The Culture Of Critique

The Culture Of Critique

To begin with, I will first of all give a definition of an argument as an act of giving points so as to support opinionated points. This is meant to put forward suggestion and show a stand on a crucial issue; to give a clear picture of what one believes on or hold as true. According to Professor Tannen, this has resulted to a culture of critique in the public and private domain. She disputes the definition that opposing sides compete to give points that lead to the truth. According to her, this directs to damage of information. She argues out that having an argument is supposed to be a healthy exchange of ideas where both sides benefit from the information. This is not true and has developed to a culture of critique that is unhealthy in between individuals, the society, nation, and even the entire world.

Whereas public view asserts that argumentation and divergence bring about understanding and solution, Professor Tannen, perceive that argumentation and divergence produces a culture of critique bringing about more disputes. I conquer with Professor Tannen that argumentation and divergence have produce a culture of critique bringing about more disputes. This is because there are many disputes arising in the society in which we live today.

According to Sear (2008) in the theory of critical thinking, he asserts that societies are characterized by inequality that results in conflicts instead of one that produces order. In relation to this there are varied norms, cultures, believes, and politics in the public domain. Owing to these differences, there are divergences views from people who tend to disagree leading to conflicts. For instance, in ethical perspective where a culture hold strong believes and values of their traditions will not allow any other culture to invade and spoil there’s. When there are interactions with other cultures, arguments arises where each side portrays their side. This will lead to the two sides fighting as a result of disagreements. Depending on which side is stronger, the two will never come to terms. This leads to conflict and in the end fighting.

Furthermore, in the political view point, politicians in many instances do woo voters to their sides so that they can be voted to power. In this perspective, there are varied opinions depending on party’s manifesto. In this context, each individual will sell views to the people creating intense polarization. The people once polarized, split up and become opponents creating warring groups. Intense competition arises and groups in most cases do fight. This way information is lost on the way, the focus of looking at the best leader is now shifted and is directed to conflict resolution management. Additionally, when we focus to economic nature, resources are scarce and limited. The population is increasing at an alarming rate. This is also a source of conflict. This result in the fight of resources and might end up in fighting among the communities. Therefore Alan’s (2008) theory support that these conflicts can be solved via creating change in the existing associations and new social associations. This looks at the realization of the potentials of human being and society transformation.

According to the theory of Karl Max (1971), human being finds themselves in associations in which they are not aligned to by voluntary will. These end up in the society structure in relation to the economy. As a result of these, social consciousnesses result that determines their social well being and not their consciousness. Human beings are suppressed by state of misuse and repression, which are indispensable in any the social order with an imbalanced economic well being. In politics, the politicians employ this as a way of realizing their potentials and not transforming the society but instead keeping the power structure. Agreement is a euphemism for beliefs. Indisputable compromise is not realized, instead the more influential in group are able to in a position to impose their ideas on others and have them agree to their debate. Agreement does not safeguard social harmony, it establish division.

Opposition is not the way to delivering truth but rather a way of defending oneself against the reality in an eloquent manner. In most instances eloquent people tend to defend themselves in a way such as to outweigh the other even if there was some truth. This way information is limited to those who can explain themselves very well barring others from participating. Moreover, the truth is not revealed. The facts employed cannot be used to prove a concept or a theory. The culture of critique is meant to create a conducive environment for both parties to share their views, however, this is not the case; the opposing side turn violent as a way of bringing destructions to either achieve a goal or escape from facing the reality.

In my own suggestion, I view that culture critique depend on the individual, the level of education, the social circumstances surrounding the person, and the topic under consideration. People tend to argue to issues out of little knowledge and as such defend the level of ignorance. Also, social background explains much of the character and action of a person. The topic will relay how a person reacts. One with in-depth understanding will react in good critical manner than the one without in-depth knowledge. In a number of instance people without the above explained views will tend to cause conflict as a defensive mechanism if defeated so as to perceive themselves as the winners.

In conclusion, I will say that culture of critique is not arguing to fuel conflict. It is supposed to be a way of reflecting on issues at hand, using standards to argue with solid evidence, authentic- thinking deep on real issues, and acting in a reasonable way. When we employ all these on the culture of critique, conflicts are easily eliminated and people can live harmoniously in the society. A culture of listening of side opinion and accommodating is paramount for passage of information with no destruction.

References

Marx, Karl. 1971. Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Sears, Alan. (2008) A Good Book, In Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking. North York:

Higher Education University of Toronto Press, pg. 34-6.

Tannen, Deborah. “The Triumph of the Yell.” Reading Rhetorically: A Reader for Writers. 2nd

ed. John C. Bean, Virginia A. Chappell, and Alice M. Gillam. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005. 482-485.

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 6-8 hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now