how about a little
Clearness?
The purpose of this paper is to establish some theoretical consensus as to how criticism should be done. From there we can try to achieve a high level of C/SC in practice.
If there are pieces of this paper in the table of contents that aren't yet written, it's because this should be a constantly changing paper. Please make your additions, corrections, comments, etc.
The aim of Criticism/Self-criticism is to resolve a bad situation to everyone's satisfaction rather than fixing blame on someone.
Of course, you can always give a person any feedback you think they might find useful. But a particular commitment is made to any criticism of their work at GW, anything that creates tension or problems between you, and to a lesser extent their political work and consciousness as a whole.
In straight society criticism is made within a legalistic framework: certain things are against the rules and if you can prove that someone broke a rule you've won a case and they should be punished (feel bad?). How a person makes you feel doesn't matter; anything more subtle than physical harm doesn't constitute a problem; your needs will be considered if and when they start to affect your performance. One thing this leads to is misplaced tension: you're talking about whether someone broke a rule, but the real issue is that they get on your nerves.
In Groundwork we want to get away from all that. We want to create a place where people can be happy with their work and each other. That means getting away from laying blame. If one person has a problem, that's a collective problem. Most common problems are shared by everyone to different degrees anyway. The purpose of a criticism is to find the happiest possible resolution to the problem. A problem is a problem when one person says it is. And that's not making accusations, so there's no need to hold back, there's no harm in bringing something up. And we want to be as honest as possible, develop our perception of our own feelings and the dynamics between people; to be good at saying what the real problem is. That means legitimizing such things as "I don't feel like you're concerned about my welfare." or "Such and such a thing you do makes me uncomfortable."
It's incredibly easy to not make criticisms. And it requires no ill will on anyone's part for things to get hopelessly screwed up. On the contrary, it takes energy to keep them straight. It's just too easy to assume that if someone did something you don't like that they must have bad intentions, and then assume that if you do anything anyone else doesn't like they'll assume it's an honest mistake and bring it up. Our lack of skill in resolving such problems leads us to look for easy answers, and the easiest one is 'they just don't want to listen.' It's essential to realize how difficult this task is, and quit blaming each other when things aren't easy.
Attitude and feelings. If your attitude is, I'm right and they're wrong, most people will be put on the defensive and the working through the criticism will be difficult at best. Your attitude should be -- I may (or do) have a difference with this person. They may well have good reasons for what they do or say. Can I get them to accept a joint decision for this problem through working it out?
This doesn't mean you have to compromise or must be wishy washy liberal. There is still lots of time to take a hard stand - after you understand their point of view.
Take responsibility for your feelings by trying to see where they come from, to know to what extent they depend on the other person's behavior, and to be open to the possibility of changing your feelings rather than the other person changing their behavior. Often we have bad feelings from past criticisms that weren't dealt with and this particular problem may bring out a backlog of bad feelings. Expressing your bad feelings in the Initial Statement not only helps your attitude but presents you as human rather than self-righteous.
Have a positive attitude toward the person rather than rationalizing why it won't do any good. If you find yourself doing this, you can turn it around by using your analysis of why it won't do any good as a restatement of the problem. E.g. I find myself thinking that I ought not waste my energy on Robert because he doesn't respond well to criticism. A more positive restatement would be to say "Robert doesn't respond well to criticism. I have to decide either to address that problem or to not, and if not, how to resolve the immediate tensions some other say."
Focusing the criticism. Focusing the criticism means separating your observations from inferences (thoughts about why the person might have done it) from your feelings so you can make a statement of the problem which is clear and easy to understand. You should deal with the subtle as well as obvious aspects and put into words any other assumptions, feelings,or thoughts that lead you to the conclusion or criticism. You might want to discuss the criticism with someone else to help you analyze and add other observations. But don't use this as an excuse for relieving tension and not making the criticism, i.e. being liberal to avoid criticism for fear of struggle or to be a "nice person." You may, of course, decide not to make the criticism at this time or to withdraw it.
You might also consider focusing the criticism with the person being criticized. Tell then you have this vague criticism and ask to work together to focus it.
You might want to figure out who bears the costs and benefits of what is being criticized and who bears the costs and benefits if the criticism is accepted. This may be necessary to help you understand the criticism but, if possible, should be left to the Struggle phase where the person criticized can participate.
