On Criticism

A number of things must be done before performing criticism of any institution – namely those of major influence or power over a group of people. What comes to mind is: definitions of concepts being employed to describe and understand the context of power which can (and should) range from the very broad speculation of human nature(s), justice and power to more specialized or narrow definitions of roles of particular members and mechanisms within the framework of power. There also ought be a wealth of research or data that at least has the good possibility of drawing tentative, if not certain, conclusions about implicit modes of justification, methods of the exertion of the power or influence, factors influencing the movement of power and information both direct and indirect, and effects of the exchanges between the members within the framework as well as possible or actual externalities.

Regardless of the intent of a criticism or analysis, I believe that a tremendous amount of work must go in to it. In addition to the definitions and research, a just approach, at least in terms of presentation to non-specialized audiences, much detail and energy should go into making the work accessible through clear writing. This is not to say that it should be dumbed down or that complex notions and events should be called something different that the monikers that they are commonly referred to in their spheres of research, or that the vocabulary or glossary of terms surrounding the concepts and events should not be employed. For instance, when discussing Marx, we have to understand terms like ‘Historical Materialism’ or ‘Modes of Production’, but the communicator par excellence will be able to provide sentences that are not convoluted with jargon and endless obscurities. However, the writer or presenter must also expect a great deal from their audience. The audience must be disciplined and dedicated to sustained critical thought. Quite often the reader should keep a dictionary nearby and also should take it upon themselves to verify information that they are being presented.

To go back to the initial necessity of any dialogue or exposition, definitions need to be set in order to create an effective context from which one can survey the area of analysis. An important note ought be made in regards to contextual definitions: definitions are tentative and very rarely maintain anything like ‘timeless’ status. We might liken contextual definitions to the “pause buttons” of history. It is not as if we define terms in order to complete the game of philosophy or discourse. They are the moves we make to continue the conversation perhaps towards some end as we may envision, but it is not for us to determine the end but merely resting points and mile markers along the way.

Definitions serve simultaneous functions. The impossible task is at hand: to remove ambiguity. As one seeks to carve a distinct shape of concept out of words another function is accomplished, and that is limiting the geography of the content. One may take a word like ‘justice’, or ‘democracy’ or even an event like the Vietnam War and the definition must narrow and focus the scope of the word to a manageable size. Not just democracy as a whole but democracy in the west in the past 50 years pertaining to cultural movements of minorities through the expressions of protest. It is not as if one ought disregard a more abstract definition but rather the definition will probably include not only a strict dictionary entry type of definition but will hopefully be a coherent and connected explanation of general to specific maneuvering the nuanced in-betweens, the hows and whys.

Definitions set the stage and engineer the pieces and the qualities they possess. You might say the definitions control the physics of an environment and the objects within it. The application of criticism is the exploration of how the pieces will react within the environment when exposed to particular conditions. Literary and philosophical criticism might be the closest art comes to science without actually being science.

Definitions provide basic limitations in sketches and broadstrokes, but the accurate revisions needed to bring a detailed view of the situation comes from research and verification of data. Mountains of data must be amassed and assessed to see if original hypotheses still retain integrity or ought to be reconfigured or demolished altogether. Once a wealth of data/information is brought into the sketch to provide a complex and detailed framework, the “physics” of the environment and objects become much more rigid but the creativity and intensity instead of being applied to speculation has to be transferred to interpretation. Criticism is the dynamic interation of definitions and data ultimately interpreted into a bona fide monument – a reference point for future discussion.