Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1467738
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 MAY 2022 OPINION 11 in times of crises such as in the case of natural catastrophes. Outside European borders this would provide the capacity to be deployed in territories in ex- ceptional circumstances and ex- clusively under a respective legal mandate from the United Na- tions Security Council and thus in compliance with international law." As far as I can see, that looks a whole lot more like a warn- ing-shot, fired across the bows by European citizens, against the more overtly 'militaristic' approach favoured by… not just Metsola herself, of course; but the European Commission, and a clear majority of the Council of Ministers to boot. Either way, however: it is pret- ty clear that Roberta Metso- la's knee-jerk response tells us a heck of a lot more about her own 'priorities' – and the polit- ical ideology that informs them – than about 'what European citizens really want'. Nonetheless, those 'defence and security' concerns simply pale into insignificance… when you weigh them up against the (incredibly cynical, it must be said) reaction of Commission president Ursula von der Leyen herself. Never mind those 'nine prior- ities', identified by the report; and never mind all the other 300 recommendations too, while we're at it. For it seems that von der Leyen only had eyes and ears for one (1) recommendation – and naturally, it's not about EU's abysmal human rights record, when it comes to migration; it's not about the fact that the EU 'free-market' policies have liter- ally flooded the entire continent with plastics, for instance… or that citizens feel so ignored, and neglected, that they are now de- manding a permanent voice in the EU's inner decision-making processes… Oh no… of all the 300 demands by European citizens, the only one that in any way resonated with the Commission President, was… well, this one: "We recom- mend that all issues decided by way of unanimity are changed, to be decided by way of a qual- ified majority." And not only did the Europe- an Commission narrow its fo- cus onto the only proposal that might actually serve a useful purpose, within its own 'care- fully-laid plans' – which involve ''maximising the power of EU institutions, at the expense of individual member states', re- member? – but she also fired the starter-pistol for a process to actually 'change the Treaties', to that effect. Indeed, so swift – and brutal – was von der Leyen's onslaught, that no fewer than 13 member States (including Malta, unsur- prisingly) felt the need to get to- gether, and desperately try and halt her in her tracks…. Oh well… I wish them the best of luck, of course. But then again: how can you possibly hope to convince a European Commission that – quite frankly – doesn't even listen to its own citizens, at the end of the day? The siege of Malta's critical thought IF you are a concerned indi- vidual who cares about the wellbeing of our education, the bedrock of civilisation, you presumably have read about promoting critical thinking in society as means to be objectively informed on what is going on around us. Yet do we know what think- ing critically entails? Are we being critical of our concep- tion of critical thinking? Simply put, this activi- ty involves a set of thinking tools and strategies that the person who wishes to devel- op the habit of thinking and reading intelligently, uses. In doing so, the thinker ex- plores a range of issues and topics, in the context of a world enlightened by tech- nological development and scientific breakthrough. These topics include aspects of visual perception (such as deconstructing propagan- da material), understanding language usage (such as the pleasing rhetoric used by politicians before elections), and the underlying concepts of ethical behaviour, liter- ary interpretation, economic development, and statistical analysis. The more the individual takes these topics serious- ly and cultivates an objec- tive outlook on what's going on around him, the less the person becomes susceptible to manipulation and pow- er-driven schemes; and the better he becomes at criti- cising and recognising de- ceiving patterns. Critical thinking makes the differ- ence for example between a person passively clapping for political statements and the individual who inquisi- tively thinks such messages through before putting his hands together. Of course, if one intends to exploit, manipulate, use people as means to an end, or stay in the front seat at the expense of others, then a non-compliant critical socie- ty is the last thing one would like to face. Moreover, the critic is often viewed as 'neg- ative' by such individuals or authorities. So the talk of town is not discovering ways in the sys- tem to incentivise critical thinking, but on creating more tech-skilled employees. The focus is not on subjects that promote literacy and critical understanding of the world such as languages, lit- erature, history, philosophy, ethics, art, and economics, but specifically on the STEM (science, technology, engi- neering, mathematics) sub- jects since these help persons be 'better equipped when ap- plying for the job'. Is the role of our education- al system only there to create workers and fill in the indus- try? Or is it there, predom- inantly, to create well-in- formed individuals about vital facets of life, and not just their ability to be better workers for their employers? I'll let you decide. STEM subjects are impor- tant and do provide the stu- dent with sound informa- tion, yet this isn't the be-all and end-all of what we mean by achieving a critical soci- ety. Instead of working in tandem together, these sub- jects are sometimes placed in the front seat, having the former subjects standing at the periphery. One can ob- serve this through the exten- sive number of students that opt-out from humanities and its lack of appreciation and understanding by the public. Nonetheless, what are their advantages? For instance, philosophy can provide a student with the ability to challenge the status quo, ask better ques- tions to receive better an- swers, solve problems, and have an ethical groundwork when approaching the world. History helps in understand- ing the present through the past, using tools to analyse why certain occurrences in life happen and anticipat- ing future issues. Literature provides a bedrock of un- derstanding rhetoric and advanced reading skills. And yet the emphasis is given to STEM subjects, such as what the Malta Employers Associ- ation said about "channelling students into career-orient- ed disciplines - e.g., STEM.... Weaning students away from what are considered to be 'soft options' in their stud- ies." What they omitted was that 'soft subjects' are the basis for a well-informed individual; a set of tools for the person to be ethical, combat manipu- lation and exploitation, and have an idea of what one's socio-political underpinnings comprise of, taking us back to critical thinking. You might say that pursu- ing STEM subjects is where one makes the big bucks at the end of the day, and not by learning about histo- ry or questioning authority through a philosophical un- derstanding. Yet, is that what makes these subjects more efficient to learn over others? What if different subjects can work in tandem with each other, instead of excluding and choosing those based on 'what can create more scien- tifically intelligent employ- ees'? Both sets are important in their amount, the question is how we can incorporate them if we truly want to prac- tise what we preach. To conclude my argument, our educational system and the relevant stakeholders should not incentivise passiv- ity and discourage criticism and dissent. To start fighting the long-standing problem of critical thinking in our socie- ty, one needs to start differen- tiating the weight of the dif- ferent subjects being offered, not unanimously resolving to STEM subjects, and by pri- marily working very hard on those soft subjects. Luke Fenech Luke Fenech is reading for a Masters in Teaching & Learning in Ethics Education at the Universith of Malta