However, if you are in a good critical relationship with the person, it often raises the consciousness of others to hear socialist decision making in action.
A clear statement of the observations and feelings are the most important. Costs, reasons, and suggested resolutions may be best left for the Understanding and/or Struggle phases where you both (all?) participate. You have presented a situation in which no one is blamed, your "I" shows you take responsibility for your feelings, and there is the possibility of a solution with "no losers." The only cost will be the time spent working through the criticism.
Also, state any reservations you have about being able to make the criticism without alienating the person. If you're worried about this but don't say anything you run the risk of being so obscure that the person can't understand what you're trying to tell them.
Understanding is the attempt to reach agreement on what the problem is. For an easy well stated criticism it may not be necessary to spend time agreeing on what the problem is. Perhaps just Understanding the criticism is all that is necessary for Acceptance of the criticism and there is no need for Struggle. However, for more difficult problems, much time can be wasted in Struggle if there is not a clear focus and agreement on what the problem is. Understanding should not be a Struggle, i.e. an attempt to convince the person to see a contradiction or to change. You just want them to see clearly what is bothering you. If you have any doubts that the person understood or if you think the criticism may have generated bad feelings, ask them to paraphrase the criticism, that is, feed it back to you in their own words. For example, you might say, "I'd like to hear you tell me what the criticism is, so we can see that we're both talking about the same thing."
It's important here (as well as in the Struggle phase) that you take responsibility for communications even if the other person does not.
Try to maintain an attitude of everyone working against the problem and not against each other. Try to avoid taking a hard unchangeable position. The harder your position, the harder the other position will be and at least one of you must change for a successful resolution. Try instead to understand and focus on the contradictions in their position. The desired place to introduce your position is when they are trying to resolve their contradictions. If you must introduce a hard position, take responsibility for it. "Let me argue a hard line because it may help focus the problem. It doesn't mean I necessarily feel this strong or can't change." Try to reach a joint resolution, i.e. an agreement on some outcome (see following section for suggested outcomes).
Of course, you would struggle longer with friends you are committed to struggle with than with some casual acquaintance. If you have just criticized your local police, you might try to bring out some unresolved contradiction in their position if you decide to give up on the struggle. Keep trying for resolution. If you can get behind the immediate problem to a point where you agree, the criticism can be worked out. Everytime you say "no it can't because...", your why is a new restatement of the problem. You must, however, choose carefully who you are going to give your struggle energy. Don't waste your time trying to convince the ruling class to overthrow themselves.
Try to focus behind the immediate problem to where the fundamental difference is. Do you have differences in info which could be verified? If so, each could assume the others info is correct and see if a disagreement still exists. If this resolves the disagreement, effort should be made into agreeing on the info. Are there differences in values? Do different experiences lead to different subjective probabilities? All of our probabilities are subjective. That is, our belief as to the likelihood of a particular event occurring under given circumstances is a result of or experiences and ideology. We may know some probabilities very accurately, e.g. being able to predict the number of times we'll get "heads" in a large number of tosses of a coin. On the other hand, we often let what we want to believe influence our probabilities. If Allende hadn't nationalized U.S. corporations what would the chances of establishing socialism in Chile have been? Would Allende have survived if the people had been given arms? Should the Allende government have known to give arms to the people? Since the answers can't be proved, each person has to generate the probabilities based on the info available- and that may be difficult to convince another person.
Watch for these in yourself as well as the people with whom you are struggling.
That is, bringing up divergences and trying to explore them. Try to get agreement on what the difference is. Ask for agreement to write down the divergences which can be returned to after the criticism is resolved.
Do you feel you're talking about the real problem? Is there a tension that is not being dealt with? Ask your partner to explore what might be holding back the struggle. You might use the Brainstorming technique (see below) to find the tension.
One person sets aside their position completely. The other person explains their point of view. Questions can be made but only to clarify and understand the position being explained. If that doesn't resolve the problem the roles are reversed, with one position set aside and the other position explained, with questions for clarity and understanding only. If the problem is still unresolved, the participants try to discuss the issue again but taking the other person's position. This will almost always resolve the problem or point out clearly what the fundamental difference is, which can be the basis for more struggle or an agreement to disagree.
