"Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives."
just one sentence from a Letter from K BHAVANI
Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts
It strikes me as interesting that perhaps the most commonly espoused Establishment retort to any critique or criticism is encapsulated in the single line quoted above. Having listened to numerous civil servants and local politicians justify the status quo with the exact same phrase, as if it were a limit of all rational discourse that cannot be transgressed; having been challenged on more than one occassion by family, friends, and indeed, students with the same phrase, I wonder about the powerful illusion that all we need is a kind of "critique" that will "edify"; some manner of technology, language or gesture that is so extensively domesticates itself in the very act of pointing out the spaces, gaps, fears, terrors and contradictions inherent in a post-industrial capitalistic nation that it immediately erases the possibility that the structure could all come tumbling down: the fantasy of "constructive criticism".
In the first place, isn't there a tremendous paradox in the notion that words can construct even as it takes apart, that they can magically unveil, rip and pull while adding to the edifice? It seems to me, then, that the only criticism that will ever be "constructive" is that which merely re-capitulates what is always already there, what always already has been expected and erected by the collective fantasy and is just waiting for that big climactic moment when "Viola! ..." But what constitutes this desire for criticism to be constructive, that allows this elusive dream that we can take apart and build all in a single rhetorical moment to persist in these MOST rationale and practical technocrats? Why the belief that only commentary that replicates and adds to the positivistic logic of the status quo can be made about civil structures and institutions? What are the fantasies and fears that these criteria distort, normalize and then assert as the most commonsensical and rational of public pronouncements?
The flawed assumptions underlying the notion of "constructive criticism" pull in several directions, which the phrase, whenever it is drawn out of any flabbergasted Establishment Figure's bag of rhetorical tricks, tries to brusquely sweep aside. First, is the telelogical belief that a nation progresses in a type of linear history, where every element, every word, thought or deed must pull together towards that pre-determined goal, that vanishing paradisical point variously called the "first-world" or the "Swiss-standard of living". A point vanishing over every horizon that can only be measured in retrospective graphs and charts of economic development and fiscal growth; the central absence that overcodes all desire in Singapore. Every force that bucks the trend or slips out from this narrative of economic and material progress is thus conveniently labelled "disruptive", or "non-constructive". Second is the paranoia that such "aimless" critique will infect the hardworking, "we-can-solve-every-problem-that-history-throws-at-us" (poetically summed up in "we can achieve, we can achieve") spirit that the powers-that-be pride themselves in possessing. Third, it is a calculated ploy to lure critique into playing the game that the establishment wins each and every time: the game of "my-ideas-are-better-than-yours". Any suggestion that is offered can be met with a "we've thought about that and it won't work because ...", "we'll look into that (but still retain the power to decide )" or "hmmm, that's actually good idea, we'll give you a job, co-opt you and your ideas ..." Of course, who decides what actually constitutes "constructive criticism" and whether there is ever a standard that is rigorously applied in evaluating HOW "constructive" the criticism actually is, is never really dealt with properly.
My response, whenever I am faced with the demand to provide "constructive criticism" or "alternatives" is to immediately question the notion of "constructive" critique and to suspect the demand of trying to colonize and exploit my train of thought. Why should thought be subjugated to the assumptions already mentioned? Why should thought be a tool to that particular political agenda? And it's hard to do consistently because people immediately think that you're just trying to be difficult or playing with words. Yet, how can one otherwise prevent an excursion into the tyrannical belief that my ideas are good enough for everyone else, good enough to dictate a way of being and mode of feeling, if I do not begin here?
In short, why SHOULD criticism be constructive?
The plea for "constructive criticism", begins with the naive hope that a society can shy away from the dark elements of its history, politics and social desire by looking away, towards some hoped for shape or outline of social progress (also summed up in "we've come so far together, our common destineee ...). The notion of "constructive criticism" is an ideological construct meant to bolster the fantasy that "at least we're headed somewhere"; the captivating master signifier meant to appease, not matter how vaguely, no matter how desperately, the Establishment's own fears that it is failing at it's own game of policing, directing and controlling desire that gets caught up and distracted by the infinite pulses of the Real. It is cut from the same glass that consitutes the mirror in which the Establishment deliberately misrecognizes satire, the very mirror that enables the status quo to take itself -- it's perfections and blemishes -- far too seriously.
