Sometimes I think (and hope) that President Dubya is a gift to the Democrats. The disappointment that the Dems have felt towards the Bush Administration has burst the levee and is spilling over into the GOP. But there’s one problem. Public opinion is against the Republicans (and incumbent Democrats, for that matter). I think the general public views opposition leaders as unorganized whiners. Say what you want about the Bush and his cronies, but they know what they want. They have a vision behind which people can unify (I’m not placing any value judgment on the content of the vision–Gandhi and Hitler both motivated the masses with their respective visions).
I value critics, and I’ve been one in the past. We need critics to keep us honest and to point out injustice. But I think that criticism needs to be tempered by compassion. And I think that negative criticism is most effective when accompanied with a positive vision. Dr. Martin Luther King didn’t just turn his devastating oratory skill against racism–he had a dream, a vision of wholeness for our ailing society to work towards.
Criticism (in its general and not academic usage) is by connotation destructive; in my own experience, “constructive criticism” is oxymoronic. It grates against my appreciation for non-violence. For now, I have decided that I am not primarily a critic. I am way too critical of myself and of those closest to me. I see repeatedly how criticism can have the desired effect of changing behavior, but it is often at the cost of trust, respect, the relationship or the recipient’s well-being. When my primary approach to people, religion, and other political and social institutions is primarily destructive, I burn bridges instead of building them. Bloody battles break out where peaceful negotiations might have succeeded.
I hope you’ll bear with me as I sermonize (”Amen, Pastor John!”). I don’t have many Mormon scriptures I’m fond of, but this one teaches wisdom:
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned…Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
- from Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121
To me, this is common sense. Reproving and love should go hand in hand, and criticism should exist within a larger, compassionate relationship.
This post isn’t as coherent as I’d like. There’s certainly a difference between individuals and institutions (though not always clear). And to me the connection between pure compassion and a positive vision is intuitive, but that connection’s probably not clear in my writing. But these are things I’ve been thinking about as I distance myself from my Religion Of Origin, as I begin the study of deconstruction, as I reflect on my purpose as a writer and teacher, and as I think about my relationships with my friends, my family, and my self.
I’d love to hear from all of you on this. What should clothe our naked criticism of society and individuals? Is criticism violence? Is there a moral justification for avoiding criticism altogether and living a life of affirmation?
6 responses so far ↓
1 PodMonkeys // May 18, 2006 at 3:44 am
Criticism is essential for the constant improvement of one’s self and of society. For society, sometimes it needs outspoken harshness. Sometimes the same could be said for certain occupations. But in general, especially in personal relationships, criticism should always be done with the utmost compassion, empathy, and kindness.
You can’t improve without knowing what you did wrong. You can’t get a full picture of your ideas without someone else’s perspective of your ideas. In the Army and in the workplace, we have annual, bi-annual, even monthly reviews. These are all forms of criticism. I think while criticism is destructive, theres a difference with deconstructing methods and ideas for analysis and improvement, and deconstruction of someone’s emotional well being.
There’s my 2 cents on criticism. Probably not as in depth as it could have been.
2 D.McBride // May 18, 2006 at 5:09 am
Not really a comment on criticism, but I came across this page attempting to index the religious affiliation of some of the more influential people in history. Thought you might find it interesting. (What, no Mormons?)
http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html
3 Rich // May 20, 2006 at 6:39 am
It’s easy to get lost in the practice of criticism. I know I hate Bush so much I freely admit I’ve completely lost any and all objectivity regarding the Chimperor. I’m guessing that he’s done some things right, I just plain can’t see them anymore! ;o)
I’ve learned that if you look for balancing the negative with as much positive as possible when it comes to people, the more objective you can be. Not so much Thumper’s “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything…” speech, but more along the lines of a Ben Franklin Pro/Con list.
It’s also especially difficult when you target someone outspoken or in a position of power that seems to lack objectivity. There are some leaders (civic and religious for example) that seem to posess so little humility and/or the ability to concede that they might be mistaken. I find myself wanting to criticize such folk — they are just begging for it (I’m sure of it)!
4 Miko // May 20, 2006 at 8:44 am
“Dittos” to both PodMonkey & Rich. Criticism is vitally important…so is affirmation. What is necessary is a balance. Too much affirmation & too little criticism equals too much ego. Too little affirmation & too much criticism can destroy ego (which may sound like a good thing, but I know some people like this & it’s not cool.
Perhaps affirmative criticism is what is needed: this would encompass compassion as well as critique. It’s a fine line, however, and some people are natrually in a position (or have already established so great an ego) that encourages attack criticism which unfortunately makes the criticizer look petty & the criticizee like a victim.
5 Parker // May 21, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Criticism as I usually encounter it (both giving and receiving) tends to be finding fault with, attacking, and most often uninvited. In that sense I think it is a form of viloence. If it is in the form of evaluation, particularly where invited, I think it can be helpful.
6 John // May 22, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Thank you everyone, for your comments (including McBride Choro’s interesting link!). I’ve thought a lot about criticism in its various contexts: personal, institutional, and in the blogging world, and you’ve given me more to chew on. Parker, your comment seems so common-sense, and speaks true to my experience.
Here’s my current take:
- We all need some criticism, but we generally get and give more than is helpful. I think I agree fundamentally with Miko’s call for balance, and my view is that criticism tips the scales.
- My view is based on my own personal experience (and Jana’s). We’ve both watched in the past couple of years as criticism without compassion has eroded relationships of trust between friends, family members and coworkers. But perhaps others get too much affirmation and not enough criticism. I probably shouldn’t make a prescription to the world based on my own limited experiences.
- I’ve tried not to be too critical on this site (especially of religion) because so many of the sites that discuss religion seem to be so critical in nature (both and against religion).
I think that blogs that are overwhelmingly critical are just plain tiresome to read, unless the writing is fresh and invigorating.
I hope that this site can provide some unique ways of looking at religion. I think I might turn up the criticism just a notch or two, but in way that is hopefully thoughtfully and compassionately provocative. I’m following Miko and Rich’s theme of balance and Joe’s suggestion that criticism can be a good thing if it leads to improvement.
Leave a Comment