Analyze the costs and benefits of the problem and who they fall on. Then consider the costs and benefits of the desired change. For example, if someone is consistently late to meetings, you might analyze how much time is lost by the people there if the meeting can't start, or the loss in input of the late person, or the loss in time in updating latecomers vs. the benefits to the person in being late. If the late person accepts the analysis they have a contradiction which can be resolved through coming on time. Whether the contradiction actually gets resolved though, depends on the person. The fundamental problem probably still exists. It might be poor planning or it could be they feel more important when they arrive late. If the problem persists, future criticisms should be struggled toward finding the underlying contradiction, I.e. finding the less obvious benefits to the person in being late.
A model is a simplified version of the problem where the relevant variables are abstracted i.e. included in a simplified version of the problem. A model airplane, for example, keeps the shape i.e. relative size but gives up overall size allowing one to see things which would be impossible on a full size airplane. Similarly, Marx's model of human society focusing on classes and the economic relationships, enables one to understand contradictions which would remain blurred.
Thus, to focus on a fundamental difference, you can try to develop a simple model of the more complex problem i.e. assume out of the way all sorts of info which might divert your attention. If everyone agrees the model illustrates the difference, it can be worked through to get a better understanding of the fundamental difference. Then you can discuss the differences or repeat the process with a more precise model to isolate the difference further.
Models (as well as analogies below) also help by removing the problem from the emotionally loaded context and a joint solution can be brought back to that context for resolution.
Analogies are similar problems which are related in that the same principles apply but are in a different context or environment. You may be able to create an analogy which the other person would arrive at a conclusion which is in contradiction with their previous position. Or, if everyone can agree on an analogy which illustrates the problem, it can be worked through together and the solution applied to the original problem.
When the problem is clear to both participants, you may want to look for a joint solution which meets both persons needs without any fundamental change. Brainstorming is a good technique for that as well as for looking for solutions to many other types of problems. The first step is for all participants to state possible solutions as they come to mind. One person writes down the solutions but no attempt is made to evaluate any solution. This encourages a wide variety of possibilities. After everyone has given all their ideas, go over the list one by one eliminating unacceptable solutions and looking for the best alternative.
If several people or two groups are involved, it may help to isolate to one person on either side of the issue to continue the struggle and then, when resolved, each would struggle with their respective groups. Conversely, two people struggling may want to include their comrades.
You may want to consider going back to making the initial statement, repeating the understanding phase, and seeing if you can begin the struggle phase from a more productive place.
If you decide to set the problem aside to be discussed again at a later time, it's important to sum up the most important known difference and to agree on what that difference is before leaving the problem. You should also both review the original criticism, so both people can continue struggling independently.
On the other hand, some defensiveness is rooted not in misinterpretation, but rather in self-interest. If I'm afraid I have something to lose by changing, I may fall into individualistic self-protection rather than wanting to really understand what is best for the whole. This kind of defensiveness can only be overcome though political education, coming to see the reasons for guarding the interests of the people above my own individual comfort.
For right now, we will focus on some practical ideas for preventing and handling the kind of defensiveness that comes from misinterpretation of the criticizer's intentions.
If I have reason to believe that a defensive reaction is likely, I can preface my criticism with words that try to head the problem off. There are at least two ways to do this.
If I'm pretty sure that someone has received my criticism inaccurately, it's important to check this out: "My hunch is that my criticism came across to you as a put-down--is that right?" The answer will give me an idea where the defensiveness is coming from, the question also encourages me to examine my own motives in giving the criticism. Was I trying to put the other person down, was I giving an order or running a guilt-trip, or was I firm in my intention to protect and educate?
If someone did hear my message inaccurately, I often want to empathize with how they feel and what they want before going on to correct them. If someone has a strong reaction to what they think was a put-down, my rational protests - "Oh, no, you didn't understand! That's not what I meant!" - will not always get us back on the same track. So sometimes I begin by acknowledging the reaction they showed when they heard me: "Sounds like you're angry and maybe hurt about my criticism. Are you wanting me to understand the reasons for what you did?" Only when they answer are the channels clear for me to backtrack and clear up the original misperception. If a person has flipped into a defensive reaction, empathizing can be important simply to slow things down.
