19th-century German philosopher Karl Marx, the founder and primary theorist of Marxism, viewed religion as "the soul of soulless conditions" or the "opium of the people".
At the same time, Marx saw religion as a form of protest by the working
classes against their poor economic conditions and their alienation. Some Marxist scholars have classified Marx's views as adhering to Post-Theism,
a philosophical position that regards worshipping deities as an
eventually obsolete, but temporarily necessary, stage in humanity's
historical spiritual development.
In the Marxist–Leninist
interpretation, all modern religions and churches are considered as
"organs of bourgeois reaction" used for "the exploitation and the
stupefaction of the working class". A number of Marxist–Leninist
governments in the 20th century such as the Soviet Union after Vladimir Lenin and the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong implemented rules introducing state atheism.
Marxist political theorists and revolutionaries on religion
The foundation of irreligious
criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion
is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either
not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But
man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world
of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion,
which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an
inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its
encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point
d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement,
and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the
fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has
not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is,
therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual
aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression
of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the
sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the
soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people
is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up
their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a
condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is,
therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which
religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order
that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or
consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the
living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he
will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded
his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around
himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which
revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
According to Howard Zinn,
"[t]his helps us understand the mass appeal of the religious charlatans
of the television screen, as well as the work of Liberation Theology in
joining the soulfulness of religion to the energy of revolutionary
movements in miserably poor countries".
Some recent scholarship has suggested that "opium of the people" is
itself a dialectical metaphor, a "protest" and an "expression" of
suffering. Marx did not object to a spiritual life and thought it was necessary. In the "Wages of Labour" of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,
Marx wrote: "To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must
break their bondage to their bodily needs—they must cease to be the
slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal
for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment."
There are those who view that the early Christian Church such as that one described in the Acts of the Apostles was an early form of communism and religious socialism. The view is that communism was just Christianity in practice and Jesus as the first communist.
This link was highlighted in one of Marx's early writings which stated
that "[a]s Christ is the intermediary unto whom man unburdens all his
divinity, all his religious bonds, so the state is the mediator unto
which he transfers all his Godlessness, all his human liberty". Furthermore, Thomas Müntzer led a large Anabaptist communist movement during the German Peasants' War which Friedrich Engels analysed in The Peasant War in Germany. The Marxist ethos that aims for unity reflects the Christian universalist teaching that humankind is one and that there is only one god who does not discriminate among people. Tristram Hunt attributes a religious persuasion to Engels.
Vladimir Lenin on religion
In The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, Lenin wrote:
Religion is the opium of the people:
this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of
Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of
every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism
as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the
exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.
Nonetheless, Lenin allowed Christians and other religious people in the Bolshevik Party. While critical of religion, Lenin also specifically made a point to not include it in Our Programme or his ideological goals, arguing:
But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the
error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic
fashion, as an "intellectual" question unconnected with the class
struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from
among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society
based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses,
religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It
would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of
religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of
the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount
of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by
its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this
really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of
a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian
opinion on paradise in heaven.
Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky on religion
In their influential book The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky spoke out strongly against religion, writing that "Communism is incompatible with religious faith". However, importance was placed on secularism and non-violence towards the religious:
But the campaign against the backwardness of the masses
in this matter of religion, must be conducted with patience and
considerateness, as well as with energy and perseverance. The credulous
crowd is extremely sensitive to anything which hurts its feelings. To
thrust atheism upon the masses, and in conjunction therewith to
interfere forcibly with religious practices and to make mock of the
objects of popular reverence, would not assist but would hinder the
campaign against religion. If the church were to be persecuted, it would
win sympathy among the masses, for persecution would remind them of the
almost forgotten days when there was an association between religion
and the defence of national freedom; it would strengthen the antisemitic
movement; and in general it would mobilize all the vestiges of an
ideology which is already beginning to die out.
Anatoly Lunacharsky on religion
God-Building was an idea proposed by some prominent early Marxists of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Inspired by Ludwig Feuerbach's "religion of humanity", it had some precedent in the French Revolution with the "cult of reason". The idea proposed that in place of the abolition of religion,
there should be a meta-religious context in which religions were viewed
primarily in terms of the psychological and social effect of ritual, myth and symbolism in an attempt to harness this force for pro-communist aims, both by creating new ritual and symbolism and by re-interpreting existing ritual and symbolism in a socialist context. In contrast to the atheism of Lenin, the God-Builders took an official position of agnosticism.
In Marxist–Leninist states
Religion in the Soviet Union
The Soviet Union was an atheist state in which religion was largely discouraged and at times heavily persecuted. According to various Soviet and Western sources, over one-third of the country's people still professed religious belief (Christianity and Islam had the most believers). Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and other Protestantdenominations. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni (with a notable Shia minority, mainly in Azerbaijan), while Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism and Shamanism.
After 1941 in the Stalin era, religious persecution was greatly
reduced. To gather support from the masses during World War II, the
Stalin government re-opened thousands of temples and extinguished the
league of militant atheists. Atheist propaganda returned to a lesser
extent during the Khrushchev government and continued in a less strict
way during the Brezhnev years.
The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied
greatly, but two-thirds of the Soviet population were irreligious.
About half the people, including members of the ruling Communist Party and high-level government officials, professed atheism.
For the majority of Soviet citizens, religion seemed irrelevant. Prior
to its collapse in late 1991, official figures on religion in the Soviet
Union were not available. State atheism in the Soviet Union was known
as gosateizm.
Religion in the Socialist People's Republic of Albania
Albania was declared an atheist state by Enver Hoxha. Religion in Albania was subordinated in the interest of nationalism
during periods of national revival, when it was identified as foreign
predation to Albanian culture. During the late 19th century and also
when Albania became a state, religions were suppressed in order to
better unify Albanians. This nationalism was also used to justify the
communist stance of state atheism between 1967 and 1991. This policy was mainly applied and felt within the borders of the present Albanian state, producing a nonreligious majority in the population.
Religion in the People's Republic of China
The People's Republic of China
was established in 1949 and for much of its early history maintained a
hostile attitude toward religion which was seen as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.
Houses of worship, including temples, mosques and churches, were
converted into non-religious buildings for secular use. However, this
attitude relaxed considerably in the late 1970s with the end of the Cultural Revolution. The 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guaranteed "freedom of religion" with a number of restrictions.
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a massive program to rebuild
Buddhist and Taoist temples that were destroyed in the Cultural
Revolution. However, the Communist Party of China
still remains explicitly atheist and religion is heavily regulated,
with only specific state-operated churches, mosques and temples being
allowed for worship.
Religion in Cambodia
Democratic Kampuchea
Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge regime, suppressed Cambodia’s
Buddhist religion as monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts,
including statues of the Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or
expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian
and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted as well. The Roman
Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was razed. The Khmer Rouge forced
Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those
who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were
executed.
People's Republic of Kampuchea
After the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, a socialist state more reflective of the values shared by Vietnam and allies of the Soviet Union
was established. Oppression of religious groups was nearly totally
ended and relations between religious groups and the People's Republic
of Kampuchea were much more neutral throughout its existence until the
restoration of the monarchy a decade later.
Religion in Laos
In contrast with the brutal repression of the sangha undertaken in Cambodia, the Communist government of Laos has not sought to oppose or suppress Buddhism in Laos to any great degree, rather since the early days of the Pathet Lao
communist officials have sought to use the influence and respect
afforded to Buddhist clergy to achieve political goals while
discouraging religious practices seen as detrimental to Marxist aims.
Starting as early as the late 1950s, members of the Pathet Lao
sought to encourage support for the communist cause by aligning members
of the Lao sangha with the communist opposition. Though resisted by the Royal Lao Government, these efforts were fairly successful and resulted in increased support for the Pathet Lao, particularly in rural communities.
Religion in the Socialist Republic of Romania
During its Socialist era, the Romanian government exerted significant
control over the Orthodox Church and closely monitored religious
activity, as well as promoting atheism among the population.
Dissident priests were censured, arrested, deported, and/or defrocked,
but the Orthodox Church as a whole acquiesced to the government's
demands and received support from it. Unlike other Eastern Bloc
states where clergy were forced to rely on donations or subsistence
wages, Orthodox clergy in Romania were paid a salary equivalent to the
average received by the general population, and received significant
state subsidies for the reconstruction of churches destroyed in the war.
Starting in the 1960s, the state used religious officials of the
Orthodox Church as ambassadors to the West, engaging in dialogue with
religious organizations in the United Kingdom. This relatively favorable attitude towards the church continued until the death of Patriarch Justinian of Romania
in 1977, at which point the state began a new anti-church campaign,
engaging in urban renewal projects that entailed the destruction of
churches.
Communism and Abrahamic religions
Communism and Christianity
In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
wrote: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist
tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against
marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in place of these,
charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic
life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with
which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat." In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,
Engels drew a certain analogy between the sort of utopian communalism
of some of the early Christian communities and the modern-day communist
movement, the scientific communist movement representing the proletariat
in this era and its world historic transformation of society. Engels
noted both certain similarities and certain contrasts.
Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of Christian socialism. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism
as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on
the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian
communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles,
created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus'
death and resurrection. Advocates of Christian communism argue that it
was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.
Contemporary communism, including contemporary Christian communism, owes much to Marxist thought—particularly
Marxian economics. While not all communists are in full agreement with
Marxism, communists share the Marxist critique of capitalism. Marxism
includes a complex array of views that cover several different fields of
human knowledge and one may easily distinguish between Marxist philosophy, Marxist sociology and Marxist economics.
