All my life I have been the one to go against the status quo. Ever since I was young I was told I was smart and that anything I wanted to do, I could as long as I made a good enough effort. I did not exactly agree with their assessments of me. However, it did influence my way of thinking and perceiving school. Overall, I developed a nonchalant approach towards school as I knew it, seeing little value in being fully engaged. This pattern of apathy has persisted.
My brother and I can be seen as parallel in many ways. He once told me, "The only power they have over you is the power you concede." I adopted the philosophy that social reproduction, when each class reproduces itself not allowing lower classes to move up, did not exist. But as a member of the working class, I knew I was an exception and chose not to see the inherent contradiction.
Then, recently, my brother had his admission to Cal Poly Pomona postponed for one year due to a non-passing grade he received in his 12th grade English class. The system, in my eyes, had failed him. And I saw the same fate slowly encroaching upon me. Nonsensically, I did not try to remedy it by changing my attitude towards school. I was unable to see the connection between my brother’s circumstances and social reproduction. This prevented me from making the coherent decision to change because the lenses through which I viewed the world were not sufficient. So then I was like a roaming dog attempting to decipher what I saw but unable to because I couldn’t see properly through my set of lenses.
Following shortly after, I heard of the IDEA seminar at UCLA. I was completely unaware of what to expect and thus unsure of whether or not I would participate in it. I then propitiously recalled one piece of outstanding information that caught my interest, a tidbit I auspiciously received from the teacher that introduced this program to me—all who attended in the past were granted admission to a university. After considering this vital information of the opportunities I might attain by attending the seminar, I concluded that it was imperative that I go for at least one day rather than prematurely making a decision not to attend.
Upon my arrival, the first day of my attendance, but the third of the seminar, I found myself with reservations about going into the room in which the seminar was being held. Consequently, I decided to peek through the window in an attempt to see what was taking place. I looked in at what seemed to be a congregation of exceedingly intelligent students consumed in their futile endeavors to overcome some formidable task. I thought to myself perhaps this may be a little bit more work than I would like. I then decided to look once again through the window to see who was speaking. As I was attempting to find the speaker in the room, a pair of eyes, which incidentally belonged to the person I believed to be in charge, caught me trying to stand inconspicuously outside as I was looking in and came to the door. He proceeded to introduce himself to me, after which he called over Jeff, my group leader, and introduced him to me as well. Although the men I had recently met seemed extremely friendly, I still had many qualms about committing myself totally to a seminar I knew little about. After a brief session of internal decision making I conjured up enough courage to go into the room where I thought it was inevitable that I would receive sudden death. I went to an area in the back of the classroom with the sole intent to observe. And I did so. However, what I did not know was that what I was taking in would henceforth alter the way I see the world, why it is the way it is and why no one is trying to change it. When the first session concluded, I found myself being optimistic and eager to return the next day to once again enrich myself with these new, and quite honestly, controversial perspectives.
In retrospect, my first day at this seminar was no where as bad as I anticipated. Sometimes it seems to me that I get unnecessarily intimidated by people I do not know, which in turn, causes me to act in a demure manner. My first day in attendance at the seminar was, to say the least, informative, as well as decisive. What I observed on this day caused me to want to come back the next day to once again observe and see what new knowledge I could obtain.
I therefore think that going to the UCLA seminar with an open mind enabled me to subsequently go with a critical mind as well. More often than not I have a propensity to be quite adamant and stick to my views and beliefs. To my surprise, this experience did not fit in with all the other I have had. In contrast, I found myself enclosed by people who did not have the same views as me and I did not have my father to back me up. Consequently I felt it essential to listen attentively in order to be able to firmly state my divergent arrangement concerning the issues they were discussing. Through listening to what they had to say, I was compelled to muse over it. And my pondering led to a further enlightenment of my mind, which then led to the formation of questions about and alternate opinions of what I heard.
In a sense this seminar is one gradual epiphany—a sort of manifestation of what I had already known, triggering me to juxtapose my past views with what I was newly obtaining. If I had to put this seminar and what I've gained into applicable terms based on my evolved awareness, I would have to say it’s like a new set of lenses from which I am to look through. But rather than discarding my old lenses, like most people would do, I simply place them on top of my old ones creating an ultimate state of attentiveness in which the truth becomes something unmistakably attainable.
I believe this is what it means to be a critical researcher (or just being critical). Being a critical researcher does not include seeing or hearing something new that just may happen to seem true and running with it. Because then every time someone approaches you with a new theory and is able to convince you that it is true, you would be like a peripatetic and itinerant dog going from house to house looking for its owner, who abides with anyone that can convince him that this is home. Instead a critical individual would juxtapose everything he/she sees or hears. In the case of the dog, the dog would, rather than believe everything plausible, jettison its former lenses, and adopt new ones, would don the two lenses at once so as to be able to, with much lucidity, elucidate the situation and furthermore be able to know the difference between truth and a paltry attempt to mendaciously or perfidiously deceive. For me, Kincheloe and McLaren say it eloquently in their definition of what it means to do critical research, "Critical research can be best understood in the context of the empowerment of individuals. Inquiry that aspires to the name critical must be connected to an attempt to confront the injustice of a particular society or sphere within the society. Research thus becomes a transformative endeavor unembarrassed by the label "political" and unafraid to consummate a relationship with an emancipatory consciousness." (Kincheloe L. & McLaren P 1998)
This of course does not imply everything you encounter is in need of alteration. It simply means that to be critical means to effectively and constantly examine your eyewear for the reason that you would otherwise be dwelling in ignorance and become inept and unable to make coherent and apt decisions.
It's All About the Eyewear 