Once I know that someone has heard my criticism inaccurately, how can I get things back on the track? One way is to ask the person to paraphrase what they heard me say: "I'm still upset that I'm not getting through to you right, so I'd like you to run back what you heard me say." If there's a discrepancy between what I said and what they heard, I can point out the difference: "Bob, I'm hoping that you can see the difference between my saying I think you took the wrong position last night and my saying you were deliberately trying to be opportunistic. Can you see the difference there?" Particularly if I'm in a long-term or high-stake relationship with someone, I may want to stick with this point until I'm completely satisfied that they got my message right.
I may also choose to ask the person to tell me how I might express my position in a way that's less likely to provoke a defensive reaction next time: "Jan, I'd like you to see the bind we're in if every time I give you a criticism it comes across as a personal put-down. I want you to give me some ideas about what either of us could do differently so we can break through this problem."
Occasionally I run into a situation where someone consistently misunderstands what I say. They've got me stereotyped that is seems there's nothing I can say that won't fit into their stereotype of me and my politics. (Some of the cues that warn me I've been pigeonholed are these expressions: "You people always...You never...There you go again...You're just like all the rest of those (women, men)." In these cases, I may ask the person or group for a way out of the box: "Look, I'm getting really frustrated that you attribute all my political positions to the fact that I'm working with X organization, because I've already told you that I disagree with them on points a, b, and c. What do we need to do to break out of this so that we can talk politics in some kind of good way?"
Of course no matter how well I give criticism, and no matter how hard I work to deal with defensiveness or to prevent it through political education, there are still situations where good criticism and self-criticism seem very unlikely to occur. One organization I know, for instance, holds the political line that it is the vanguard party and that all other leftists are fake leftists. Conducting good mutual criticism with such an organization is probably impossible. At some point, I may reach the decision that the basis of unity between me and another person or organization is not strong enough to make it worth the struggle. In such a situation the best advice I know is this: "If you can't stop the train, get out of the way."
From our earliest days we have been subjected to name-calling and labeling. This one is "gifted," that one is a "slow learner"(dummy); this one is "cute," that one is "plain." The sorting process relentlessly divides us into winners and losers, until we are trained to obediently assume our places in the class structure. This kind of "criticism" really was dangerous; it was used as a weapon against us. It's no wonder, then, that we come to expect each other to categorize and call names, and often hear personal attacks even when they aren't intended.
Often, too, people will hear wants as demands, and bitterly resent what they hear as an order. In my class with Ellen, you'll recall, the students assumed that my wants were an order. This confusion comes from our long experience with dominant-submissive relationships-if the boss asks, "Do you want to do this piece of work?" you know the only answer he wants. So, in reacting against class-based authoritarian social relations, we may begin to confuse any kind of assertiveness or leadership with domination by an oppressor. Unless this problem is confronted and understood, people may try to avoid the conflict by abdicating all leadership, as when the chairperson of a meeting falls all over herself trying to prove that she is not "too pushy." Yet when leadership spends all its energy walking on eggs to be "diplomatic," our political work grinds to a halt. Chair: "I think I might like to maybe do X, if that's OK with everyone, but on the other hand, we could do Y, and I don't know, maybe it's not a very good idea, what do you think?"
A third common misinterpretation comes when people hear each other's wants as guilt-trips or obligations. For example:
This problem also arises from our experiences with powerlessness. Many people in subordinate positions, and especially white women, in my experience, are forbidden to exercise power directly. The are forced to resort to a repertoire which includes guilt-tripping, hint-dropping, and emotional blackmail. Life with people who have so adapted to their powerlessness can be a hellish game of second-guessing. People who have had this game played in their vicinity are often gunshy - and any want, no matter how straightforwardly given, can look like a guilt-trip in disguise.
To summarize: a lot of defensiveness originates not in resistance to the content of the criticism, but rather in resistance to what the receiver hears as the intent behind the criticism. When someone believes that a criticism is really a personal attack, demand, threat, or guilt-trip, defensiveness comes to the fore.
Out of the struggle, comes either:
You completely accept the criticism. Can you turn it into a self criticism? Sometimes acceptance is to meet the needs of a particular person and you may not be able to make it into a self criticism (e.g., a roommate asks that you always do the dishes right after eating. You may accept that as their preference and agree to it without it being a self crit, although after agreement, if you fail to do the dishes, a criticism should be accepted and then turned into a self crit). But usually you should be able to make an accepted criticism into a self criticism. Acceptance means the receiver takes the responsibility to completing the resolution of the criticism.