Marxist sociology and Marxist economics have no connection to religious
issues and make no assertions about such things. On the other hand,
Marxist philosophy is famously atheistic, although some Marxist
scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have insisted that Marxist
philosophy and the philosophy of Marx and Engels are significantly
different from one another and that this difference needs recognition.
In particular, Jose Porfirio Miranda found Marx and Engels to be
consistently opposed to deterministic materialism and broadly
sympathetic towards Christianity and towards the text of the Bible,
although disbelieving in a supernatural deity.
Liberation theology
In the 1950s and the 1960s, liberation theology was the political praxis of Latin American theologians, such as Gustavo Gutiérrez of Peru, Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay and Jon Sobrino of Spain, who made popular the phrase the "Preferential option for the poor".
While liberation theology was most influential in Latin America, it has
also been developed in other parts of the world such as black theology in the United States and South Africa, Palestinian liberation theology, Dalit theology in India and Minjung theology in South Korea. Consisting of a synthesis of Christian theology
and Marxist socioeconomic analyses, liberation theology stresses social
concern for the poor and advocates for liberation for oppressed
peoples. In addition to being a theological matter, liberation theology
was often tied to concrete political practice.
Communism and Islam
From the 1940s through the 1960s, communists, socialists and Islamists sometimes joined forces in opposing colonialism and seeking national independence. The communist Tudeh Party of Iran was allied with the Islamists in their ultimately successful rebellion against the Shah Pahlavi in 1979, although after the Shah was overthrown the Islamists turned on their one-time allies. The People's Mujahedin of Iran, an exiled political party which opposes the Islamic Republic, once advocated communist ideals, but has since abandoned them.
Analysis reveals that the Baháʼí Faith
as both a doctrinal manifest and as a present-day emerging organised
community is highly cooperative in nature with elements that correspond
to various threads of Marxist thought, anarchist thought and more recent
liberational thought innovations. Such elements include, for example,
no clergy and themes that relate to mutualism, libertarian socialism and democratic confederalism.
There are many similarities and differences between the schools of
thought, but one of the most common things they share are the time frame
within which both ideologies were founded as well as some social and
economic perspective. A book by the Association for Baháʼí Studies was written as a dialogue between the two schools of thought.
Communism and Buddhism
Buddhism
has been said to be compatible with communism given that both can be
interpreted as atheistic and arguably share some similarities regarding
their views of the world of nature and the relationship between matter
and mind. Regardless, Buddhists have still been persecuted in some Communist states, notably China, Mongolia and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Many supporters of the Viet Cong were Buddhists, strongly believing in the unification of Vietnam, with many opposing South Vietnam due to former President Ngo Dinh Diem's persecution of Buddhism during the early 1960s. The current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso speaks positively of Marxism despite the heavy persecution of the Tibetan people by the post-Mao Zedong
and post-Cultural Revolution Chinese government. The Dalai Lama further
stated that "[o]f all the modern economic theories, the economic system
of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is
concerned only with gain and profitability. [...] The failure of the
regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of
Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still
think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist".
In India, B. R. Ambedkar wrote in his essay Buddha or Karl Marx
that "[t]he Russians are proud of their Communism. But they forget that
the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so
far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it
was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism without
dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do."
Religious criticism of communism
Because of the perceived atheistic nature of communism, some have accused communism of persecuting religion. In addition, another criticism is that communism is in itself a religion.
"Godless communism"
Throughout the Second Red Scare, the fear of the "Godless communist" rooted itself as an epithet
and a warning to the United States in a changing global environment. As
the perceived threat of the "Godless communist" and materialism to the
American way of life grew, "the choice between Americanism and Communism
was vital, without room for compromise".
A group of people write ideas on sticky notes as part of a brainstorming session.
Brainstorming is a group creativity technique
by which efforts are made to find a conclusion for a specific problem
by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by its members.
In other words, brainstorming is a situation where a group of
people meet to generate new ideas and solutions around a specific domain
of interest by removing inhibitions. People are able to think more
freely and they suggest as many spontaneous new ideas as possible. All
the ideas are noted down without criticism and after the brainstorming
session the ideas are evaluated.
The term was popularized by Alex Faickney Osborn in the 1967 book Applied Imagination.
Origin
Advertising executive Alex F. Osborn began developing methods for creative problem-solving in 1939.
He was frustrated by employees’ inability to develop creative ideas
individually for ad campaigns. In response, he began hosting
group-thinking sessions and discovered a significant improvement in the
quality and quantity of ideas produced by employees. He first termed the
process as organized ideation and was later dubbed by participants as
"brainstorm sessions", taking the concept after the use of "the brain to
storm a problem."
During the period when Osborn made his concept, he started writing on
creative thinking, and the first notable book where he mentioned the
term brainstorming is "How to Think Up" in 1942. Osborn outlined his method in the 1948 book Your Creative Power in chapter 33, "How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas".
One of Osborn's key recommendations was for all the members of
the brainstorming group to be provided with a clear statement of the
problem to be addressed prior to the actual brainstorming session. He also explained that the guiding principle is that the problem should be simple and narrowed down to a single target.
Here, brainstorming is not believed to be effective in complex problems
because of a change in opinion over the desirability of restructuring
such problems. While the process can address the problems in such a
situation, tackling all of them may not be feasible.
Osborn's method
Brainstorming activity conducting
Osborn claimed that two principles contribute to "ideative efficacy," these being:
Defer judgment,
Reach for quantity.
Following these two principles were his four general rules of brainstorming, established with intention to:
reduce social inhibitions among group members,
stimulate idea generation,
increase overall creativity of the group.
Go for quantity: This rule is a mean of enhancing divergent production, aiming at facilitation of problem solution through the maxim quantity breeds quality.
The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated the
bigger the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism
of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants
should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a
later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment,
participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
Welcome wild ideas: To get a good long list of suggestions,
wild ideas are encouraged. They can be generated by looking from new
perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking
might give you better solutions.
Combine and improve ideas: As suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.
Applications
Osborn
notes that brainstorming should address a specific question; he held
that sessions addressing multiple questions were inefficient.
Further, the problem must require the generation of ideas rather
than judgment; he uses examples such as generating possible names for a
product as proper brainstorming material, whereas analytical judgments
such as whether or not to marry do not have any need for brainstorming.
Groups
Osborn
envisioned groups of around 12 participants, including both experts and
novices. Participants are encouraged to provide wild and unexpected
answers. Ideas receive no criticism or discussion. The group simply
provide ideas that might lead to a solution and apply no analytical
judgment as to the feasibility. The judgments are reserved for a later
date.
Variations
Nominal group technique
Participants are asked to write their ideas anonymously. Then the
facilitator collects the ideas and the group votes on each idea. The
vote can be as simple as a show of hands in favor of a given idea. This
process is called distillation.
After distillation, the top-ranked ideas may be sent back to the
group or to subgroups for further brainstorming. For example, one group
may work on the color required in a product. Another group may work on
the size, and so forth. Each group will come back to the whole group for
ranking the listed ideas. Sometimes ideas that were previously dropped
may be brought forward again once the group has re-evaluated the ideas.
It is important that the facilitator is trained in this process
before attempting to facilitate this technique. The group should be
primed and encouraged to embrace the process. Like all team efforts, it
may take a few practice sessions to train the team in the method before
tackling the important ideas.
Group passing technique
Each
person in a circular group writes down one idea, and then passes the
piece of paper to the next person, who adds some thoughts. This
continues until everybody gets his or her original piece of paper back.
By this time, it is likely that the group will have extensively
elaborated on each idea.
The group may also create an "idea book" and post a distribution
list or routing slip to the front of the book. On the first page is a
description of the problem. The first person to receive the book lists
his or her ideas and then routes the book to the next person on the
distribution list. The second person can log new ideas or add to the
ideas of the previous person. This continues until the distribution list
is exhausted. A follow-up "read out" meeting is then held to discuss
the ideas logged in the book. This technique takes longer, but it allows
individuals time to think deeply about the problem.
Team idea mapping method
This method of brainstorming works by the method of association.
It may improve collaboration and increase the quantity of ideas, and is
designed so that all attendees participate and no ideas are rejected.
The process begins with a well-defined topic. Each participant
brainstorms individually, then all the ideas are merged onto one large
idea map. During this consolidation phase, participants may discover a
common understanding of the issues as they share the meanings behind
their ideas. During this sharing, new ideas may arise by the
association, and they are added to the map as well. Once all the ideas
are captured, the group can prioritize and/or take action.
Directed brainstorming
Directed
brainstorming is a variation of electronic brainstorming (described
below). It can be done manually or with computers. Directed
brainstorming works when the solution space (that is, the set of
criteria for evaluating a good idea) is known prior to the session. If
known, those criteria can be used to constrain the ideation process intentionally.
In directed brainstorming, each participant is given one sheet of
paper (or electronic form) and told the brainstorming question. They
are asked to produce one response and stop, then all of the papers (or
forms) are randomly swapped among the participants. The participants are
asked to look at the idea they received and to create a new idea that
improves on that idea based on the initial criteria. The forms are then
swapped again and respondents are asked to improve upon the ideas, and
the process is repeated for three or more rounds.
In the laboratory, directed brainstorming has been found to
almost triple the productivity of groups over electronic brainstorming.
Guided brainstorming
A
guided brainstorming session is time set aside to brainstorm either
individually or as a collective group about a particular subject under
the constraints of perspective and time. This type of brainstorming
removes all cause for conflict and constrains conversations while
stimulating critical and creative thinking in an engaging, balanced
environment.
