Criticism vs Critique

There is a fine line between Criticism and Critique, one which the internet has shown us most people are oblivious to, or of which people are wilfully ignorant.  Criticism is a judgement of you or your work that can be either positive or negative.  Critique on the other hand is an analysis of your work and serves as a commentary centred upon it.  The easiest way to remember the distinction is to think of Criticism as a conclusion, whereas Critique is the thought process that leads to that conclusion.

We are living through a period where most people who give criticism, do so as an effort to make themselves appear as an authority on any given matter, without providing any critique.  The reality is that if you were an authority on the matter you would be able to provide a well-reasoned argument or analysis to accompany the criticism, i.e. critique.  However these people make statements with no explanation or justification, and expect the recipient to listen to them.  When questioned or challenged, most simply reply that they have a right to make such assertions with no need to justify their comments - which belies the truth that they are not an authority on the matter, but simply someone who feels they are entitled to tell you what to do.

What all of this overlooks however is that although anyone is free to comment, no-one is under any obligation to listen to you, or to give your opinion any weight.  Criticism without critique in my view should be taken as nothing more than an expression of an opinion, and as such it is inherently meaningless and weightless.  The internet allows anyone to comment on anything, it is up to you to decide whether or not you listen to what those people say.  Until meaning and weight is given to an argument, I take the view of treating it with little regard.

This is a blog.  What is written here are opinions and represent expressions made by me.  They are as such, inherently meaningless and weightless.  In some cases, posts will be thought out, and presented with reasoning.  Other posts will simply be thoughts that have been floating around inside my head which I felt the need to articulate.  At no point do I ask you, or indeed expect anyone to follow verbatim any advice or commentary I give on this blog.  What you believe and what you accept is up to you, and no-one else to decide.  What is written here is intended to make you think, and question, nothing more.

If you disagree with me that's fine, I'm not here to try and change your mind, I'm only here to let you and everyone else see what's inside mine.  I'm not here for you to try and change my mind either - although that may happen with well-reasoned arguments.

I made this post primarily because of an issue I have come across repeatedly online, and that is the idea that you must provide a solution if your criticism is to be considered valid.  I reject this idea, as I said above criticism can be positive or negative and does not come with critique.  Criticism is the expression of opinion, and represents a judgement, a conclusion that has been drawn.  Opinions are not facts and do not need to be proven or justified in any way, I can hold the opinion that a given movie is the worst movie ever made, there is no quantifiable truth in that statement.  That statement could be turned into a fact if a standardized means of grading movies could be agreed and a consensus reached that the movie I named was indeed graded as the worst using that means, but that still wouldn't change the fact that the statement I made was my opinion.

Critique is made by those who understand more about the topics they discuss.  I will provide that when I speak about things on which I possess a deeper knowledge. 

I reject the idea that a solution must be presented before criticism can be considered valid.  I reject this idea because it puts you in a position where for example, someone with a brain tumour suggests decapitating themselves as a means of treatment, while a second person's advice not to do so, is completely ignored unless they can provide an alternative treatment.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand why the former is a bad idea and should not be pursued, even if they can't tell you how to actually treat the tumour.  You do not need to have a solution to a problem to be able to point out the flaws in the potential solutions presented.

That last point is one that I feel we are struggling with as a society.  As politics has become so polarizing, each side is reacting by directing criticism without critique at the other.  No effort is made to understand the reasoning or motivation behind the opposing side, and there is an outright rejection of any criticism that does not provide an alternate solution, even when critique is given.  Each side wants to think they have the solution and is incapable of contemplating a scenario where they don't have a solution, as that is perceived as weakness or incompetence.  If we are to move forward we need to learn once again how to distinguish between criticism and critique and recognize the difference between criticism being provided in an attempt to make us consider a different point of view, and when it is being made in an attempt to simply make us see the flaws in our own point of view.

If you support the Banana party, and I point out a flaw in one of their policies, that doesn't mean I support the Coconut party, or the Apple party, it just means I see a flaw in the policy and want to know the reasoning behind it.  This is something it seems people struggle with the most, jumping to the conclusion that opposition to their belief means that you support whoever their opposition is.