The Receiver should try to resolve the criticism on the spot. However, for lack of time (which is a euphemism for higher priorities or commitments), bad feelings, or for whatever reason, a postponement can be made. The receiver takes responsibility for getting together at a later time to resolve the criticism.
Sometimes it becomes apparent that it will take more energy to resolve the criticism than it's worth. Often this is because the criticism remains vague in either person's mind. The criticism can then be withdrawn. If it focuses, then it can be made again at a later date. Responsibility rests with the person who made the criticism.
If you have struggled to a mutual rejection of the criticism then the person making the criticism has changed their position.
Sometimes a criticism cannot be resolved in any of the above ways, yet remains an important difference between the people. It can be agreed to keep it as an open criticism, with both people taking responsibility for trying to focus it, finding new examples, and keeping track of its existence until the criticism is Accepted, Rejected, or Withdrawn. You should have a way for keeping track of all your Open Criticisms.
The task of the receiver of criticism is to try to understand what the person is saying, enter into joint problem solving with them, and implement (maybe jointly) the agreed upon solution.
The most important single thing to do is to fight any tendency to play the victim and dump all the responsibility for communication, problem solving, etc... on the giver. This is especially hard when the criticism is poorly made or stems from values you don't agree with.
How to do it? First is to treat the content of the criticism and the way it is made as two separate issues. If you can, deal with content first. But if the emotional elements are too intense to do that, make it clear that you are not rejecting the criticism but need to talk about the form first. Then take responsibility for you feelings or needs. One way to do this is to put them in the form of "I feel this way." or "I need this." instead of "you're doing this" or "This is outrageous." It's important to ask for whatever you need, or say however you feel; as long as you're not dumping blame on the other person they will tend to react very positively. And of course, they need to know what you need: a different explanation, more examples, more understanding of your position, a clarification of expectation, less blaming, etc...
Next is to assume that no matter how much falseness there is in the criticism, somewhere there is a grain of truth. After all, the person has some reason for making this criticism, even if it is wrong. There is something somewhere that needs to be dealt with. So you look for and acknowledge what is true in the criticism, usually before elaborating on what is not true. Try to account for the person's perceptions or feelings. For example,
The last thing is to not be liberal about accepting a criticism you don't really believe is right. The idea is to change and you won't do that unless you really believe it is necessary. Often when you see a change as necessary you'll think of it in different terms than the person making the criticism. What you see is a problem that needs to be resolved, not a change in you. This doesn't matter; the idea is not to confess, but to change. A "confession" may reflect a superficial view of the problem, a hope for a quick and easy solution that doesn't entail all the difficulties of real change. When you are in a position to change you will understand the reasons you've acted as you have, and won't be able to feel it is as simple as: "I was wrong, I confess, I repent."
Self criticism is the key to long term success. If you had nothing else you could get it all from self criticism. Your plans could be completely unrealistic and you'd learn by using self criticism. Your goals could be vague and you would clarify them. Your statements could be unfocused and alienating and you'd clean them up, if you were self critical. Self criticism completes the feedback loop; it ends one problem and formulates a new one. Every time you say what went wrong you've defined what to do next. Every time you say what went right you've cemented a part of your learning.
Self criticism just means asking yourself if you've achieved what you set out to do; looking critically at what you've done in terms of your goals; are you getting where you want to go? If you want to get the most out of it, keep a journal. Write your goals and plans, then come back and see if they worked like you thought they would. Write down all your self criticisms and review them to see if you've made the changes you wanted to. Write down your problems and your thoughts about them until you can see a way to proceed. You can ask certain questions of yourself: did I guilt-trip anyone today? Did anyone pull a power trip I didn't recognize at the time? Did I maintain my favorite contradiction again today?
A frequent failure of self criticism is when your plan comes to some unexpected end - say the situation changed before you implemented your plan. You may not think of self criticism because you don't recognize this as the time to do it. Or you may give up looking for a workable solution. This is the most important time to use self criticism-when something fails-why didn't I find a workable solution? where is the contradiction?
how about a little
Clearness?
return to Groundwork
Collective: Who are we?
return to Groundworks home
page