Participants are asked to adopt different mindsets for
pre-defined period of time while contributing their ideas to a central
mind map drawn by a pre-appointed scribe. Having examined a
multi-perspective point of view, participants seemingly see the simple
solutions that collectively create greater growth. Action is assigned
individually.
Following a guided brainstorming session participants emerge with
ideas ranked for further brainstorming, research and questions
remaining unanswered and a prioritized, assigned, actionable list that
leaves everyone with a clear understanding of what needs to happen next
and the ability to visualize the combined future focus and greater goals
of the group nicely.
Individual brainstorming
"Individual brainstorming" is the use of brainstorming in solitary situations. It typically includes such techniques as free writing, free speaking, word association, and drawing a mind map,
which is a visual note taking technique in which people diagram their
thoughts. Individual brainstorming is a useful method in creative writing and has been shown to be superior to traditional group brainstorming.
Question brainstorming
This process involves brainstorming the questions,
rather than trying to come up with immediate answers and short term
solutions. Theoretically, this technique should not inhibit
participation as there is no need to provide solutions. The answers to
the questions form the framework for constructing future action plans.
Once the list of questions is set, it may be necessary to prioritize
them to reach to the best solution in an orderly way.
"Questorming" is another term for this mode of inquiry.
Methods to improving brainstorming sessions
There are a number of ways that groups can improve the effectiveness and quality of their brainstorming sessions.
Avoiding face-to-face groups: Using face-to-face groups can increase production blocking, evaluation apprehension, social matching and social loafing.
Stick to the rules: Brainstorming rules should be followed,
and feedback should be given to members that violate these rules.
Violations of brainstorming rules tend to lead to mediocre ideas.
Pay attention to everyone's ideas: People tend to pay more
attention to their own ideas, however brainstorming requires exposure to
the ideas of others. A method to encourage members to pay attention to
others’ ideas is to make them list the ideas out or ask them to repeat
others’ ideas.
Include both individual and group approaches: One method that
helps members integrate their ideas into the group is brainwriting.
This is where members write their ideas on a piece of paper and then
pass it along to others who add their own ideas.
Take breaks: Allow silence during group discussions so that members have time to think things through.
Do not rush: Allow plenty of time for members to complete the
task. Although working under pressure tends to lead to more solutions
initially, the quality is usually lower than if more time is spent on
the task.
Stay persistent: Members should stay focused and persist at the task even when productivity is low.
Facilitate the session: A skilled discussion leader should
lead and coordinate the brainstorming sessions. This leader can motivate
members, correct mistakes, and provide a clear standard of work. They
can also be used to keep track of all the ideas and make sure that these
ideas are available to everyone.
Fresh teams: A recent study by An Zeng et al
found that studies of fresh research teams (i.e., with less
collaboration in the past) is associated with higher creativity or
originality.
Alternatives to brainstorming
If brainstorming does not work for your group, there are some alternatives that you could use instead.
Buzzgroups: Larger groups can form subgroups that come up
with ideas when the larger group is stumped. Afterwards, these
subgroups come back together and discuss their ideas as a whole group.
Bug list: Group members write down all the little problems or
irritations concerning the issue they are working on, and then the
group discusses solutions for each of these “bugs”.
Stepladder technique: A method where new members state their ideas before listening to the group's position.
Synectics: A leader guides the group and discusses their goals, wishes, and frustrations using analogies, metaphors, and fantasy.
TRIZ :
primarily used in science and engineering, and involves following a
specific sequence of problem analysis, resource review, goal setting,
and review of prior approaches to the problem.
Electronic brainstorming (EBS)
Although the brainstorming can take place online through commonly
available technologies such as email or interactive web sites, there
have also been many efforts to develop customized computer software that
can either replace or enhance one or more manual elements of the
brainstorming process.
Early efforts, such as GroupSystems at University of Arizona or Software Aided Meeting Management (SAMM) system at the University of Minnesota,
took advantage of then-new computer networking technology, which was
installed in rooms dedicated to computer supported meetings. When using
these electronic meeting systems
(EMS, as they came to be called), group members simultaneously and
independently entered ideas into a computer terminal. The software
collected (or "pools") the ideas into a list, which could be displayed
on a central projection screen (anonymized if desired). Other elements
of these EMSs could support additional activities such as categorization
of ideas, elimination of duplicates, assessment and discussion of
prioritized or controversial ideas. Later EMSs capitalized on advances
in computer networking and internet protocols to support asynchronous
brainstorming sessions over extended periods of time and in multiple
locations.
Introduced along with the EMS by Nunamaker and colleagues at University of Arizona was electronic brainstorming (EBS). By utilizing customized computer software for groups (group decision support systems or groupware), EBS can replace face-to-face brainstorming. An example of groupware is the GroupSystems, a software developed by University of Arizona. After an idea discussion has been posted on GroupSystems,
it is displayed on each group member's computer. As group members
simultaneously type their comments on separate computers, those comments
are anonymously pooled and made available to all group members for
evaluation and further elaboration.
Compared to face-to-face brainstorming, not only does EBS
enhanced efficiency by eliminating travelling and turn-taking during
group discussions, it also excluded several psychological constraints
associated with face-to-face meetings. Identified by Gallupe and
colleagues, both production blocking (reduced idea generation due to turn-taking and forgetting ideas in face-to-face brainstorming)
and evaluation apprehension (a general concern experienced by
individuals for how others in the presence are evaluating them) are
reduced in EBS. These positive psychological effects increase with group size.
A perceived advantage of EBS is that all ideas can be archived
electronically in their original form, and then retrieved later for
further thought and discussion. EBS also enables much larger groups to
brainstorm on a topic than would normally be productive in a traditional
brainstorming session.
Computer supported brainstorming
may overcome some of the challenges faced by traditional brainstorming
methods. For example, ideas might be "pooled" automatically, so that
individuals do not need to wait to take a turn, as in verbal
brainstorming. Some software programs show all ideas as they are
generated (via chat room or e-mail). The display of ideas may
cognitively stimulate brainstormers, as their attention is kept on the
flow of ideas being generated without the potential distraction of
social cues such as facial expressions and verbal language.
EBS techniques have been shown to produce more ideas and help
individuals focus their attention on the ideas of others better than a
brainwriting technique (participants write individual written notes in
silence and then subsequently communicate them with the group).
The production of more ideas has been linked to the fact that paying
attention to others' ideas leads to non-redundancy, as brainstormers try
to avoid to replicate or repeat another participant's comment or idea.
Conversely, the production gain associated with EBS was less found in
situations where EBS group members focused too much on generating ideas
that they ignored ideas expressed by others. The production gain
associated with GroupSystem users' attentiveness to ideas expressed by others has been documented by Dugosh and colleagues.
EBS group members who were instructed to attend to ideas generated by
others outperformed those who were not in terms of creativity.
According to a meta-analysis comparing EBS to face-to-face brainstorming conducted by DeRosa and colleagues,
EBS has been found to enhance both the production of non-redundant
ideas and the quality of ideas produced. Despite the advantages
demonstrated by EBS groups, EBS group members reported less satisfaction
with the brainstorming process compared to face-to-face brainstorming
group members.
Some web-based brainstorming techniques allow contributors to
post their comments anonymously through the use of avatars. This
technique also allows users to log on over an extended time period,
typically one or two weeks, to allow participants some "soak time"
before posting their ideas and feedback. This technique has been used
particularly in the field of new product development, but can be applied
in any number of areas requiring collection and evaluation of ideas.
Some limitations of EBS include the fact that it can flood people
with too many ideas at one time that they have to attend to, and people
may also compare their performance to others by analyzing how many
ideas each individual produces (social matching).
Incentives
Some
research indicates that incentives can augment creative processes.
Participants were divided into three conditions. In Condition I, a flat
fee was paid to all participants. In the Condition II, participants
were awarded points for every unique idea of their own, and subjects
were paid for the points that they earned. In Condition III, subjects
were paid based on the impact that their idea had on the group; this was
measured by counting the number of group ideas derived from the
specific subject's ideas. Condition III outperformed Condition II, and
Condition II outperformed Condition I at a statistically significant
level for most measures. The results demonstrated that participants were
willing to work far longer to achieve unique results in the expectation
of compensation.
Challenges to effective group brainstorming
A
good deal of research refutes Osborn's claim that group brainstorming
could generate more ideas than individuals working alone. For example, in a review of 22 studies of group brainstorming, Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe found that, overwhelmingly, groups brainstorming together produce fewer ideas than individuals working separately.
However, this conclusion is brought into question by a subsequent
review of 50 studies by Scott G. Isaksen showed that a misunderstanding
of the tool, and weak application of the methods (including lack of
facilitation), and the artificiality of the problems and groups
undermined most such studies, and the validity of their conclusions.
Several factors can contribute to a loss of effectiveness in group brainstorming.
Blocking:
Because only one participant may give an idea at any one time, other
participants might forget the idea they were going to contribute or not
share it because they see it as no longer important or relevant.
Further, if we view brainstorming as a cognitive process in which "a
participant generates ideas (generation process) and stores them in
short-term memory (memorization process) and then eventually extracts
some of them from its short-term memory to express them (output
process)", then blocking is an even more critical challenge because it
may also inhibit a person's train of thought in generating their own
ideas and remembering them.
Group members can be given notepads to write their ideas on and the
meeting can organize who will get to speak next. However, this
brainstorming technique does not perform as well as individuals using
the nominal group technique.
Collaborative fixation: Exchanging ideas in a group may
reduce the number of domains that a group explores for additional ideas.
Members may also conform their ideas to those of other members,
decreasing the novelty or variety of ideas, even though the overall
number of ideas might not decrease.
Evaluation apprehension: Evaluation apprehension was
determined to occur only in instances of personal evaluation. If the
assumption of collective assessment were in place, real-time judgment of
ideas, ostensibly an induction of evaluation apprehension, failed to
induce significant variance. Furthermore, when an authority figure watches the group members
brainstorm the effectiveness lowers because members worry their ideas
may be viewed negatively. Especially individuals with high social
anxiety are particularly unproductive barnstormers and report feeling
more nervous, anxious, and worried than group members who are less
anxiety prone.
Free-writing: Individuals may feel that their ideas are
less valuable when combined with the ideas of the group at large.
Indeed, Diehl and Stroebe demonstrated that even when individuals worked
alone, they produced fewer ideas if told that their output would be
judged in a group with others than if told that their output would be
judged individually. However, experimentation revealed free-writing as
only a marginal contributor to productivity loss, and type of session
(i.e., real vs. nominal group) contributed much more.
Personality characteristics: Extroverts have been shown to
outperform introverts in computer mediated groups. Extroverts also
generated more unique and diverse ideas than introverts when additional
methods were used to stimulate idea generation, such as completing a
small related task before brainstorming, or being given a list of the
classic rules of brainstorming.
Social matching: One phenomenon of group brainstorming is
that participants will tend to alter their rate of productivity to match
others in the group. This can lead to participants generating fewer
ideas in a group setting than they would individually because they will
decrease their own contributions if they perceive themselves to be more
productive than the group average. On the other hand, the same
phenomenon can also increase an individual's rate of production to meet
the group average.
Illusion of group productivity: Members tend to
overestimate their group's productivity and so work less. Members of the
group can only guess at the quantity and quality of their group’s
product and their personal contributions to the process but there is no
standard to determine how well it is performing. A combination of
processes explain why members are incorrectly overestimating
productivity:
Group members may intuitively mistake others’ ideas for their
own, and so when they think about their own performance they cognitively
claim a few ideas that others actually suggested
Group members compare themselves to others who generate relatively
few ideas, reassuring them that they are one of the high performers
Group brainstorming may “feel” more successful because participants
rarely experience failure in a communal process. When individuals are
trying to think creatively alone, people repeatedly find that they are
unable to come up with a new idea. In a group setting, people are less
likely to experience this failure in their search for new ideas because
others’ ideas are being discussed.
Theatre critics and playwrights discuss plays at a theatre festival.
Aesthetic criticism
Aesthetic criticism is a part of aesthetics
concerned with critically judging beauty and ugliness, tastefulness and
tastelessness, style and fashion, meaning and quality of design—and
issues of human sentiment and affect (the evoking of pleasure and pain,
likes and dislikes). Most parts of human life have an aesthetic
dimension, which means there is plenty potential for criticism. Often architecture criticism
is considered the highest form of aesthetic criticism, because
architecture combines art, science and technology to build a pleasing
home environment, a "living space" that people must inhabit everyday,
more or less permanently.
An aesthetic critic however does not simply say "it's beautiful" or "it's ugly." Instead, the aim is to explain the meaning of a work of art, why something is beautiful or ugly, or how the meaning of a design should be interpreted,
the stronger and weaker sides of a cultural object, etc. For this
purpose, aesthetic critics have a toolkit of criteria they can use in
their commentary. These criteria include such things as:
The motive behind creative activity
Total context within which creative activity occurred
Techniques or physical forces used to create the aesthetic effect
Values, sentiments, interests, needs or ideals that a phenomenon communicates
Relationship of an object of criticism to associated objects, themes, traditions, or genres
Interaction between observer and observed, and the overall effect
Function the object of the criticism fulfills
Using these kinds of criteria, which usually assume extensive
relevant knowledge, aesthetic critics can inform their audience about
the achievements and limitations of the object of aesthetic criticism.
In this way, they can draw attention to aesthetic issues most people
might have overlooked, educate people in their aesthetic appreciation,
and stimulate debate about what kinds of aesthetic expressions are
preferable.
In part, aesthetic criticism can genuinely prove aesthetic
propositions;– if they concern matters of factual or logical evidence.
For example, either an artist had a certain motivation, or s/he did not.
But insofar as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", there is always
also a subjective element in aesthetic criticism, which is not provable,
but expresses a preference, a personal taste. It may be possible to
explain that preference, but it may not be possible to compare it
meaningfully with other preferences.
Logical criticism
In a logical criticism,
an objection is raised about an idea, argument, action or situation on
the ground that it does not make rational sense (there is something
wrong with it because it is illogical, it does not follow, or it
violates basic conventions of meaning.
Such an objection usually refers to assumptions, coherence,
implications, and intent. Thus, the illogicality may involve something
that:
Is being assumed or inferred improperly, without reasonable ground
Is internally inconsistent or self-contradictory in a way that makes
it impossible to maintain all its content at once (because it would
affirm and negate the same thing)
Has implications or effects that are contrary to itself, or negate itself
Has effects contrary to its own purpose or intent, or contrary to the purpose or intent of someone concerned with it
involves a language that superficially makes sense, but defies logic when examined closely
Logical criticism is rooted in the basic cognitive principles that
guide the behavior of humans and other sentient organisms: stimulus identification ("this is the recognized identity of X"), stimulus distinction ("this is different from that"), and stimulus generalization ("this is the same, or like that" or "this is an instance of type X"). The Greek philosopher Aristotle stated the most basic building blocks of logic as the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. These are basic conditions for making meaningful sense, and for non-arbitrary representation.
Logical criticism presupposes that people accept at least the
most basic rules of logic. If people believe "things mean just what they
want them to mean", or if people constantly "change the meaning to suit
the moment", logical criticism is not at all effective. Logical
criticism assumes that there is a definite, identifiable, discoverable
meaning, or at least that something can be proved meaningless (because
it lacks any predictable or knowable pattern).
Logical criticism also presupposes that people agree about at
least some basic facts and assumptions about the situation, or have in
common at least some beliefs. It is not possible to argue about a
logical criticism with somebody with whom one does not share any
assumptions at all, or who is unwilling to consider at least the possibility
that a given proposition might be true (or false). Very often, logical
arguments take the form "suppose that X is the case", but if people
reject the "suppose" or cannot imagine it, it becomes difficult to get
the logical criticism off the ground.
Factual criticism
In
a factual (empirical) criticism, an objection is raised about an idea,
argument, action or situation on the ground that there is something
wrong with the evidence of the known experience relevant to it.
Typically,
Relevant purported facts are labeled false or implausible, i.e., not facts at all.
Relevant facts are said not to have been definitely established as
true, or the likelihood that they are true, has not been established.
Relevant facts mentioned imply different stories that cannot be
reconciled. Accepting a fact would imply another fact that contradicts
it in some way (this overlaps with logical criticism).
The presentation of facts is biased. Important relevant facts are missing, or the total factual context is ignored.
Other relevant facts, which have not been mentioned, shed a different light on the issue.
Facts focused upon are not relevant to the purpose of those concerned.
Logical and factual criticism is generally considered important to
ensure the consistency, authenticity and predictability of behavior of
any kind. Without the presence of the relevant consistency, authenticity
and predictability, one cannot make appropriate sense of behavior,
which becomes disorienting and creates confusion, and therefore cannot
guide behavioral choices effectively.
Philosophers have often debated about "what makes a fact, a fact."
The basic problem with facts is that observations, made using the five
senses, are never completely free from interpretation – to understand a
fact as a fact, requires being able to place its meaning, which in turn
requires basic cognitive categorizations not contained in the observed
thing itself. A fact is concluded in the interaction between the observer and the observed.
Nevertheless, most people agree there are such things as the stubborn facts,
i.e., evidence no one can deny, because everybody experiences the
evidence in the same way, under the same conditions. That reality is
essential for effective factual criticism. If people regard factual
evidence as simply a subjective interpretation of experience, then
factual criticism is ineffective. Factual criticism assumes, that people
agree there exists a reality beyond their personal experience, that it
is possible to obtain reliable information about it, and that people
ordinarily experience those facts in the same way.
Positive criticism
A positive criticism
draws attention to a good or positive aspect of something that is being
ignored, disregarded or overlooked. People may be able to see only the
negative side of something, so that it becomes necessary to highlight
the positive side. A positive criticism may also be a type of
self-justification or self-defense.
The term "positive criticism" is also used in the sense that the
criticism is "well-meant" or "well-intentioned" ("I mean it in a
positive way"). Here, the criticism intends to serve a purpose that is
constructive, or that the targeted person would approve of.
The basic aim of positive criticism is usually to provide a
better orientation, or frame of reference, for behavior. It provides
ideas people can act on to improve the situation. At the very least, it
provides more choices for behavior, and therefore potentially enlarges
behavioral freedom.
A positive criticism can be stated as a positive alternative
("there are good reasons for thinking that we are better off to do Y,
instead of X"). It does not necessarily say, that the option criticized
is all bad, but rather that an alternative option is better, or preferable.
Negative criticism
Negative criticism
means voicing an objection to something, only with the purpose of
showing that it is wrong, false, mistaken, nonsensical, objectionable,
or disreputable. Generally, it suggests disapproval of something, or
disagreement with something – it emphasizes the downsides of something.
Negative criticism is also often interpreted as an attack against a
person (ad hominem). That may not have been the intention, but it can be interpreted that way.
