[Previous entry: "The Exchange"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "33 1/3"]

04/08/2005 Archived Entry: "Critique"

Critique
Hi. This is Yellow Dog. You may know me from such hits as "Everything You Say is Wrong" and "Why Don't You Join the 21st Century?"

But seriously....I want to say one more thing about the question of critique, the Web, and the problems I see with complacency. I agree with my dear dear dear partner that critique's shortcomings are evident in a variety of situations. Critique fails so many time to accomplish much. Its best usage is to offer response (or alternatives), not to persuade. But a couple of points keep circulating in my mind regarding my own interest in critique and the profession. They involve more than how acerbic I may end up sounding when I feel the need to enter into a conversation (a parlor?) and respond to a position I feel is either problematic or dominant. The first is method.

Satire.
The method I chose the other day to respond to a piece of writing I felt was not very good - and which I felt appeared in a spin-off publication concerned more with surface level issues of academia than actual discussion - was satire. There are folks who may feel that my usage of satire was too heavy-handed. Ok. Fair enough. But the response I received from the writer I critiqued turned too personal to fast. Satire seemed off-limits to the writer. And here is the contradiction. Satire has been a form of writing taught in composition readers since whenever. The most duplicated satirical piece is one of the most heavy-handed, Swift's "A Modest Proposal." I hardly approach Swift’s wit.

Critical Thinking
This phrase has become extremely problematic. It is brought out every chance and used as a catch-all pedagogical imperative. Teach critical thinking. The phrase “critical thinking” is academia’s version of “family values.” Who on earth would teach a non-critical thinking? Who comes out and says: “I’M AGAINST FAMILY VALUES.” Yet, the moment I engaged in critical thinking, all hell broke lose from an individual pleading its usage. I.e. – be critical, but not of me.

Complacency/Dominance
Every time I enter into a rant on the field's listserv or even here in this space, I get all kinds of back-channel compliments (and at conferences I receive such compliments, too). But publicly, I am slowly developing a bit of a "hot head" image. No problem with the image. The question, of course, is why do so many folks feel reluctance to respond as well in the public arena? Probably, because they know that a dominant position of complacency will kick in and tell them to shut up. So why bother? Why bother, indeed. And here is where dominant positions make their mark, be they political (Bush) or institutional (name your school/department/field of study). The cultural studies tradition is to respond to such dominance. The composition position - at least as it is marked in public spaces like listservs - is to keep quiet. Or, at least it is to keep quiet when our own professional identity is at stake. When the object of interest is far away (Iraq, Churchill, etc.) and most likely will match the dominant thinking (we are against the war, we support academic freedom) we are eager to yell and scream and show where dominant thinking errs. When the object of interest is ourselves (we are not keeping up with innovations in technology and communication, we maintain a hierarchy of improper labor relations in our departments, we resist innovation in teaching that challenges convention, we strive for a positivist approach to assessment and teaching, we’re too enamored with keywords/phrases like “critical thinking” or “merge theory with practice” than with actual application, etc.), dissent is not allowed. Or dissent is allowed in designated places only.

And here is where the blog provides a place to rant and rave, to move outside of any kind of approved public sphere into a more general public arena. I can say more about how the blog altered the homepage in this sense for, not necessarily a “resistance model” (cause that’s not exactly what I’m thinking about), but the notion of the network, where it’s not such much resistance that occurs, but a series of alternative pathways. One key point is to not allow the fear of dissent to shut down all response. Institutionalized sites already do that. One’s space on the Web does not have to be dragged into that arena.