Critiquing

WHAT IS A CRITIQUE?

A critique is a detailed analysis and evaluation of an idea, a theory, a text, or a work of art. Critique, because it involves both looking closely and thinking carefully about something, is a key academic skill that will add a lot of sophistication and nuance to your writing. It is often seen as critical activity, as an opportunity to point out weaknesses and flaws, but critiquing something is more about taking stock and pointing out both strengths and weaknesses, pitfalls and potentials.

WHY IS CRITIQUING IMPORTANT?

Critique allows us to step back and comment on something in careful and often critical ways as we question how it functions. While we tend to think of critique as only negative evaluation or judgment, critique is actually much more complex and useful than that. It allows us to move beyond just saying what is happening in a text so we can analyze and interpret it to come to our own assessment of it.

HOW DO I CRITIQUE?

To critique something — a text, a movement, an idea — you have to really understand the thing itself and be able to describe it to the audience you are addressing. Think about the last time you and a friend discussed a movie that you were both passionate about in some way. Whether you loved or hated the film, it would be difficult to discuss it without using summary, paraphrase, and quotations to get your point across. Similarly, when you attempt to write effective critique, you will often need to draw on the original source you are questioning. By summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting, you ensure that your audience will have the context necessary to understand what you are trying to say.

In order to get you thinking along with others, it may be helpful to keep the following series of questions in mind when reading and evaluating a text. Notice that the first three questions primarily ask about how you plan to critique a text, while the last three questions ask for your own response to text and will help you evaluate, analyze, and critique it:

What does the work see itself responding to? It may be a question, a problem, an insufficiency, an error, a prejudice, etc.
What does the work have to say about the issue or problem it's addressing?
What are the key concepts that the text relies upon (either to critique or to develop its own, different line of thinking)?
What concerns do you have about the text? Are there passages or ideas that seem problematic?
What problems do you see with the work's treatment of its topic? Is it too one-sided? Inaccurate? Misleading? Does it not offer enough explanation?
How might the text itself respond to any of these concerns? In other words, what might the author say in response to your concerns about the text?

WHAT DOES A CRITIQUE LOOK LIKE?

In 2017, Hollywood was rocked by a series of accusations of sexual misconduct by a number of producers, actors, and other members of show business, starting with Harvey Weinstein. In the midst of the Weinstein scandal, Mayim Bailik, an actress you may recognize from The Big Bang Theory, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled "Being a Feminist in Harvey Weinstein's World." A lot of people took issue with Bialik's piece, specifically the claims she seemed to make about the type of woman who gets assaulted.

Here's Clarkeisha Kent in The Root, who writes that Bialik's piece is "inflaming, shaming, and victim-blaming":

Perhaps the most egregious part of Bialik's op-ed is the assumption that being unattractive or possessing "nontraditional" looks (read: being "ugly") is enough to prevent a disgusting, dirt-ridden scuzz bag like Weinstein from harassing and/or assaulting you. The presumption here is that not looking a certain way—or, rather, existing on the opposite spectrum from where a pretty person would live—somehow allows you to squeeze by any potential assault or unwanted advance by (in this case) a cisgender straight white man…Bialik anchors this baseless assumption on her own personal but limited experience in this area, which includes no such encounter with Weinstein or a Weinstein-like figure. She makes sure to point that out by stating that these same "nontraditional" looks have given her—"a proud feminist"—and others like her "the 'luxury' of being overlooked and, in many cases, ignored by men in power unless we can make them money." Apparently, she has gotten this far and avoided "men asking [her] to meetings in their hotel rooms" because she and these other women don't represent Hollywood's "impossible standard of beauty."

Notice how much of Bialik's own words Kent uses. Though Bialik never outright says "Ugly women don't get assaulted," many people read that claim through the words Bialik chooses, and Kent explains the unwritten assumption for her readers. (Remind you a bit of analysis?) Kent's word choice also tells us, her readers, a lot about how she feels. The use of "egregious" and "baseless" are both evaluative, but they are also representative of Kent's feelings about Bialik's piece. Her anger is evident through her tone. It's not uncommon to see a tone like this used in critiques published in places with a wide readership. You may even see this kind of tone in academic critiques.