Negative criticism can have the effect that the people criticized
feel attacked or insulted by it, so that they either do not take it
seriously, or react badly to it. Much often depends on how much
negative criticism there is, and how much criticism is transmitted at
once. People can handle some negative criticism, but they may not be
able to handle a whole lot of negative criticism, at least not all at
once.
The downside of negative criticism is, often, that it tells people what they cannot or should not do or believe, rather than telling them what they can or should
do (what possibilities or options there are). So it may be disabling,
rather than enabling. People might reply to a negative criticism that
"this is all very well, but I cannot do anything with it", or they might
say "now what?!". Yet, negative criticism may be necessary at times, to
prevent a course of action harmful to the people concerned. If people
are afraid to state a negative criticism, the existing problem might get
worse.
The upside of negative criticism is that it can explain what the
limitations of an idea, an action or a situation are, for the sake of
being realistic. Sometimes it is necessary to say "no" to something (and
explain why "no" is "no").
In the modern world, negative criticism has acquired the stigma
of "being negative", and people who make negative criticisms can be
easily exploited or manipulated. For this reason, many people nowadays
express their negative criticism simply by not saying anything, not
paying attention to something or someone, or by being absent.
Constructive criticism
Constructive criticism
aims to show that an intent or purpose of something is better served by
an alternative approach. In this case, making the criticism is not
necessarily deemed wrong, and its purpose is respected; rather, it is
claimed that the same goal could be better achieved via a different
route. Constructive criticisms are often suggestions for improvement –
how things could be done better or more acceptably. They draw attention
to how an identified problem could be solved, or how it could be solved
better. Constructive criticism is more likely accepted if the criticism
is timely, clear, specific, detailed and actionable.
Both negative and constructive criticism have their appropriate
uses, but often it is considered a requirement of criticism that they
are combined.
Thus, it is often considered that those who find fault with something
should also offer an option for putting it right. More generally, any
rule for behavior of any kind usually implies both "do's" and "don't s".
Doing something usually also implies not doing something else,
and, not doing something, often implies doing something else. There is
therefore a conscious choice "to do this, or do that", but not both at
the same time.
So, to orient behaviour, people need to know both what is "ruled
in" and what is "ruled out". If the criticism concerns only one aspect,
but not the other, it may supply only incomplete information, which is
not really adequate to orient behaviour or guide action. One of the most
elementary reasons why a rule is ignored, flouted or subverted is,
because either the positive or the negative aspect of what it means is unspecified.
Destructive criticism
Destructive criticism aims to destroy the target of criticism. (e.g., "You should shut up and follow the program"). The aim is to show that the point of view of someone else has no validity at all, or lacks any merit.
In some contexts, destructive criticism is regarded as an
undesirable nuisance, a threat, or as completely unjustifiable,
especially if it involves personal attacks. Destructive criticism is
often criticized because it has a destructive effect, instead of a
positive effect (this may also just be an accusation or allegation if
there is no proof that the effect actually is destructive).
However, in political and military contexts, destructive
criticisms may be essential to save resources or to save lives among
one's own group. An idea in itself is not dangerous, but an idea
proposed in a particular context can be very dangerous so that people
feel that it should be disarmed by mercilessly criticizing it. The
ultimate destructive criticism occurs when people and property are
physically destroyed.
The term "destructive criticism" is also used to mean that the
level, scope, or intensity of criticism is such, that it becomes mainly
destructive. In this context, people believe that the criticism is so
great, or there is so much criticism, that it only destroys things. For
example, a debate or controversy can get out of control, so that
everybody is at war with everybody else, and everybody is opposed to
everybody else. In that case, it may well be that the criticism is being
overdone ("overkill"). What started out as a structured dialogue to
identify conflicting aspects of a situation, ends up as chaos in which
nobody can agree with anyone else anymore.
Destructive criticism from parents and other authority figures
causes psychological harm to children that results in lower levels of
self-esteem, social acceptance, scholastic competence, behavioral
conduct, global self-worth, and generally poorer self-perception. This
is a significant issue. In this study of 144 children from a
middle-class environment, only six children (4%) reported that they had
never been subject to physical punishment or the target of rejecting,
demeaning, terrorizing, destructively criticizing, or insulting
statements. Some parents may ask how do you correct a child who is
misbehaving if you do not criticize.
Practical criticism
Practical criticism
is an objection or appraisal of the type, that something "does or does
not work" in practical reality, due to some reason or cause. The focus
is on useful effect. Often people say, "That might be fine in theory,
but in practice it does not work." Inversely, they might show with
experiment that something works well in practice, even although the
theory says this is not possible – so that the theory ought to be
adjusted.
Practical criticism usually refers to relevant practical
experience, to reveal why an action is wrongheaded, or under what
conditions it would succeed. When someone proposes an idea, others might
first consider if it makes sense – but often raise concerns about
practicality and consequences. For example, would relevant people or
organizations be better off or worse off? Does it get in the way of
other things?
Practical criticisms are effective, if people are concerned with
practicalities. If, however, people are purely concerned with what
things mean, or ought to mean, they may not care about whether their way
of seeing things is "practical" or not. People might hold on to their
beliefs or defend them, even if they are not very practical at all,
because they feel those beliefs are essential to who they are.
Practical criticism usually succeeds best, if it is made on the
basis of the practical experience of the critic. Somebody who has
practical experience with an issue, is usually best placed to make a
practical criticism.
Theoretical criticism
Theoretical criticism
is concerned with the meaning of ideas, including ideas on which a
practice is based. It is concerned with the coherence or meaningfulness
of a theory, its correspondence to reality, the validity of its purpose,
and the limitations of the viewpoint it offers. Theories can be
criticized
from the point of view of other theories ("how much sense does it make")
internally "in their own terms" ("is it consistent")
in terms of the experiential evidence there is for those theories ("how well does the theory correspond to the facts")
the usefulness or practical gain of a theory.
the moral implications of the theory for human action and behaviour.
At issue is not simply whether an idea makes sense or is consistent,
but whether it makes sense and is consistent in terms of the theoretical
framework it is part of. In other words, at issue is the relationship
between many linked ideas. What effect does the adoption of one idea
have for a lot of related ideas, and how does a theory relate to all the
evidence it can be called upon to explain. A theory can consist of one
major hypothesis,
but usually a theory consists of a series of linked hypotheses.
Adopting one hypothesis can have many effects for other related
hypotheses.
The merits of theories are usually judged according to three main criteria: their usefulness, their explanatory power and their predictive power.
A theory is useful if it can help to guide or orient activity, serves
the relevant purpose, or if it helps to make sense of things. A theory
with great explanatory power is a theory which is able to account for
all the relevant evidence, not just some. If the assumptions made by the
theory are well-taken, it can predict effects, outcomes and results
quite accurately. If theories are criticized, it is usually on the
ground that they are not useful, do not speak to the situation, and fail
to explain or predict things properly. Usually, the best theory is the
simplest theory that explains the most. A theory that becomes extremely
complicated often no longer provides much guidance, because it is no
longer clear that anything in particular definitely follows from it.
However, theories can also be judged according to their moral
implications: if the theory is adopted, how does this affect the values
and behaviour of people who subscribe to it?
Theoretical criticism often occurs in the context of eclecticism and intellectual opportunism,
when people more or less creatively "cobble together" in one
interpretation a bunch of ideas and models that draw from a variety of
sources. The criticism might be that those ideas do not belong together,
that they are not compatible, or that they produce an elaborate
description that fails to explain anything. The theoretical critic then
attempts to redress the situation by showing that a consistent theory
requires abandoning or changing some ideas, or discarding the whole
eclectic combination in favour of a more consistent interpretation.
Public and private criticism
Criticism can be expressed publicly or privately. The most private criticism
exists only in the mind of the critic. The most obvious reason why
criticisms are not expressed, or only expressed privately, is that the
critic believes public knowledge of the criticism would harm the critic
or others. People often first express criticisms privately to test their
validity, formulation, or reactions to them. It may require courage,
conviction, or certainty to express a criticism publicly.
However, the distinction between "private" and "public" itself
may be rather vague, or there may be various gradations between
"absolutely private" and "definitely public". Yet even if a criticism is
publicly accessible already, it may remain relatively unknown, because
it is only available in a rather obscure place, or because people are
simply not looking for it. The criticism may exist for years, before
someone digs it out, and presents it in a forum that makes it widely
known.
The degree to which criticisms are made privately or publicly,
often depends on customary or legal norms for expressing criticism.
Thus, the degree to which a criticism is accessible may be influenced by
moral considerations, fear, the human or commercial interests at stake,
or authority issues. Criticisms can of course also be expressed
anonymously or under a pseudonym, in which case the identity of the
critic or the source of the criticism remains unknown. In this case, the
criticism exists in public, but where exactly it came from remains
private. If a criticism is actively suppressed or censored, then
although there may have been an attempt to publicize it, it may not
become public knowledge because there was no possibility for making it
public. Yet criticisms can also travel very fast "through the grapevine"
so that, although they are publicly denied or ignored, everyone knows
what they are, because their peers informally communicated the
criticism.
Moral criticism
Moral criticism
is basically concerned with the rights and wrongs of values, ethics or
norms people uphold, what is good and bad about what people do, or the
rights and wrongs of the conditions people face. Morality is concerned
with what is good and bad for people, and how we know that. There are
many forms of moral criticism, such as:
Showing that actions taken are inconsistent or incompatible with certain values being upheld, or values deemed desirable
Counterposing one set of values to another, with the claim that the one set is better than the other
Arguing that certain values are intrinsically objectionable, regardless of any other values that may be relevant
Arguing that certain values ought to be adopted or rejected for some reason
Arguing that, for the sake of integrity, somebody should or shouldn't do something
Rational or civil morality is based on the idea that people should be
treated in the same ways, in the same kind of situation; the same norm
should apply to all people concerned, in the same relevant situation.
The exception that proves the rule
implies that there does exist a moral rule, to which it is an
exception, for a definite and explicable reason. Such a morality is
often assumed because, without it, human behaviour would be
unpredictable or arbitrary, and cannot be relied upon; the necessary
co-operation between people as social beings would be hindered. Modern jurisprudence
and legal systems are, at least in principle, based on this idea. It
originates from the two social norms, often expressed in religions, that
one should "do unto others as one would like them to do unto oneself"
and "not do unto others as one would not like them to do unto oneself."
Consistent behaviour in this sense is regarded as most likely to be
effective for survival and achievement in the long run, in contrast to
chaotic or arbitrary behaviour ("arbitrary" in the sense that one's own
interests and needs, or the interests and needs of others are not
properly taken into account).
Nevertheless, values people hold often clash, and how
"consistency" should be interpreted may be disputed. Hence moral
criticism ranges from whether there should be a moral rule at all and
the justification of a moral rule, to the interpretation of the meaning
of a moral rule, and to how it is in practice applied. The debate can be
pursued formally (for example by lawyers, judges, religious authorities
and politicians) or informally (by any citizens of a community).
Philosophers of ethics aim to shed light on moral disputes by means of
critical thinking, often with the aim of clearing up moral confusions,
and improving moral behaviour.
Scientific criticism
Scientific criticism
is not primarily concerned with moral values, but more with
quantitative or categorical values. It focuses on whether an idea can be
proven true or false, or what the limits of its valid application are,
quite irrespective of whether people like that or not, or what the moral
implications are. For this purpose, the scientist employs logic and
relevant evidence offered by experience, as well as experimentation, and
gives attention to the intent and purpose of relevant activity.
Obviously a scientist is also a moral being with moral biases, but science aims to ensure that moral biases do not prejudice scientific findings
(the requirement of objectivity). If scientists would ignore relevant
evidence pertaining to a case, for example because of some personal
bias, they could be criticized for that.
Scientists can also criticize a specific morality on scientific
grounds, but in a scientific capacity they do not do so on the ground
that the morality itself is intrinsically objectionable, but rather that
it cannot be reconciled with the facts, i.e., it involves assumptions
or valuations contrary to known logical and factual evidence.
Science is typically not concerned with judging the desirability of ends in themselves, but rather with the relationship
of means and ends.
The question in scientific activity is usually to ascertain – with
reasoning, study and experiment – whether the chosen means can or
cannot, as a matter of objective fact, produce the envisaged result, and
why that is. So a scientist mainly aims to prove with evidence and
reasoning, that if one wants to achieve X, then one must
do Y, or not do Z. But whether one wants to achieve X or not, may be a
separate question, on which a scientist cannot adjudicate, because
telling people what they ought to do with themselves falls
outside the realm of scientific inquiry. At most a scientist might say
that, if X is achieved, it will have specific benefits, and if it is not
achieved, it will have certain harmful effects or costs for the people
concerned (or vice versa).
When scientists criticize other scientists, the criticism can be
very specialized and technical, so that it may not be very easy to
understand the meaning – unless one is familiar with the particular
scientific discipline. There are some general rules for scientific
criticism, but most often each branch of scientific research has its own
rules and formats for criticizing. Science is above all a search for
truth, and therefore if scientists are dishonest (for example, by faking
the evidence), they are not being "scientific", dishonesty then is an
obvious target for criticism. Other, more common, criticisms relate to
assumptions, sampling bias, methodological error, statistical issues or
invalid conclusions.
Religious criticism
Religious criticism is primarily concerned with judging actions and ideas according to whether God (or the Gods, or other divine
beings) would regard them as good or bad for human beings (or for the
world). Normally a religion has some sacred or holy texts, which serve
as an authoritative guide to interpreting actions and ideas as either
good or bad. From these, religious authorities derive norms for how
people ought to live and act in the world.
However, sacred texts may not always be clear, and may require
interpretation. Thus, theologians ask critical questions such as, "How
do we know what God wants for human beings?" They try to answer these
questions by reasoning based on religious principles, rules, laws, by
considering what people experience, and by "divine inspiration" through
prayer and meditation.
Religious authorities such as the Pope
may criticize how people behave, if the behaviour conflicts with church
doctrine. In religious criticism, the motive or intention of the
criticism (why somebody is criticizing) is important. Criticism must be offered in the right spirit so that it has a good effect.
Religious criticism is successful if it clarifies exactly what is
good and bad, and why that is, in such a way that people are convinced
to do what religion says is the "right thing" to do. Religious criticism
is often very difficult to do well, because people's spiritual beliefs
are very personal and the personal meaning attached to spiritual matters
may be rather unusual – it may not be so easy to understand it, it may
not be so rational or logical, and it may not conform to a shared
framework or shared interpretation. In addition, because it is a very
personal matter, it may require a great deal of respectful sensitivity
to approach a spiritual issue in a good way.
Scholarly criticism
Criticism is considered "scholarly"
only if it conforms to scholarly standards. A scholarly critic probes
deeply into a problem, looking at all relevant evidence, the quality of
reasoning involved, and the uses or purposes at stake. When he considers
a problem, a scholar usually becomes familiar with the relevant
background literature. He tries to make sure that he cannot be accused
of inconsistent reasoning, that arguments are free from factual error,
and that all relevant aims, motives, and purposes are clear. A scholar
also conscientiously documents "who said what and when" so that sources for all arguments are clear. Thus, the scholar tries to be as objective and fact-based as possible.
In this way, criticism is much more difficult to ignore or to
refute. Most often, a scholarly publication is refereed ("screened") by
other knowledgeable scholars, who critically examine the text to find
possible faults, and possibly suggest alterations. In this way, scholars
always try to ensure the quality of what is said. A scholarly criticism
is successful if it provides a proof or refutation that nobody can
rationally deny, so that most people accepted it as definitive. Much
scholarly criticism does not provide truly spectacular proofs or
refutations. That is difficult to do, if many bright minds have worked
or are working on the same issue – but a careful, methodically developed
criticism can nevertheless contribute valuable and significant
information. To substantiate even a small scholarly criticism can take
much research, and can require perseverance and patience from the
scholar.
A scholarly critic primarily aims to improve understanding of an
issue, by means of research and the criticism of research, irrespective
of any prejudices about the issue. Scholarly criticism does not mean impartiality or neutrality.
Indeed, the very fact that someone has developed a scholarly criticism
implies they are taking a partisan position. However, scholars usually
submit their own considerations and findings to a public forum that
evaluates criticisms on their merits and faults, with the explicit aim
to contribute to the search for truth, and with the understanding that
the criticism could be wrong. Thus, scholarly criticism involves the
attitude that one is open to criticism.
What exactly the applicable "scholarly standards" for criticism
are, can be open to debate. Nevertheless, participants in different
academic disciplines or scientific specialisms usually operate with a
reasonable amount of consensus about what the standards are. In general
terms, such things as "lying, cheating, fraud, misinformation and misrepresentation"
disqualify a criticism from being "scholarly". Scholarly criticism
requires the greatest respect for truth, honesty in presenting a case,
and a form of communication acceptable to the scholarly community.
Critical criticism
Critical criticism
is "criticism for the sake of criticism", or criticism which voices an
objection. The term was made famous by a polemical text written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels entitled The Holy Family. The most popular modern form of critical criticism is contrarianism. The highest positive value of the critical critic is to be critical. To be critical, or to be a dissident
is, in this case, a way of life, the highest good. Such a position is
itself often criticized for its motivation. People often feel that there
should be a good reason for being critical, and that being
critical simply for the sake of being critical is not a good reason.
Instead, it is seen as a nuisance that can lead to blithe cynicism
without constructive result. If everything is demolished by criticism,
there may be nothing of value left. If people's only stance is to be
critical, they can be accused of only negating things, without affirming
anything, which provides no positive orientation for behaviour
informing people about "what to do". People don't need talk about what
is not possible, they want to know what is possible.
Critical critics might respond to such an accusation, by saying
that it is surely always valuable and important to highlight the limitations
of ideas and happenings, and that this could not very well occur, if
criticism was banned ("in a world gone mad, it makes sense to be
critical"). It may be necessary to point out that things are wrong, even
if it is not known how to put it right (yet). Critical critics might
argue that it is necessary to be "forever on guard" against illusions,
and to be "eternally vigilant" against nonsense. Without criticism,
things are not relativised, or put in proportion. A typical reply to
this argument is, that many illusions in the world cannot be abolished simply by criticizing them. That is, people actually have to do
something positively, to establish the truth, and they cannot very well
do that, if they only focus on "what is not there", or on "what is
wrong". If the whole situation was turned around by taking action, there
might be no need anymore for criticism. Criticism would become
irrelevant or meaningless in that case.
So the means critics use may not lead to the ends
they favour. Sometimes people "just have to be quiet" and take action.
In that case, critical criticism itself seems to contain an ultimate
limitation: to get rid of the illusion or falsehood, might require
getting rid of critical criticism, or going beyond it. To persist
forever in critical criticism, might itself perpetuate an illusion, and
the critical critics, if they were completely consistent, might not be
able to survive their own "critical attitude to everything". Or, at the
very least, they would have to be critical of their own critical
criticism – they might be defeated by their own stance that there is
nothing immune to criticism.
