Insights and Outlooks: Criticism from the Inside Out

In a recent article in The Chronicle for Higher Education, "Agonism in the Academy: Surviving Higher Learning's Argument Culture," Deborah Tannen points out the extent to which the culture of academia is built on argument and criticism. She highlights the fact that the adversarial nature of scholarly discourse is simply assumed; we are encouraged to communicate in terms of arguments. This "ritualized opposition" as Tannen describes it, is often at the expense of real dialogue about ideas. She cites a number of studies which show that academic rewards "typically go to students and scholars who learn to tear down others' work," but points out that this argument model may not actually encourage learning or good scholarship.

While Tannen's article discusses many different aspects of what she terms "argument culture," I was particularly interested in her comments about criticism, and it made me consider what models and strategies we use for thinking critically. We are taught early on in university not to take any idea at face value but to develop critical thinking tools. We understand that to simply spit back information without critique is bad scholarship and we are encouraged to write papers and dissertations which position ourselves in opposition to others. But somewhere along the line the young scholar's eagerness to move beyond a sophomoric blind faith evolves into a disturbing appetite for cutting others down. Too often, scholars act like hungry wolves, hunting for the first opportunity to criticize someone else's ideas. Instead of actually listening to others, we pounce on the first weakness we can find, concentrating on our own fighting skills more than the ideas at stake. I would agree with Tannen and others that this is not the best strategy for thinking critically.

A less blood-thirsty (and, to my mind, more useful) critical thinking model was suggested to me, surprisingly enough, in an undergraduate philosophy class. As a former philosophy major I can attest to the fact that the prevalence for eager criticism is particularly rampant in the field of philosophy. Nonetheless, it was a philosophy professor who challenged our class to take a three-staged "inside out" approach to critical thinking. He suggested that in evaluating other ideas and belief systems, the first stage should always be to try to understand the logic of that system in and of itself. To try, as much as is possible as an outsider, to step "inside" that system and attempt to understand where the ideas come from, their use, their sense, and their appeal. The next stage should then be an evaluation of the ideas in terms of that system's own logic. Does it work as a system? Can it be applied effectively? Is it consistent, or does it have internal contradictions? Only in the third and final stage should you allow yourself to move outside the system and give a critical analysis from your own perspective.

Although I do not think that it is possible to actually move outside one's own perspective and inside another (and neither did my professor), I believe that to attempt to do so is a worthwhile exercise. As an academic version of the proverbial mile's walk in your enemy's shoes, attempting to understand another idea before pointing out its flaws can give us insights only available to a sympathetic reader/listener, and add depth and legitimacy to our scholarship. It may also save us from the trap of narrow-minded arrogance and prevent us from portraying our opponents as simplistic "straw men" or over-exaggerating their faults while ignoring any shared common ground.

All of this is not to say that we will not eventually criticize - surely we do need critical thinking to learn and grow - but our criticisms will be informed and framed in an attitude of respect.

Good scholarship is not just about criticism - it also involves building on the past, synthesis, comparisons, interpretation, and host of other skills - but criticism is an integral part of what we do. We should treat it as a special skill which needs to be developed. If we can learn to develop critical skills that work from the inside out and include understanding, respect and openness, perhaps effective dialogue and learning can indeed occur.