Let's look at another example. This critique, titled "What Mayim Bialik Gets Wrong About 'Harvey Weinstein's World" and published on The Huffington Post, was written by college student Kareeda Kabir. She begins by succinctly summarizing Bialik's piece in just a couple sentences and then tells us, "Various blocks of [Bialik's] piece brought up so many issues that modern feminism is trying to combat." Kabir then pulls quotes from Bialik's piece and discusses why she found them problematic. Here's one such section.

She begins with an admission of "not being a 'perfect ten,'" which serves as a segue into her "I'm not like other women" trope. Before expanding on that, it seems necessary to explain why the "I'm not like other women" line is so harmful. Everyone has seen movies where there's the gorgeous, mean, perfect, popular girls and then there's the shy, awkward, nerdy, not as pretty girls. The latter often compare themselves to the popular girls, either putting themselves down or priding themselves on not conforming. At the same time, the popular girls are usually looking down on the awkward girls and priding themselves on being interested in makeup, fashion and shopping. What's going on here? Every girl in this situation is putting another girl down in one way or another. Bialik is bluntly looking down on women who "diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer," and somehow, doing those things is a one-way pass to "men asking [women] to meetings in their hotel rooms."

How is putting women down for dieting, plastic surgery or getting a personal trainer helping this very obviously awful situation? Are women who do these things lesser than women who don't? Does that excuse them getting sexually assaulted? No, and definitely not; there is no reason to excuse sexual assault. Pushing the divide between "pretty girls" and "awkward girls" also further pushes the narrative of not believing women who aren't conventionally attractive when they're sexually assaulted.

Notice that, again, Kabir is using a lot of Bialik's own words, yet addressing something she finds problematic about the piece that Bialik didn't say specifically. But it is often those unstated assumptions or implied claims that you may want to address in a critique (see questions 3 and 4 in the list above). Kabir also refrains from attacking Bialik personally, which is sometimes difficult to do when you're writing about something or someone you disagree with. Rather, Kabir tells us that she found the title powerful and promising, and despite her issues with the op-ed, Kabir waited for Bialik to address the controversy her piece caused. This suggests she respects Bialik, and she continues to treat her with respect by addressing her words and argument rather than making a snarky comment about Bialik being awkward.

Later, Kabir makes another interesting — and effective! — move in her piece:

I'm going to end with one more quote from her piece:

"But we can't be naïve about the culture we live in."

For the first time in the piece, she's right. The culture we live in is a byproduct of the patriarchal values that our society holds. Values like "women are meant to be seen and not heard" and "women belong in the kitchen." The impossible beauty standards mentioned in the piece are a direct byproduct of these values. There is no reason to compare women to other women or to put them down. Rather than being naïve, we should begin to recognize, confront and change the values that shape the culture we live in. Show women as more than sex symbols or pretty things. Celebrate smart women, pretty women, awkward women, shy women, young women, old women, trans women (all women, really), and most importantly, believe them when they share their stories and experiences of sexual assault.

Kabir acknowledges something that she thinks Bialik does well, something she agrees with, which makes a more nuanced critique. She then goes on to illustrate why what Bialik says in her piece matters to the entire conversation and suggests a way to move forward. She answers the "So what?" and "Who cares?" questions. This is important for a critique because it helps the reader see the critique as something more than just one person being mean or nitpicky about what someone else said or did (and though there are certainly critiques like that!).

For citation, use:

Coastal Carolina University, Department of English, First-Year Writing Program. "Critiquing." Coastal Composition Commons, 24 August 2017, https://ccc.coastal.edu/task/102-badge-2-2/. Accessed xx xxxxxx xxxx.