Radical and revolutionary criticism
The word "radical" derives from the Latin word "radix" ("root"). Thus, radical criticism means criticism that goes to the root of things, to the roots of the problem. Revolutionary criticism
is criticism that aims to overturn or overthrow an existing idea or
state of affairs. Thus, an existing idea may be turned upside down.
Revolutionary criticism is sometimes also used in the sense of criticism
that is unprecedented, or previously unheard of. Typically these kinds
of criticism are associated with the youth, who are the new generation
finding their identity in a battle with the older generations.
The radical critic aims to track down the most fundamental
assumptions underlying an idea, position or situation in order to show
the ultimate reason why it is true or false. The concern is with what
something is ultimately based on. For this purpose, radical critics are
not satisfied with superficial ideas. They question authority and the status quo.
This presupposes the freedom to criticize, and to pursue a train of
thought to its ultimate limits. Radical critics keep asking "why, why,
why" very thoroughly, until they reach a complete answer to the puzzle
of why things appear as they do. Radical criticism may be revolutionary,
insofar as its result overthrows previous ideas with a new perspective,
but it may also only demolish a particular way of seeing things, or
show that an alternative way of seeing things or doing things is possible.
Radical or revolutionary criticism is often equated with political extremism,
but this is not necessarily the case at all. This type of criticism may
only just prove, in a "devastatingly simple" or even rather innocent
way, that something is true or false, contrary to the popular
perceptions or cherished beliefs. It may be "extreme", only in the sense
that it falls outside the "normal" way of seeing things. If radical
critics succeed in proving their case, their idea may in due course
become accepted as "normal", and become an ordinary, mainstream idea.
Many if not most ideas which people hold nowadays and accept as normal,
originally were considered as "extremely radical", "revolutionary" or
even "dangerous". It just took a long time before they became generally
accepted – the radical thinker, by going beyond the ordinary, was merely
ahead of the rest in grasping the essence of the matter.
So the distinction between "radical" and "normal" is, often,
really only a relative one; it may have less to do with the content of
ideas, than with how much they are accepted or not. Whereas the radical
critic may, in his own day, be regarded as an oddball or a maverick,
later on he may be hailed as a great thinker or even a genius. But this
is not always the case. After all, even although radical critics may try
hard, they may fail to prove the root of the matter, and thus they may
be forgotten without acclaim. People may regard them only as
"troublemakers".
Radical criticism can be a bit of a gamble, even if the criticism
is perfectly valid. The reason is that it may open up a "can of worms"
and unleash intense controversy, which can get beyond what the radical
critic can handle, and which lasts for a long time. People may well know
that there is a problem, but they prefer to avoid it, because they know
that, if it came out into the open, it would cause a pack of trouble.
Thus, when the radical critic exposes the problem or proposes a radical
solution to it, people can become very agitated. To state a radical
criticism often takes considerable courage, because there can be a
powerful backlash to reckon with. Skilled radicals therefore try to make
sure they can deal with the consequences of making their criticism. If
they don't, they could be defeated by what they said.
Conservative criticism
Conservative criticism
is primarily concerned with conformity to a rule or principle, and
continuity with the past (a tradition or heritage of some sort).
Conservative critics consider that:
everything in the world has its proper and rightful place.
people ought to know what that place is, for their own good.
people ought to stay in their own proper place, because they belong there.
people should not try to leave their proper place in life, or misplace things, because that only causes trouble.
the changes which occur, are only really variations of things which always remain the same in human existence, because "that is how people are" or "that is how society is".
Conservative criticism is therefore not necessarily "narrowminded",
because knowing what the proper place of things is, might involve a vast
knowledge about how things work. There may be very good reasons for
keeping things as they are or were.
The most common forms of conservative criticism are that somebody
is breaking with a rule, wrongly rejecting a tradition, or wrongly
placing something where, they think, it does not belong. Conservative
critics are as concerned with the future as anybody else, it is just
that they expect no more from the future, than there has been in the
past; and, to tackle the future, they believe only the "tried and tested
methods" should be used. Typically conservatism is associated with
older people, who "have seen it all and done it all". But conservative
criticisms can be made by any kind of person, they are not automatically
"conservatives" because they make a conservative criticism.
Conservative criticism has nothing much to do with "left-wing" or
"right-wing", because left-wing people are often very conservative, in
the defined sense, while right-wing people can also be very radical, in
the defined sense. The difference between "radical" and "conservative"
has more to do with the belief in whether a change to something genuinely new
is really possible and necessary. Radicals typically believe strongly
that such change is highly desirable and necessary, and that it can be
achieved. Their criticism is that there is not enough change.
Conservative critics, by contrast, are very skeptical about any such
change, because they feel the change is really "just another form" of
something that already exists.
The conservative criticism is typically that there has already been too much change, of the wrong kind, and that this change has led people astray –
that people should return to how things were always done in the past. A
return to the 'correct' tradition, 'correct' ways of the past, is the
only big change many conservative critics are interested in.
Conservative critics may well recognize that important changes do
occur, it is merely that whatever the changes, those changes do not and
cannot alter the eternal conditions of human existence. "Details" may
change, but "in essence" the human predicament remains the same as it
has always been. So conservative critics typically emphasize continuity
over change. They believe it is just not possible to change human
existence very radically, whatever the appearance. Conservative
criticism therefore says that, when people claim they are doing
something new or have changed things, this is just spurious and
superficial, because, in essence, things stay much as they always have
been. People may think they are innovating, but in reality most of it
has been done before.
A true conservative critic does not think in terms of "living for
the moment", but in terms of years, decades, centuries and eternity. He
criticizes on the basis of long-lasting principles. The ultimate aim of conservative criticism is to achieve stability,
so that things stay in the place where they belong, orderly and
peacefully. This is logical, because it fits with the idea that human
beings quite simply "are as they are" – and that this will never change.
Resistance to this reality, the conservative feels, is not only
useless, but also just makes people unhappy; "you can't change human
nature".
Conservative criticism can be effective, if it is feasible to
keep things the way they are, or to return to a traditional way of doing
things. It is usually not effective, if change is absolutely
unavoidable and inevitable, or if it is impossible to go back to the way
of doing things in the past. However, even if change cannot be avoided,
there may be several different options for how to approach it, and
conservative critics are then likely to choose a "conservative option".
Liberal criticism
Liberal criticism
is primarily concerned with people's rights (including human rights)
and freedoms, with whether people are taking responsibility for their
choices or not, and with the limits of toleration. Liberal critics
believe that:
Interests, needs, and rights of autonomous individuals are most
important, not group entities (except if they are groups of recognizable
individuals).
People should be free to make their own choices, and should take responsibility for those choices.
People should have equal opportunities in the marketplace.
People should be rewarded according to the merits of what they achieve, not according to their status, or inherited privileges.
People are entitled to a private sphere of their own, i.e., a distinction should be made between private and public life.
Liberal criticism focuses on making sure that all the conditions
exist in which individuals can develop, flourish and prosper
successfully, as independent people, with a minimum of constraints.
Liberals therefore criticize anything that gets in the way of this.
People's rights, privacy and choices should be respected as much as
possible, and obstacles to a free life should be attacked and removed.
Liberals are in favour of pluralism: nobody has a monopoly on the truth,
and other, different voices should be heard. At the same time, people
should be prevented from interfering too much in other people's lives.
If people make the wrong choices, or if they don't take responsibility
for their own choices and their own lives, they should be criticized for
that. If people are unfairly shut out from opportunities, or if they
are unfairly rewarded, liberals often criticize it. Liberal criticism is
associated especially with young adults who are starting to make their
own way in life, on their own strength.
Liberal criticism can often become extraordinarily complex and
subtle, involving very fine distinctions. The reason is that the
interests, rights and obligations of individuals constantly have to be
weighed against the interests, rights and obligations of other
individuals. Rules and principles have to be created so that individuals
are not too constrained, but also that they are prevented from
interfering unduly in the lives of others. People should be "free, but
not too free". People are "too free" when they become irresponsible,
anti-social and arbitrary, i.e., when they fail to regulate their own
behaviour appropriately, and have to be regulated by others. Liberal
criticism is therefore always very concerned with finding the right kind
of balance, or the right nuance, which would (ideally)
express a situation of harmony among individuals (or expresses the best
way to regard something). Liberals accept that conflicts always occur,
but conflicts should be kept within certain bounds, and methods should
be found to resolve them fairly. Much liberal criticism is devoted to
defining exactly "what should be tolerated and what should not be
tolerated", and explaining why that is.
At its best, liberal criticism takes a "liberal" view of human
beings, meaning that it is sufficiently open-minded to consider issues
in a very comprehensive way, from all different angles. It allows people
enough freedom to try out something new, tolerates differences of
opinion, and lets people learn from their mistakes.
At worst, liberal criticism "misses the wood for the trees" because,
by focusing on individuals and individual solutions, it overlooks the
"bigger picture", or fails to understand the meaning of people's social
coexistence. Liberals often cannot imagine anything beyond individuals,
and therefore, when they have to describe the total situation in which
individuals have to operate (social systems, macro-realities or
collectivities), their perspective may become eclectic, fragmented or
particularist.
Generally, liberal critics believe that the world would be better
off if everyone is a liberal; but if they are driven into a corner by
the criticisms of others, i.e., if they are robbed of their freedom in
some sense, they can also become very anti-liberal and despotic – at
least until such time as their own liberal way of being is tolerated
again.
Liberal criticism typically does not work well, when the interests
of the people concerned are mutually exclusive, and cannot be reconciled
at all. Liberal criticism usually assumes that people are sufficiently
flexible to be willing to discuss, negotiate or compromise about
something, i.e., that people have an attitude of "give and take".
