INTRODUCTORY GUIDE TO KINDS OF CRITICISM

AND CRITIQUE VERSUS CRITICISM

Professor Bob Nowlan
 

    In my introductory guide "Interpretation and Evaluation: Questions for Thinking About Interpretation and Evaluation in (Re)Reading and (Re)Writing Texts of Culture" I define criticism as "to evaluate on the basis of an interpretation." What this means is we are talking about intellectually serious criticism, not criticism in the (common)sense of merely "finding fault" or "putting down." We are talking about criticism which judges, but which, at the same time, explains and justifies its judgment.
 

    It is possible to answer the questions listed in "Questions for Thinking About Interpretation and Evaluation in (Re)Reading and (Re)Writing Texts of Culture" in many different ways depending upon what standards are brought to bear and what methods are used: in short, answers to these questions will vary -- and often considerably -- depending upon the kind of criticism. Different kinds of criticism come from different perspectives (or vantage points), proceed in different directions, advance different ends, and support different interests, and they can be classified, compared, and contrasted, and criticized in turn according to differences along these lines (perspective, direction, end, and interest), as well as along many others. In your study of critical theory you will learn to classify, compare, contrast, and criticize different kinds of criticism in many complex ways.
 

    At the beginning, however, as an initial point of departure, I think it is worth reminding you of two very basic and general ways to classify different kinds of criticism. Both classifications refer to kinds of criticism which are concerned with human actions and behavior and with the products of human action and behavior. There are of course only two among many other ways of classifying different kinds of criticism -- many of which are far more complex and sophisticated -- but this will I hope prove a useful start.
 

I. POLITICAL VERSUS MORAL CRITICISM:

A. Moral Criticism: judges according to moral standards. Moral criticism tends to praise or blame by locating responsibility strictly within the "nature" or "character" of an individual, group, society, or culture.

B. Political Criticism: judges according to political standards. Here "political" is understood not simply to refer to voting and campaigning for elective government office, but rather to everything which directly pertains to the conditions of possibility and the forces of generation, as well as to the ends advanced and the interests served, by way of the entire sphere of conflict and struggle -- and the regulation and adjudication of this conflict and struggle -- among individuals and various social groups over right of access to, and opportunity for exercise of, the natural and cultural resources, powers, and capacities of a particular community or society. Political criticism is strikingly different from moral criticism insofar as it is not so much concerned with allocating "praise" or "blame," but rather with understanding WHY

1. that which exists, exists as it does (and that which does not exist does not exist);

2. that which is desirable is desirable (and that which is undesirable is undesirable);

3. that which is possible is possible (and that which is impossible is impossible).

In addition, political criticism also asks WHY about:

-- that which did exist and that which did not exist (in the past);

-- that which will, can, should, and/or must exist, and that which will not, cannot, should not, and must not exist (in the future);

-- that which is true and that which is false;

-- that which is right and that which is wrong (and good and bad, fair and unfair, just and unjust, equitable and inequitable);

-- that which is responsible and that which is not responsible for (what causes and what does not cause) that which exists (and for that which does not exist), that which is desirable (and for that which is not desirable), and that which is possible (and that which is impossible); and

-- that which is necessary and that which is unnecessary.

And, furthermore, political criticism asks WHY as well about:

-- What people THINK about all of these questions versus what REALLY are, were, will/can/should/or must be the CORRECT answers in each case.

Political criticism, in contrast with moral criticism, attempts to understand WHY the "nature" or "character" of an individual, group, society, or culture is as it is. In other words, political criticism asks what made the individual, group, society, or culture the way it is -- what are the conditions that have made it possible to be as it is, what are the forces that have shaped and produced it to be as it is, what are the ends which have been advanced because it is the way it is, and what are the interests which have been served because it is the way it is.

II. VERY BASIC AND GENERAL KINDS OF POLITICAL CRITICISM:

A. CONSERVATIVE: works from the presupposition that the ways things basically or essentially are is the way they should be. In other words, conservative criticism supports keeping things basically or essentially the same as they are.

B. LIBERAL: works from the presupposition that the way things basically or essentially are needs to be modified or reformed so as to improve the existing state of affairs. In other words, liberal criticism supports modifications and reforms in the basic or essential organization of the way things are.

C. REACTIONARY: works from the presupposition that the way things basically or essentially are needs to be returned to a way they were in a(n especially distant and different) past but which is now no longer so as to improve the existing state of affairs. In other words, reactionary criticism supports fundamental and substantial change in what currently is, but only so as to return to a now past state of affairs.

D. RADICAL: works from the presupposition that the way things basically or essentially are needs to be fundamentally and substantially transformed so as to improve the existing state of affairs. In other words, radical criticism supports fundamental and substantial change in what currently is so as to create a basically or essentially new state of affairs -- a state of affairs which has not yet been realized.

Many intellectual "critics" have drawn an often quite useful distinction between "criticism" and "critique."

1. Some critics suggest that "critique" is all "criticism" which is concerned to explain how and especially why the problems and limitations it identifies in its object exist as they do: i.e. to explain what gives rise to and makes possible -- indeed, at times, makes necessary -- the existence of these problems and limitations. Critique, in other words, does not rest content with merely announcing that it finds object X to be problematic and limited in ways Y according to standards and criteria Z, but instead always proceeds beyond this to provide an explanation for why these problems and limitations exist -- and persist -- as they do. Criticism, therefore, includes "critique-al" as well as many "non-critique-al" methods and practices.

2. Other critics suggest that "critique" is roughly equivalent with what I have described above as "political criticism," while "criticism" is roughly equivalent in turn with "moral criticism."

3. Still others are even more precise than this in marking out a distinction between "critique" and "criticism." These critics suggest that "critique" is concerned primarily with understanding an object sufficiently to enable its "transformation" (and not merely its reformation) by accounting for its dynamic connections with and determinations of and by other objects within a series or totality of related objects. "Critique" attempts to understand why an object is as it is so that it can be changed, most often in a fundamental or radical way so that it will be made something substantially new and different such that the "old object" is either substantially improved and enhanced or has been substantially transcended and superseded. "Criticism," in contrast, is understood by these critics to remain content with passing "judgment" upon an object in a way which "reifies" the object, separating and freezing it in abstract isolation from its real and concrete relations with other objects. Criticism is not directly concerned with or interested in understanding so as to change its object.

This material is copyrighted (©)