BEING CRITICAL What is Being Critical? In essay assignments, dissertations, theses and papers you are expected to be critical. Being critical does not mean being negative. Being critical means not taking for granted what you have read, heard, been told or previously believed, and questioning it to find out: » whether it makes sense or not, » whether it can be true or not, » whether it is good or not, » and whether these three apply in different contexts. Being critical is to question assumptions, including our own assumptions. (This is called being self-critical.) Whether it makes sense or not: Often we believe we understand something, when all we are doing is applying our own prejudices, assumptions or worldview, with the result that we do not understand things as they present themselves to us, because we have been making assumptions. Being critical breaks through our assumptions and helps us see things as they present themselves to us. Being critical makes sure that we understand properly. This is why being critical is so important in academic work. Whether it can be true or not: Often we accept what people write or say without question. Sometimes that is good. But what if it is not true, or only partially true? In academic life especially - but also in ordinary life - it is wise to at least check whether it is true. Being critical helps this. Whether it is good or not: Often we accept situations as they are when they are not as they should be (there is some evil, dysfunction, injustice in them). Being critical both helps us see when something is not as it should be, and also can give increase courage to do something about it. Human beings have the ability to think critically. This is useful and necessary to fulfil humanity's mandate to (a) understand the world of which we are part (b) bring about significant changes that make the world better. Why Be Critical? Some people who are not from a Western background might wonder whether it is really right to be critical. Does it not dishonour the person whom we have heard or read? I believe not. Being critical in the way I have just described does not dishonour the author of what we have heard or read; in fact it honours them because it means you consider them worthy of being taken seriously. What dishonours the author of what we have heard or read is a lazy or negative attitude towards them. Muslims and some Christians are wary of being critical on the grounds that they should never question 'revealed truth', and that doing this is tantamount to unbelief. I believe there is a great difference between unbelief and critical questioning. What lies at the root of unbelief is negativism and hostility: a refusal to accept and believe. But that is not what being critical really is. Being critical of what has been revealed is not necessarily unbelief, but rather shows a desire to understand it better and more fully. Being critical strengthens and enriches belief. How to be Critical To be critical, take the four 'whethers' above and apply them. » To analyse whether it makes sense or not, write down the argument that the author makes. See if there are any gaps in it, or even logical errors of incoherency. Example: Freud claimed, in one of his theories, that all beliefs are mere wish-fulfilment and therefore can be thought of as untrue. But his theory is one of his beliefs, so it must be one of his wish- fulfilments, so it can be taken as untrue. That is incoherent. » To analyse whether it can be true or not, write down what the author is trying to make the reader believe, then either find out what evidence the author gives for it, or work out what conditions need to be fulfilled for what they say to be true. Example: One of Freud's theories rest on evidence from one single case, in which suggestions were made to a child until the child agreed; that agreement was taken to prove the theory. » To analyse whether it is good or not, write down what the author is advocating, and the likely results of it, and discuss whether these are good or bad, beneficial or harmful. Example: Freud's theories were used by the tobacco industry in the 1920s to get women smoking. » To analyse whether these apply in different contexts, write down what cultural context the author is writing from and work out from this what they assume. Then imagine a very different context, and discuss whether the assumptions still hold. Example: Freud's theories were popular among the 1920s Western intelligencia, who were pleased to find something that justified or excused their pursuit of pleasure and sexual promiscuity; they were not so relevant among other cultures of the world. Upon realising that Freud's theories are not be accepted without question as making sense, as true, as good or as relevant in all contexts, we can then distance ourselves from them and ask: "Is there any validity in these theories at all, and if so, what is it?" This challenges those who believe the theories to tell us what it is, or stimulates us to work it out for ourselves. Example: One thing that might be valid about Freud's theories is that the human mental activity works at the level of associations of meaning, and not just linked concepts. This was perhaps the truest contribution that Freud made. In this way, we have come to understand the nature of the world better. So, in your own assignments or dissertations, you can critically ask those questions, and if you find negative answers, then seek carefully that nugget of valid wisdom or insight that might be hidden in what you have read or heard. Ways of Being Critical There are three main ways of doing these. » If you are well-versed in philosophy, you can argue it yourself, but that is dangerous because you might overlook something. We will not consider this further. » Find other writers that criticise the text you are analysing, rather than relying on your own arguments, and cite them and be critical of their critique. » Use Dooyeweerd's aspects: you can argue from the rationality or normativity of aspects. (See "http://www.dooy.info/aspects.html") To find other critical writers, use Wikipedia or search facilities and then ensure that you read them. But then be critical of the critiques (that is, do not take them for granted, but apply the four 'whether' questions even to them) - it is your responsibility to do this. One important result of being critical of the critiques that others give is to extend them. Another is to bring several different critiques together, and especially to judge between those that disagree with each other. Example: The critique of Freud above was mainly found in Clouser [2005, p.84, or 1991 edition in library, p.70], but I extended it. To use Dooyeweerd's aspects, ask yourself whether what you have heard or read makes sense in each aspect. Whether it rings true according to in each aspect. And whether it is good according to each aspect. Example: I gear that Freud's theories were used by the tobacco industry in the 1920s to get women smoking. In what aspects might this be good or not good? In the sensitive aspect, smoking gives a nice feeling, and in the aesthetic aspect it might be seen as 'stylish' in 1950s films. But in the biotic aspect, it threatens health, in the economic aspect it wastes people's money and also wastes health care resources, and in the ethical aspect it is a rather selfish, individualistic activity. And so on: By thinking about the good or bad in each aspect, we can see where something is good or bad. References Clouser R, (1991, 2005 2nd ed.), The Myth of Religious Neutrality; An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. Andrew Basden. 18 August 2010