The Endangered Species of Criticism

I always find it exhilarating when I read something in an older book or essay and discover that what was being observed hundreds of years ago about society can still be seen today. There is a strange sense of reassurance when I realize that other people have come up with the same observations about the world as I have (even though they’ve written about them with a lot more skill and a lot fewer parenthesis…and ellipses). It’s also comforting to see in these older texts that even though the world has changed dramatically, people are still basically the same. Despite the huge forces that have hit society with natural disaster strength like industry, capitalism, the invention of the car and airplane, revolutions, wars, actual natural disasters, or the internet (our century’s version of a (virtual) Industrial Revolution), people are still universally the same at their cores. This is one of the reasons why I enjoy ancient literature like The Epic of Gilgamesh; it’s comforting to know that 4,000 years ago people were struggling enough with their egos, peer pressures, and fears of death that authors felt the need to record them. I like that no matter how much we change society with our inventions and conveniences, society is unable to change our most basic natures.

But, depending on what I’m reading, this exhilaration is sometimes short-lived. If the author is describing something about society that is unjust, unfair, or ignorant, that exhilaration is quickly replaced by an overwhelming sense of disappointment. The fact that I can relate so thoroughly to these older texts simply means that we (people in general…not just you and me) have failed to transcend those problems that were pointed out by the thinkers of the past.



I had one of these bi-polar realizations recently while I was reading “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” by Matthew Arnold. (This was for class. I don’t just sit around reading literary criticism for fun…yet. Give me a few more semesters. By then I’ll probably have grown a beard (for academically induced stroking purposes of course), started smoking a pipe, and I will sew elbow patches on every sweater I own). I was pretty excited about this essay to begin with because criticism is a big part of my life. I didn’t realize when I became a teacher that I was also signing up to be a critic. But when you think about what criticism is…well what it should be…it’s evaluating something objectively. Criticism is not a spiteful and pointless estimate of someone or something’s worth that is created in order to serve the “critic’s” best interest. It is a beneficial assessment and its purpose is to help someone or something progress. As an English teacher, I evaluate my students’ writing and provide feedback so they can improve it. Over the past five years, criticism has lost its negative connotation for me; it is the most important part of effective instruction. It is essential to the learning process.

But a lot of my students appear to be severely allergic to criticism no matter how constructive it is. (And this is just another reason why I hate Upward Bound Sports. If you give a kid a trophy for losing a basketball game, they will expect a good grade for a poorly written paper). After having multiple phone calls and emails from parents and tearful discussions with students about why I felt the need to bleed all over a paper, I finally realized that what I viewed as constructive criticism, they viewed as a personal attack. So I now have a new approach; at the beginning of each semester, I start by redefining criticism with my students so they will be more likely to accept the feedback as helpful instruction versus malicious harassment. If my students don’t allow me to criticize their work, to truly and deeply evaluate their writing practices, they will never get any better. And they will never learn to evaluate their own writing practices objectively. They will never become deliberate writers that compose with a sense of authority (also known as authors).

The classroom isn’t the only place where we need to redefine criticism. As our society grows more and more polarized through politics, religion, and incomes, the market for what Arnold calls “disinterested” criticism, where something is dissected, understood, and presented neutrally, honestly, without any bias, that market grows smaller. Arnold says in his 1865 essay that “all the various fractions, political and religious, of our society, every fraction has, as such, its organ of criticism, but the notion of combining all fractions in the common pleasure of a free disinterested play of mind meets with no favour.” (Hence my exhilarating discovery with a side of comfort, followed immediately by a dose of disappointment). Almost 150 years ago, Arnold was complaining that there were very few people who were able to evaluate the world impartially. That same problem is still evident in today’s society. Consider the major media networks and the alarmingly high number of polemical “journalists” that people blindly depend on for their “news.” It is very difficult to find disinterested media coverage that simply reports an event for what it is. This is bad because criticism is a safeguard against extremism. It causes you to second guess yourself or your point of view; the result is either a changed and more reflective perspective, or a stronger and more coherently grounded conviction. Yet people fear criticism because they think it’s a sign of weakness. If our country was able to put special interests aside, and criticize itself impartially, we might not be in the red. We might not have failing schools. But with a 2 party system that tugs on opposite ends of the same rope until they are forced to make a hasty, unreflective decision that primarily serves as fuel for a future ad hominem campaign, there is no place for true criticism. It’s like we’re playing some giant pick-up game of soccer and there are no refs (or critics). There are just a bunch of rabid, screaming fans passionately supporting their team without questioning the possibility of foul play by their own team members.

(I think this is one of the reasons why I enjoy Jon Stewart so much; he is probably the most well-known critic of the media cluster-cuss today. No, Jon Stewart isn't entirely impartial or unreactive, but he looks at issues for what they are instead of how they can be spinned to serve some greater, political purpose. He actually discussed his criticism (or tried to when he wasn't being interrupted) of the main-stream media with Chris Wallace on FoxNews...unedited video below).

This absence of constructive criticism is partially because it’s hard to find language to criticize a society without stimulating an over-emotional response. I have to be very careful when I write comments on my students’ papers, and I always have them repeat the following after me before I pass them back: “I will not read these comments in a sassy voice. This is not personal. My teacher is just trying to help me become a better writer.” If they feel personally attacked by the language that I use, my students will not view the feedback as criticism and they will glean nothing from it. Arnold addresses this problem in 1865 as well. “Where shall we find language innocent enough…to enable us to…lead a practical man…to see that a thing which he has always been used to look at from one side only, which he greatly values, and which looked at from that side quite deserves, perhaps, all the prizing and admiring which he bestows upon it, that this thing, looked at from another side, may appear much less beneficent and beautiful.” In other words, how do we choose the words to engage in productive, analytical, and critical discussion about politics? Or about anything that we might disagree on? How euphemistic must we be to get our point across? And how emotionally detached must we be from our own beliefs to convince others that our interest isn’t merely personal? We have to be emotionally separated enough to view the discussion from all perspectives, entertain all ideas without accepting all ideas, so we can support our own beliefs wholeheartedly.

There are too many criticism-starved arenas in our society where impartiality is mythical because it is quickly being replaced by malevolent, reactive, and over-emotional outbursts. Or everyone (from the same political party or religious group) just congratulates one another for his/her mediocrity as if the world were one giant Upward Bound Sports banquet. Self-criticism doesn’t show weakness or disloyalty; it shows growth and learning. A lack of self-criticism creates a stagnating sense of self-satisfaction, and I worry that eventually the achievements and goodness of a group of people will atrophy out of disuse.

Since criticism can spark a negative emotional response, it should be used reflectively and purposefully. So, I’m not encouraging everyone to turn their filters off and shout out every critical thought that crosses their mind. Example: “Hey stranger in line at the post office! Is your butt hungry because it appears to be eating your shorts?” But I would encourage everyone to reconsider the definition and purpose of criticism. If we all did that, probably 1.5% (at least) of the “discussions” that happen in the comment section under an online article or Youtube video would stop devolving into a moment where “Angeltwat969” calls “inyofacebiotch” Hitler for disagreeing with her.

(If Chris Wallace was a little more critical, he probably wouldn't have tried to compare FoxNews and Comedy Central because he would have realized they are competely different. Just saying).