FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Criticism: an Abandoned Process

by RODOLFO ACUÑA

The art of criticism is yet another casualty of television, the internet and individualism. I come from a generation that pre-dated the TV dinners of the 1960s. As a child, I remember my family sitting down at a prescribed time and eating together. At my home, dinner was from 6-8 PM or at the hour my father arrived. During dinner, the telephone was off limits.

We could not leave the table without permission; voices were regularly raised. We criticized each other, often not too gently. We often did not like the criticism but we knew that the person making it loved us, and he or she wanted us to improve – that was a given.

Today’s generation is not as disposed to heated conversations, and often students and colleagues are devastated by the slightest criticism. They cannot distinguish between personal attacks, and when a criticism is meant to improve or to better the outcome.

It starts from the top. Criticize Barack Obama, and you don’t like him. Criticize George W. Bush, and you hate him.

Most of us have never met them or broken bread with them so how can we dislike or hate them? We dislike or even hate bigotry or capitalism, but we should know who or what we are criticizing.

They objective of criticism should be to improve something. That is the only way that changes and transformations take place.

Formal and informal criticisms have been the centerpiece of every advanced society. We know more about the western world not because it was the epitome of learning but because of our Eurocentric educational system. History tells us that Europe imperialism in its drive to control and exploit other people often erased the history of superior civilizations.

Witness the Spaniards’ destruction of the Mesoamerican codices, and the suppression of Indian voices in the name of their god. The English similarly destroyed or coopted indigenous memory.

The truth be told, Western Thought is really Mediterranean – not Western European.

Everything seems to begin and end with the Greeks and to a lesser extent the Romans, i.e., language, philosophy, and history. That’s why some say, “Blame it on the Greeks!”

(Our guilt ridden society seems to always want to blame somebody or something else for its failures. Blame the alcohol, the times, women, immigrants or the devil).

However, history shows that the Greeks were not that bad, and if there are flaws in their thought system it can be attributed to distorted translations.

Take that guy Socrates (469–399 B.C.E.) who produced a well-reasoned way to answer a question. His question-and-answer mode of probing has influenced methods of learning from modern law school training to critical thinking. Some call it logic.

Socrates did not form theories; he listened to others. Socrates did not publish anything, but he influenced the field of western philosophy. He kind of reminds me of my family conversations that taught you ethics — something that politicians, university administrators and professors should learn about.

It is from the Greeks that the West got the word criticism.  According to Wikipedia, “The word critic comes from Greek κριτικός (kritikós), ‘able to discern’, which is a Greek derivation from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation.” (How the meaning of words have changed).

So called scholars and religious sages have made careers out of deconstructing and regurgitating the Greeks, only to produce corrupted translations. Their compromised method – scholasticism — held sway over much of Europe for centuries. Criticism was temporarily brought back to earth by Dialectics and Materialism.

The old guy Socrates had discovered that through discussion and reasoning you can root out imperfections. Basically, we have to know how something is imperfect before we can change it.

Like other critics Socrates was tried for his subversion. He was charged with corrupting youth and “impious” acts. It seems as if he failed to acknowledge the accepted gods, a familiar charge against those who challenge the existing order.

Based on my own experience, the 70s and 80s were periods that produced the greatest intellectual growth in Chicana/o studies. Marxist study groups were a pain in the ass; they became religious and wanted to party build. However, these groups made significant contributions to questions of gender and class inequalities. Aside from their discipline and newspapers I was impressed by the rigor of some of the groups that engaged in spirited group and self-criticism.

The failure of Chicana/o studies to grow is in large part the failure to criticize.  This is lamentable because the areas of criticism are well established in academe. Evaluations are traditionally based on Community service, University service, Publications and Teaching. For the first five years of the San Fernando Valley State CHS, we engaged in this kind of criticism but it gave way to friendships.

There is no similar base criteria to evaluate (criticize) Latino elected officials. However, I would start with a list of questions such as

* How much outside money is she/he receiving?

*  How much do they get from corporations?

* Do they have storefront centers to listen to their constituents problems?

* Do they take public stands on questions such as police brutality and education?

* Do they have community forums to discuss these issues?

* Do they participate in the life of their districts?

* Where do they stand on privatization?

* What is their voting record on progressive issues?

* What is their stance on immigration?

* Do they show up and champion to these issues?

Through discussion, questioning and answering, this list can be expanded. Using logic we should grade the politicos, and issue periodic Report Cards. The same should be done with President Barack Obama and the gaggle of Democratic Party elected officials.

