Critical
thinking is a mental and emotional function in which someone - based on his/her
knowledge and information available – decides what to think or do in relation
to a specific situation. The result is a substantiated opinion. It is
subjective. It may be positive or negative. It must be intellectually honest.
There
is a tendency to associate solely negative aspects to the word ‘criticism’ and
to see it as an attack. That´s why many times a critique provokes reactions
such as “criticising is easy…”; or a hasty clarification by the ‘attacker’,
such as “please, don´t take this as a criticism”; or even the need to declare
that the ‘attacker’ has nothing personal against his/her ‘target’.
A
couple of weeks ago, I reacted – critically - to the interview of a national
museum director and, specifically, to a statement regarding an issue that is of
extreme importance to me in our profession. This means that, based on my
knowledge and the information available, I decided what to think of that
statement and I shared that thought. Other people reacted to my criticism,
agreeing or disagreeing or adding other aspects to the process of critical
thinking. At a certain point, though, a colleague intervened to say: “One
shouldn´t speak ill of colleagues on Facebook”. This intervention has kept my
mind busy since.
I
see a distinct difference between speaking ill and criticising. Speaking ill
can only be negative and there is something too personal in it, something too
sentimental, something that ends up neutralizing the strength of arguments and
severely affects the credibility of the critic. Speaking ill is not
constructive, it might be temporarily ‘therapeutic’ for the speaker, but it is
ineffective.
Criticism
is something different. Criticism is the wish to be aware, to put one’s
knowledge in good use, to contribute for something better (through positive or
negative appreciations) and also to assume responsibility. Thus, criticism is
not easy.
Very
little critical thinking is shared in public, with the exception, perhaps, of
whatever relates to the governement and politicians in general – which makes me
think that maybe we don´t feel as responsible for this country´s political
life, thus, criticising (or speaking ill) becomes easy... In what concerns
everything else, and considering specifically the cultural sector, public
criticism and debate regarding decisions, positions, projects is rather
limited. The professionals of the field might be feeling that all this is
beyond their control and this feeling of impotence makes any intervention seem
hopeless. Others might not like the exposure public criticism brings along,
wary about personal/professional relationships that tend to get mixed up on
these occasions. Others still might not like to take the responsibility of criticising
publicly. Thus, as criticism is actually seen as something negative, as an
attack, it is better kept behind closed doors, ‘in the family’, or, better
still, untold. For some people, it shouldn´t be happening on social media. (I
can´t help thinking that, when a couple of years ago I wrote positevely about
an interview of the same national museum director, nobody told me I shouldn´t
be doing it on Facebook; I suppose it was not considered criticism).
I
envy cultural bloggers in (mainly) the US and the UK, who contribute to the
open debate and criticism of all important matters, keeping the dialogue alive,
their voice heard and the interested public informed. They are too intelligent
to fall into the trap of ill speaking. This is an act of responsibility. This
should be an expected act in a democracy. All important, major, things must be
discussed openly, positive and negative things must be largely debated,
responsibility must be assumed. The direction of all public cultural
institutions concerns us all, starting from the professionals of the field.
Which
brings me to another point: criticism is associated to accountability. When
Nina Simon completed her first year as director of the Santa Cruz Museum of Art
and History, she wrote the post Year one as a museum director... Survived!. Both accountability and criticism stem from a deep sense of responsibility and
Nina´s text is the perfect example of what I would like to see happening
here. But it´s not happening. In a
country where those holding public positions are not expected to be accountable
– that is, to openly define their objectives and to regularly explain what it
is that they do, how, why and how successful they are in it - criticism might
actually make less sense and we enter a vicious circle. A circle where few
substantiated opinions are heard publicly, having no impact whatsoever, and
where things happen anyway, no matter what, and success is declared... no
matter what. We even consider normal that someone with a public position might
be defending the indefensible, might not be giving an honest opinion, out of
duty to his/her superiors. A vicious circle, a game, where we sacrifice our
intellectual honesty. What´s the gain? And at what cost?
More
on this blog
More readings
Nina Simon, Year one as museum director... Survived!
No comments:
Post a Comment