Speculative criticism
Speculative criticism
is criticism which focuses on what something "might, could, or ought
to" mean, or what "might, could, or ought to" follow from it. It might
also focus on the "probable" or "likely" meaning of something, or the
"probable" or "likely" consequences of it. Speculative criticism usually
occurs in the absence of (enough) evidence that would decide an issue.
It goes "beyond the facts", because the facts available (if any) are not
conclusive. Thus, speculative criticisms usually occur when things are
either not certain, definite or fixed (yet), or when multiple different
meanings are possible. Since most people have to deal with some
uncertainties in their daily lives, and have to interpret things without
(yet) knowing the details of the full story, they entertain speculative
thoughts as a normal everyday occurrence . For example, if somebody is
thinking of buying a used car, he or she might think of what "might" be
right or wrong with it, without knowing for sure.
A speculative criticism often takes the form that "if we assumed
such-and-such, then it would seem that a consequence (desirable or
undesirable) would follow". Yet whether the assumption is valid, remains
uncertain. Whether the inference made on the strength of the assumption
is valid, may likewise be uncertain. The speculative critic imagines
different positive and negative scenarios which could be applicable, if
certain conditions are assumed to exist. Or, somebody might say,
"intuitively I would object to such a statement", without definite
grounds or reliable information being available. Something could be
"plausible" (on the face of it, it makes sense), but not (yet)
"provable". There could "probably" be something wrong with a thing or
idea, without definite proof that it is wrong.
Speculative criticism is often criticized precisely because it is
speculative, i.e., because relevant evidence is unavailable, or because
the criticism is made before "the evidence is in." In this case, the
criticism is considered to lack any solid basis. For example,
politicians (or political commentators) might dismiss "speculative
newspaper stories" because they believe that these stories are just "spin" based on gossip and hearsay, and not based on any "hard evidence".
Nevertheless, speculative criticism can play an important role (e.g., in research, in art, in hermeneutics
and in literary theory), because the same information can be "read" in
different ways, and read in different ways by different people. What the
information means, is in this case not fixed; it is open to
interpretation, it has different meanings, and it may be, that what it
means can only be established by interacting with the information. By
means of speculative criticism, it is established what the information
could possibly mean, perhaps as a prologue to more thorough
verification. For example, when archaeologists find some very old bones,
they might debate their hunches about the civilization of the people to
whom the bones belonged. In all sorts of fields of human endeavour, it
can be important and valuable to establish, through criticisms, what the
possible significance of something is. Speculative criticism
does not necessarily assume that things mean "anything you like". It may
only be that the significance of something could be interpreted in a limited number of different ways.
Speculative criticism can be useful and credible, if people have
to evaluate situations where there are unknowns, uncertainties,
novelties or different possibilities (see also brainstorming).
It is not very credible, when a definite answer could easily be
obtained, "if only" the speculative critics bothered to do a bit of
thinking and fact-finding themselves, and if they verified the claims
being made properly.
Foolish criticism
Foolish criticism is unclear about what the motive or purpose
of the criticism is, or about what the consequence or effect of the
criticism is. Usually it connotes lack of self-insight or a good
understanding of the motives or issue involved. The foolish critic often
mistakes what his target should be, and therefore, his criticism is
really "at the wrong address", it is in some sense misplaced,
disingenuous or misjudged ("clutching at straws", "tilting at
windmills", "Red herring").
Foolish criticism is not necessarily arbitrary or willy-nilly,
but it is "foolish", because it does the critic (or his intended target)
no good. Typically it is therefore self-defeating, which might make
people wonder why it is being stated at all. People can become terribly
obsessed with a criticism, without really being aware of what it is truly about, why it is being made, or what the effect of it is. They might feel they should "pipe in" about an issue, without any awareness of a clear motivation.
Foolish criticism may lack any clear direction, being prompted
simply by a grudge or gripe, a feeling of unease, or a sense of
dissatisfaction. People often say, "don't criticize, what you don't
understand", meaning that first people should understand things and
their effects properly, before launching into criticism. If they do not,
the criticism might "backfire" and have an effect which is opposite to
what is intended. Criticism is truly foolish, if people persist in a
criticism regardless, even though it is demonstrably not well-taken.
Foolish criticism is sometimes also interpreted as comical
criticism ("critical foolery" or "fooling around with criticism") where
the critic aims to entertain with his criticism.
Foolish criticism usually means that the criticism and the critic
are not taken seriously by people who understand what the issue is
about; thus, the criticism may have no other effect than that it makes
people laugh, shrug or feel annoyed. People may acknowledge that a
criticism is "brave" (they credit the critic with the courage to make a
criticism), but also that it is "foolish" (because, by making it, the
critic sacrifices something important which he did not need to do).
Professional criticism
The term "professional criticism" is applied in several ways.
Criticism which is professionally done - this implies
that it is expertly done, and could hardly be improved. That usually
means that it is so well-designed, that nobody can deny it, and that
people feel something necessarily has to be done about it.
Criticism which is offered by a professional, rather than an
amateur or layman. Somebody may offer a criticism "in his professional
capacity", meaning that he bases himself on his professional experience
with the subject of the criticism. This does not, however, automatically
mean that the criticism is good.
Somebody is being criticized, because he has flouted a professional standard.
Normally, a skilled occupation or a profession has a set of standards,
which aims to ensure the quality of work. If the standards were not
there, the goods and services supplied would be shoddy, useless or
unsafe. Professionals learn what the standard is, through training and
education, and they explain relevant aspects of that standard to the
people they supervise. The standards can include a code of ethics, rules
for behaviour, technical norms and procedures, legal rules, etc. It is
expected that people who work in a profession really follow the
standards of that profession. If they do not, they can be criticized for
this failure. In that case, their behaviour is regarded as "not
professional" or "unprofessional".
The criticism of professionals or the criticism of a profession
may occur, sometimes in a somewhat humorous, or satirical way. It could
be done by professionals themselves, or by amateurs or laypersons. In
this case, there is some skepticism about what the status of "being
professional" actually adds to solving a problem, or there is skepticism
about the claims made by a profession about how it can contribute to
solving a problem. It is often implied here, that the standards of
professionals do no justice to a specific situation, or that there is a
case of professional cretinism: the professional gets it wrong, because he is unable to think outside of his own profession (he is imprisoned in a framework that does not lead to a solution).
Not infrequently, some of these different senses of professional criticism are mixed together, especially when people try to pretend
somebody's criticism is authoritative (they seem to have a professional
expertise, although they really lack this expertise), or when people
try to pretend that somebody's criticism is not authoritative
(they are treated as no better than the rest, although in reality they
are highly professional, and more competent and experienced than the
rest).
Self-criticism
Self-criticism (or what academics sometimes call "autocritique")
refers to the ability to appraise the pros and cons of one's own
beliefs, thoughts, actions, behaviour or results, especially from the
point of view of how others might regard them. The self-criticism might
occur in private, or it might happen in a group discussion. Sometimes
the self-criticism is aired publicly, specifically to show people that a
person or group no longer believes in something which it formerly did;
at other times, the self-criticism remains a hidden secret behind closed
doors.
Self-criticism requires a certain flexibility of mind, because it
assumes a person is able to call into question his own behaviour and
thinking – instead of believing that he "naturally" is the way he is, or
that he can "never be wrong". Often it requires that people are able to
"step outside themselves", and see themselves from a different
perspective. The self-critic is willing to search for, recognize, and
accept objections against his own behavior, or his own characteristics;
he is willing to accept that he could be wrong, or indeed that he is in the wrong.
Self-criticism can be very difficult, for several reasons.
People can be very resistant to admitting they are wrong about
something, or that they did (or said) the wrong thing. They like to
believe they got it right, even when others disagree. Acknowledging that
they got it wrong, could be very embarrassing, confusing or
distressing – especially if they personally invested a lot in the wrong
idea. Their whole world might crumble.
People might have "blind spots" in their awareness, i.e., they are
simply unable to see a part of themselves for what it is (unless others
point it out to them). In that case, they are unable to criticize
themselves, because they don't know what there is to criticize.
If people did engage in self-criticism, others might interpret it as
a sign of weakness ("you got it wrong, so why should I take you
seriously?"). Thus, the self-critic might no longer have the same
confidence, or become vulnerable to attack from others.
Self-criticism is an essential component of learning.
In order to be able to change one's behaviour, improve one's style, and
adjust to a new situation, it is necessary to recognize personal errors
as errors. Once the errors are known, something can be done about them;
a different path can be pursued. One also needs to be able to tell the
difference between success and failure, and not mistake one for the
other. Only then is it possible to truly "learn from one's mistakes."
Often, the most challenging part is to know what exactly the mistake or
success consists in. The aim of self-criticism is to find all that out,
aided by memory.
People sometimes say, "its about the criticism that gets me".
This is especially true of self-criticism. Usually people are only
prepared to criticize themselves within certain limits, otherwise it
becomes confusing, disorienting, or even lethal. If a person arrives at
the conclusion that most of what he is about is wrong, he can be plunged
into a disorienting chaos, where he is unable to evaluate things
properly anymore. Thus, while most people regard self-criticism as
healthy, as a sign of good character, and as necessary for learning, excessive or enforced
self-criticism is regarded as unhealthy (as destructive for the
individual). The ultimate self-criticism can be a final self-attack
through deliberate suicide.
Suicidal persons are willing to give up their right to exist, they no
longer believe their life is worth living. Thus, it is possible to be
"too hard on oneself", leading to self-destructive behaviour.
.jpg)
