Something More to Say By Liana Doctrines
Criticism, it´s not just for enemies anymore.
Back in my activist days, I remember an older anarchist watched as I painted the right hand of a 20 foot tall puppet of Mumia (of course) for an upcoming anti—prison industrial complex demonstration. He smiled at me from where he sat and, somewhat wistfully, said, "I remember when I thought rallies would change something." There was no way around the implication: I was wasting my time and energy. I tried to argue my way to a place where pleading with authority and playing to the media was useful, but in the end I knew he was right. My perception was forever shifted. That subtle and measured critique was my key to entering the realm of the post—left anarchist. I still appreciate rallies for their community building and social aspects, but I no longer pretend they’re going to start a revolution.
Criticism, or critique (I will use them interchangeably), is commonly thought of as an opinion about what is wrong, bad, or at fault with someone or their work; a laundry list of disapproval or complaint. A more complete definition emphasizes a detailed, analytical approach, and assesses both the demerits and the merits of someone or someone’s work. When I use criticism (or critique)I mean it to denote appraisals of this more comprehensive variety. The fact that these words are frequently used to describe only what we don´t like points to one reason why many people have decided that criticism itself is Bad.
In the case of politics, and other strongly held beliefs, arguments can easily degrade into a polarized moralism. Anarchists, for example, could argue that anything that weakens the state is Good, and anything that strengthens the state is Bad. But each anarchist would interpret this simple postulate according to their own perspective, context, focus, or tendency, and would act accepting nuanced trade offs. These bargains can easily be interpreted as Bad or Wrong by other anarchists. If, instead of using a dualistic/ simplified paradigm, we explored each others´ actions and ideas with a more thorough style of critique, we might maintain our strength of thought and purpose while appreciating the necessary diversity of inspiration and tactic of our cohorts.
Within the anarchist milieu I´ve witnessed labeling and good/bad dichotomies used to justify moral superiority. I have seen personal dislikes or lack of affinity disguised as philosophical critique, including exchanges where one or both parties were Playing to Win and trying to smash each other´s ideas with every trick in the book. I´ve witnessed character assassinating arguments where common ground and similar behaviors are patently ignored. I´ve even observed pathetic attempts at bullying, with hit and run attacks, emotional explosions, and intentionally poor timing used to disorient a rival. I´ve also seen plenty of attempts at friendly criticism or playful mockery executed so unskillfully that they destroyed any possibility of communication. These kinds of exchanges have led to misunderstandings, isolation, splits, loss of community, animosity; in the worst cases people have even called in outside authorities. But let us not throw out the guns with the cops!
Well—executed criticism is invaluable to our milieu. When we offer each other thoughtful critiques, like the one I mentioned above, we highlight the strengths and weaknesses of our communities or projects; we illustrate our differences in thought and tactics; we encourage ourselves to better define our affinities; we hone our arguments, philosophies, and desires. We exercise our ability to articulate our ideas, test our capacity to assess an audience, and increase our skills as orators. We have used criticism to help us root out nonanarchists who have insinuated themselves among us. We have used it to see ourselves from another perspective. And when minds mesh well, we have used it for entertainment (my favorite example being the shadow puppet show "John Z´s Vision Quest"—a post—collapse search for new glasses). When we use criticism well it keeps us talking, thinking, changing, and vibrant. It makes re—living past revolutionary derailments less likely, and invites us to explore all opportunities.
As expected, hierarchs (capitalists, statists, priests, and those who infest instructional institutions) prefer their peons to be inept at criticism, and have made a virtue out of avoiding it. They reward people (in this life and the next) for remaining passive, and attempt to train us to "hear and obey" anyone in authority. Many people are happy to go along with this; it´s easy and safe. No scary challenges to the status quo.
Lamentably, recognizing criticism as a useful tool does not make us adept at it. How many of us can claim we give and receive critique as gracefully as we would like? In the heat of a moment, how many of us, feeling ashamed, angry, unseen (etc), become defensive or return fire without acknowledging the validity of a few of the finer points which have been raised? Certainly we have room for creativity and growth in regards to how we approach and receive each other critically.
And how do we approach each other? What is the role of propaganda, media, the internet, convergences, and conferences in how we use critique? How do we use these media to create valuable critical dialogues? How appropriate is it to criticize each other publicly? How do we change the way we critique in different contexts? With a different audience? With differing levels of affinity or solidarity? In some cases, and with some people, irony may turn an unpleasant realization into an opportunity to laugh at ones oversights. In another case, an ill-timed friendly jab could devastate a relationship. Each criticism we offer or receive exists in a context, with unique players, and if we choose to, we can use these moments as opportunities to learn about ourselves, each other, and our circumstances. As a friend of mine remarked recently, "Even what´s meant as a respectful style of approach may be sensed as condescending—and it might be, even unwittingly—people are not equal and they know it, but they may hate to be reminded of it."
We generally acknowledge our need for diversity of tactics, lifestyles, and philosophy in achieving our ultimate desires. But what about our development as pointed, articulate, and critical speakers and writers? We´re willing to smash the state—are we willing to criticize each other thoughtfully?