Do we live in a democracy?  The United States’ health system ranks 39th and spends more on per capita than other nations. This is the result of subsidizing insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

Millions are without health coverage. It ranked 7th in wages in 2010, and it was 12th in college affordability and losing ground. The United States along with three small third world nations is the only nation not mandating paid leave for mothers of new born infants. It is the only advanced country not requiring paid vacations for its workers. It is the only nation that does not mandate paid medical leave.

It spends more on war weapons, five times as much as China its closest competitor.  It incarcerates more of its citizens than any nation. Has more guns per capita, and leads the world in infant mortality. Finally, it leads the world in income inequality.

Yet there are those that say that it is the land of opportunity.

Socrates would have a field day asking, why and how? Is the culprit American individualism? Most European societies have free universal health care for their citizens. Many provide free higher education, and it is only those who follow the American model that are falling behind.

Like my family, the progressive nations are Communitarian societies that emphasize the importance of community and caring.  Its citizens realize that the function of political life is to analyze and evaluate political institutions, and care about the well-being of their fellow citizens. (To promote the general welfare in other words). And they realize that they have to restrict the powers of government and the greed of corporations.

So don’t blame it on the Greek for the growing inquality. Let’s blame ourselves for not caring, not acting like a family and not criticizing.

(Beware of making a weak person a martyr, criticism can do that!)

RODOLFO ACUÑA, a professor emeritus at California State University Northridge, has published 20 books and over 200 public and scholarly articles. He is the founding chair of the first Chicano Studies Dept which today offers 166 sections per semester in Chicano Studies. His history book Occupied America has been banned in Arizona. In solidarity with Mexican Americans in Tucson, he has organized fundraisers and support groups to ground zero and written over two dozen articles exposing efforts there to nullify the U.S. Constitution.

RODOLFO ACUÑA, a professor emeritus at California State University Northridge, has published 20 books and over 200 public and scholarly articles. He is the founding chair of the first Chicano Studies Dept which today offers 166 sections per semester in Chicano Studies. His history book Occupied America has been banned in Arizona. In solidarity with Mexican Americans in Tucson, he has organized fundraisers and support groups to ground zero and written over two dozen articles exposing efforts there to nullify the U.S. Constitution.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 28, 2017
Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi
A Paradigm Shift in the Middle East: Iran as the Solution, Not the Problem
stclair
Big Brother Capitalism Strikes Back
Stephen Cooper
Trump’s Pusillanimous Immigration Policy Imperils the Public and the Police
Vincent Emanuele
The Madness of U.S. Empire
Michael Sainato and Chelsea Skojec
We Need the Endangered Species Act Now More Than Ever
David Underhill
Oops, They Did It Again: Crowd Bowls Over Rep in Beery Alley
John Eskow
Jimmy Kimmel is a Total Dick and Other Reflections on the Oscars
Steve Horn
Trump’s Top Energy Aide, Mike Catanzaro Peddled Climate Change Denial
Jack Random
The Trump Diaries: Week Five
Robert Fisk
The Education of Marine Le Pen
Pauline Murphy
Felicia Browne’s Fight Against Fascism
Mary Lynn Cramer
Fearing the Trump Impeachment
Mel Gurtov
While Our Attention is Elsewhere, Climate Change Worsens
Dan Bacher
Extinction 2017: California Edition
Abel Cohen
The Trojan President: America Never Saw It Coming
February 27, 2017
Anthony DiMaggio
Media Ban! Making Sense of the War Between Trump and the Press
Dave Lindorff
Resume Inflation at the NSC: Lt. General McMaster’s Silver Star Was Essentially Earned for Target Practice
Conn Hallinan
Is Trump Moderating US Foreign Policy? Hardly
Norman Pollack
Political Castration of State: Militarization of Government
Kenneth Surin
Inside Dharavi, a Mumbai Slum
Lawrence Davidson
Truth vs. Trump
Binoy Kampmark
The Extradition Saga of Kim Dotcom
Robert Fisk
Why a Victory Over ISIS in Mosul Might Spell Defeat in Deir Ezzor
David Swanson
Open Guantanamo!
Ted Rall
The Republicans May Impeach Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Why Should Trump―or Anyone―Be Able to Launch a Nuclear War?
Andrew Stewart
Down with Obamacare, Up with Single Payer!
Colin Todhunter
Message to John Beddington and the Oxford Martin Commission
David Macaray
UFOs: The Myth That Won’t Die?
Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail