argument.

The 85 essays that maker up The Federalist Papers’ clearly demonstrate the vital importance of the art of persuasion. Written between 1787 and 1788 by three of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, the Papers were written with the specific intention of convincing Americans that it was in their interest to back the creation of a strong national government, enshrined in a constitution – and they played a major role in deciding the debate between proponents of a federal state, with its government based on central institutions housed in a single capital, and the supporters of states’ rights. The papers’ authors – Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay – believed that centralised government was the only way to knit their newborn country together, while still preserving individual liberties. Closely involved with the politics of the time, they saw a real danger of America splintering, to the detriment of all its citizens. Given the fierce debates of the time, however, Hamilton, Jay and Madison knew they had to persuade the general public by advancing clear, well-structured arguments – and by systematically engaging with opposing points of view. By enshrining checks and balances in a constitution designed to protect individual liberties, they argued, fears that central government would oppress the newly free people of America would be allayed. The constitution that the three men helped forge governs the US to this day, and it remains the oldest written constitution, still in force, anywhere in the world.

Benedict Anderson’s 1983 masterpiece Imagined Communities is a ground-breaking analysis of the origins and meanings of “nations” and “nationalism”. A book that helped reshape the field of nationalism studies, Imagined Communities also shows the critical thinking skills of interpretation and analysis working at their highest levels. One crucial aspect of Anderson’s work involves the apparently simple act of defining precisely what we mean when we say ‘nation’ or ‘nationalism’ – an interpretative step that is vital to the analysis he proceeds to carry out. For Anderson, it is clear that nations are not ‘natural;’ as historians and anthropologists are well aware, nations as we understand them are a relatively modern phenomenon, dating back only as far as around 1500. But if this is the case, how can we agree what a ‘nation’ is? Anderson’s proposed definition is that they are “imagined communities” – comprising groups of people who regard themselves as belonging to the same community, even if they have never met, and have nothing in common otherwise. The analysis that follows from this insight is all about examining and breaking down the historical processes that helped foster these communities – above all the birth of printing, and the development of capitalism. Brilliantly incisive, Anderson’s analysis shows how good interpretative skills can form the foundations for compelling and original insight.