The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Criticism vs. Critique

The incandescent light bulb has often been described as a heat source that provides some light, given that a light bulb generates more heat than it does light. In today's public debates, we often find the proponents of an issue providing a lot of heat and only a little light. My Chirps and Articles are meant to provide illumination (light) and not argumentation (heat).

Opponents in today's society often utilize the dialog and debate methodology of "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" their opponent when discussing issues, policies, and personages. To demonize, denigrate, or disparage the messenger to avoid consideration of the message is not acceptable if the message has supporting evidence.

The only acceptable method of public discourse is disagreement - to be of different opinions. If you are in disagreement with someone, you should be cognizant that people of good character can and often disagree with each other. The method of their disagreement is very important to achieving civil discourse. There are two ways you can disagree with someone; by criticizing their opinions or beliefs or critiquing their opinions or beliefs.

• Criticism - Disapproval that is expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings.
• Critique - A serious examination and judgment of something.

Most people and most commentators have forgotten the difference between Criticism and Critique. This has led to hyper-partisanship in today's society. In a civil society critiquing a viewpoint or policy position should be encouraged. This will often allow for a fuller consideration of the issues and perhaps a better viewpoint or policy position without invoking hyper-partisanship. We can expect that partisanship will often occur, as people of good character can and often disagree with each other. Criticizing a viewpoint or policy position will often lead to hostility, rancor, and enmity, which results in the breakdown of civil discourse and hyper-partisanship. It is fine to criticize someone for their bad or destructive behavior, but it is best to critique them for their opinions or words. We would all do better if we remembered to critique someone rather than criticize someone.

I would ask anyone who disagrees with what I have written to please keep this disagreement civil. I am open to critique and will sometimes take criticism. I will always ignore demonization, denigration, and disparagement or point out the vacuous nature of the character flaws of those that wish to silence the messenger rather than deal with the message.

Along with my thoughts on "A Civil Society", in which I examine the proper means of civil debate, please remember that if you disagree with the messenger, it is not acceptable to kill the messenger. You may kill the messenger, but the message will remain.