just one sentence from a Letter from K BHAVANI
Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts
It strikes me as interesting that perhaps the most commonly espoused Establishment retort to any critique or criticism is encapsulated in the single line quoted above. Having listened to numerous civil servants and local politicians justify the status quo with the exact same phrase, as if it were a limit of all rational discourse that cannot be transgressed; having been challenged on more than one occassion by family, friends, and indeed, students with the same phrase, I wonder about the powerful illusion that all we need is a kind of "critique" that will "edify"; some manner of technology, language or gesture that is so extensively domesticates itself in the very act of pointing out the spaces, gaps, fears, terrors and contradictions inherent in a post-industrial capitalistic nation that it immediately erases the possibility that the structure could all come tumbling down: the fantasy of "constructive criticism".
In the first place, isn't there a tremendous paradox in the notion that words can construct even as it takes apart, that they can magically unveil, rip and pull while adding to the edifice? It seems to me, then, that the only criticism that will ever be "constructive" is that which merely re-capitulates what is always already there, what always already has been expected and erected by the collective fantasy and is just waiting for that big climactic moment when "Viola! ..." But what constitutes this desire for criticism to be constructive, that allows this elusive dream that we can take apart and build all in a single rhetorical moment to persist in these MOST rationale and practical technocrats? Why the belief that only commentary that replicates and adds to the positivistic logic of the status quo can be made about civil structures and institutions? What are the fantasies and fears that these criteria distort, normalize and then assert as the most commonsensical and rational of public pronouncements?
The flawed assumptions underlying the notion of "constructive criticism" pull in several directions, which the phrase, whenever it is drawn out of any flabbergasted Establishment Figure's bag of rhetorical tricks, tries to brusquely sweep aside. First, is the telelogical belief that a nation progresses in a type of linear history, where every element, every word, thought or deed must pull together towards that pre-determined goal, that vanishing paradisical point variously called the "first-world" or the "Swiss-standard of living". A point vanishing over every horizon that can only be measured in retrospective graphs and charts of economic development and fiscal growth; the central absence that overcodes all desire in Singapore. Every force that bucks the trend or slips out from this narrative of economic and material progress is thus conveniently labelled "disruptive", or "non-constructive". Second is the paranoia that such "aimless" critique will infect the hardworking, "we-can-solve-every-problem-that-history-throws-at-us" (poetically summed up in "we can achieve, we can achieve") spirit that the powers-that-be pride themselves in possessing. Third, it is a calculated ploy to lure critique into playing the game that the establishment wins each and every time: the game of "my-ideas-are-better-than-yours". Any suggestion that is offered can be met with a "we've thought about that and it won't work because ...", "we'll look into that (but still retain the power to decide )" or "hmmm, that's actually good idea, we'll give you a job, co-opt you and your ideas ..." Of course, who decides what actually constitutes "constructive criticism" and whether there is ever a standard that is rigorously applied in evaluating HOW "constructive" the criticism actually is, is never really dealt with properly.
My response, whenever I am faced with the demand to provide "constructive criticism" or "alternatives" is to immediately question the notion of "constructive" critique and to suspect the demand of trying to colonize and exploit my train of thought. Why should thought be subjugated to the assumptions already mentioned? Why should thought be a tool to that particular political agenda? And it's hard to do consistently because people immediately think that you're just trying to be difficult or playing with words. Yet, how can one otherwise prevent an excursion into the tyrannical belief that my ideas are good enough for everyone else, good enough to dictate a way of being and mode of feeling, if I do not begin here?
In short, why SHOULD criticism be constructive?
The plea for "constructive criticism", begins with the naive hope that a society can shy away from the dark elements of its history, politics and social desire by looking away, towards some hoped for shape or outline of social progress (also summed up in "we've come so far together, our common destineee ...). The notion of "constructive criticism" is an ideological construct meant to bolster the fantasy that "at least we're headed somewhere"; the captivating master signifier meant to appease, not matter how vaguely, no matter how desperately, the Establishment's own fears that it is failing at it's own game of policing, directing and controlling desire that gets caught up and distracted by the infinite pulses of the Real. It is cut from the same glass that consitutes the mirror in which the Establishment deliberately misrecognizes satire, the very mirror that enables the status quo to take itself -- it's perfections and blemishes -- far too seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment