Against Criticism
Although it may be true that the nay-sayer is correct more often than is the person proposing a solution, I would much rather be an imperfect resolver than a perfect complainer.
I say this because I just heard something that grates on my nerves and I felt that writing this post was one way I could fight against such ideas.
As I was approaching the building in which my office is located, I passed a couple of my fellow Ph.D. students. They were discussing the problem of the prison system in a Pacific Island country, which is that many of the inmates purposefully reoffend because it is preferable to stay there than return to what they have or don’t have outside the prison.
One of them said, “When I hear things like that, I cringe.” The other student said to him, “Well, then get in there and fix it.” His response is what sticks in my craw. He said, “I don’t want to fix it. Fixing it is an assumption that there is no flaw in the conception [of the proposed solution].”
This bothers me for a number of reasons. It bothers me because it highlights one of the great, glaring weaknesses in academia. While the majority of academics work hard to make a positive impact on the world, many of us are often quite comfortable sitting in our ‘ivory tower’ criticizing structures, institutions, policies and practices throughout the world, without offering any solution. A person can ‘enjoy’ a ‘respectable’, successful academic career built solely on showing how someone or something else is wrong. I put ‘enjoy’ and ‘respectable’ in commas, because I don’t know how anyone can enjoy being perpetually negative nor do I think that such a career is respectable.
Such a statement also bothers me, because this person will soon complete the Ph.D. process, no doubt successfully, and then will become the teacher of the next generation of university students. While I don’t know what his career aspirations are, I assume he will become a university instructor because I can’t imagine someone with that attitude choosing or lasting long in any other profession. But it worries me that this attitude will have a platform of influence over part of the next generation of students, including my children. I think that while university instructors should certainly help their students see the difficulties and challenges of the world, they should also prepare their students to meet these challenges--with skill and with hope.
The statement also bothers me because it is weak. It is an excuse to keep from engaging with difficult issues. It reminds me of those members of my church who regularly criticize the leaders for their weaknesses yet don’t fulfill their callings or do their home teaching. I have often counseled members that we are qualified to criticize and complain once we are ready to do something about it. Otherwise, keep it to ourselves.
The statement also bothers me because it is cowardly. Many criticizers don’t offer a solution simply because there is a possibility to be shown that their own ideas are flawed. It reminds me of a kid in a neighborhood I lived in as a child. He didn't like anyone. He would throw things at other kids from the safety of his front yard where he could quickly retreat into the house if you tried to catch him. Or, if he saw you wrestling with your friend, he would wait until you were inextricably entwined before running up to kick you in the ribs or the head and then sprinting back to his house. He was a coward. I hope he outgrew it.
A respectable academic (or person) follows their criticism by proposing action. Perhaps this is a courageous step, because they are quite aware of the possibility that their approach will be flawed, but they take it anyway, prepared to be kicked in the ribs by the cowardly neighborhood intellectual while they wrestle with the problem at hand.
I'm happy to hear your thoughts.
I say this because I just heard something that grates on my nerves and I felt that writing this post was one way I could fight against such ideas.
As I was approaching the building in which my office is located, I passed a couple of my fellow Ph.D. students. They were discussing the problem of the prison system in a Pacific Island country, which is that many of the inmates purposefully reoffend because it is preferable to stay there than return to what they have or don’t have outside the prison.
One of them said, “When I hear things like that, I cringe.” The other student said to him, “Well, then get in there and fix it.” His response is what sticks in my craw. He said, “I don’t want to fix it. Fixing it is an assumption that there is no flaw in the conception [of the proposed solution].”
This bothers me for a number of reasons. It bothers me because it highlights one of the great, glaring weaknesses in academia. While the majority of academics work hard to make a positive impact on the world, many of us are often quite comfortable sitting in our ‘ivory tower’ criticizing structures, institutions, policies and practices throughout the world, without offering any solution. A person can ‘enjoy’ a ‘respectable’, successful academic career built solely on showing how someone or something else is wrong. I put ‘enjoy’ and ‘respectable’ in commas, because I don’t know how anyone can enjoy being perpetually negative nor do I think that such a career is respectable.
Such a statement also bothers me, because this person will soon complete the Ph.D. process, no doubt successfully, and then will become the teacher of the next generation of university students. While I don’t know what his career aspirations are, I assume he will become a university instructor because I can’t imagine someone with that attitude choosing or lasting long in any other profession. But it worries me that this attitude will have a platform of influence over part of the next generation of students, including my children. I think that while university instructors should certainly help their students see the difficulties and challenges of the world, they should also prepare their students to meet these challenges--with skill and with hope.
The statement also bothers me because it is weak. It is an excuse to keep from engaging with difficult issues. It reminds me of those members of my church who regularly criticize the leaders for their weaknesses yet don’t fulfill their callings or do their home teaching. I have often counseled members that we are qualified to criticize and complain once we are ready to do something about it. Otherwise, keep it to ourselves.
The statement also bothers me because it is cowardly. Many criticizers don’t offer a solution simply because there is a possibility to be shown that their own ideas are flawed. It reminds me of a kid in a neighborhood I lived in as a child. He didn't like anyone. He would throw things at other kids from the safety of his front yard where he could quickly retreat into the house if you tried to catch him. Or, if he saw you wrestling with your friend, he would wait until you were inextricably entwined before running up to kick you in the ribs or the head and then sprinting back to his house. He was a coward. I hope he outgrew it.
A respectable academic (or person) follows their criticism by proposing action. Perhaps this is a courageous step, because they are quite aware of the possibility that their approach will be flawed, but they take it anyway, prepared to be kicked in the ribs by the cowardly neighborhood intellectual while they wrestle with the problem at hand.
I'm happy to hear your thoughts.
5 Comments:
So on that note, I envision photocopying said post and distributing or displaying it around campus and or directly handing it to the commentator mentioned, so as to follow through on the direct response approach and then brace yourself for the kick in the ribs sure to follow. : )
Congrats on the new ultrasound pics!!!
Alisha
I was having this same conversation with my boyfriend just last night. I too see the negativity and fear of action in academia... its all around me. What's worse is it seems to be the majority.... not a select few who sit in their ivory towers and scream insults at the masses below, but MOST of them!
You have to admit that the system is set up to encourage such cowardliness. Peer-review processes encourage criticism but not insights into how to fix the issues. In these same processes you're either an anonymous reviewer (cowardly) or, if not, may likely never publish again if you are too critical of the wrong crowd. Moreover, we graduate students have seminars every week, where we pick a paper and find the 'flaws' in the study design and conclusions. The idea is to encourage critical thinking, but seldom do the discussions end with the class trying to figure out how it could be redone--instead it ends with the flaw-finding. University professors grumble about their disenchanted slacker undergraduate students yet refuse to change their teaching style in order to re-enchant and energize the potential this young group has to offer. We in academia have grown to so love the Critique that we no longer look at anything else.
Alisha. I don't think I will give him a copy of the post, but I do plan on talking with him about it the next time we meet.
Liv. It's great to hear from you! Where are you now?
I agree with your assessment, especially the graduate seminars. I remember many of mine being the exact same way.
Brian
So to start off with, the premise of your whole article is weak. I'm not sure how it could improve...
I know that comparing the critiques of artwork in my beginning drawing class to the kind of critiques you are referring to is kind of dumb. But as soon as the class identifies what's wrong with a drawing, we offer suggestions on what to do to improve it. It got ingrained in me during my days in school.
I'm surprised that the post-grad level ideas you refer to aren't all about what can improve an idea. I just figured that most of the discussion would be about the pros and cons of the improvements considered on a topic.
Also, I'm working on doing better on my home teaching so I can talk bad about my bishop.
Post a Comment
<< Home