The story “Critics,” according to Shukshin’s own classification, belongs to character stories. The clash of characters reveals the weaknesses of the heroes-relatives: the grandfather, his son and daughter-in-law, the daughter-in-law’s relatives.

Issues

The most important problem of the story is the relationship between generations, the problem of “fathers and sons.” Another problem is that people do not value or respect their loved ones. We can highlight the problem of old people who feel that they are “out of work” in this life. The problem of relations between city residents and villagers, usual for Shukshin, is also raised in the story.

Heroes of the story

Grandfather– 73-year-old dry, nervous and deaf old man. In the past, he is a carpenter, a master of his craft, who built half of the village in which he lives. Now the family treats him with disdain, as an unnecessary, outdated thing. The grandfather’s favorite pastime is going to the movies with his grandson and criticizing everything he sees on the screen: the plot of the film, individual episodes, characters and their actions. At the same time, grandfather definitely needs to argue. He willingly argues with his 13-year-old grandson Petka, and wins these disputes using “adult” arguments: “You are little isho.”

My grandfather rarely argued with adults because he “didn’t know how.” His arguments are always the same: “Crap. It doesn’t happen like that.” Grandfather evaluates cinema from only one point of view - verisimilitude, it should replicate life. That is why the TV for him is like a crack into which people shamelessly peer, as if into someone else’s room.

The grandfather is outraged that the carpenter in the film is holding the ax incorrectly. He does not want to listen to the point of view of visiting relatives. The grandfather perceives their polite smiles as mocking laughter. The aunt’s husband’s remark “curious old man” insults the grandfather, he feels as if he has been spat upon.

Grandfather starts up. Emotional arousal is reinforced by alcohol, and the grandfather breaks the TV screen and expresses all his accumulated thoughts. long years grievances. Another property of his character is his ability to second-guess the words and actions of other people.

Grandfather lives in his own world, although this was forced: he has poor hearing, which is why he does not always understand what is happening in his favorite movie, and laughs out of place. But the grandfather is a warm-hearted and compassionate person, often crying when someone is killed in the movies.

The grandfather is trying to pass on his values ​​to other generations: his grandson and son, but they do not need these values. Petka objects that “people are different now.” Likewise, the grandfather’s son outwardly affectionately addresses his father as “daddy,” but he is not interested in his grandfather’s remark that the carpenter in the film is holding the ax incorrectly.

Petka- a thirteen-year-old “friend” of his grandfather, independent, tall, shy and stubborn. He happily argues with him about the paintings, trying to explain what his grandfather did not understand. Petka is like-minded with his grandfathers.

The reader sees everything that happens through the eyes of the boy. Petka's point of view is the wisest. The author rejects everyday experience. The wiser is the one who knows how to love and forgive. Petka is the best at this in the family. He advises the grandfather not to pay attention to the ridicule of adults, tries to calm down, undress and take off his drunk grandfather. Petka is the only one who feels sorry for his grandfather, whom the policeman takes to the sobering-up center and cries bitterly.

Petka's father obviously ashamed of his artless father. The phrase that escaped from the old man that they didn’t want to seat him at the table with them, as well as the son’s curse addressed to him “my dear, take you” - all these details indicate that the grandfather is not a friend for adults, but a burden. Petka’s mother shares her husband’s point of view and considers his grandfather unscrupulous. The father repeats three times what he said to his grandfather: “he bothered,” which in the context of the story means roughly “disgraced, surprised.” Petka’s father is not able to understand and forgive his grandfather, he behaves very rudely towards him: he takes him in his arms, ties his hands with a towel, puts him on the floor and, finally, gives him to be torn to pieces by a policeman.

Petka's aunt and her husband- city dwellers, Muscovites, for them the grandfather with all his ambitions is simply exotic. It is the aunt who calls the policeman, and the aunt’s husband looks at everything as if from the outside. They combine interest in certain details and indifference to the person as a whole.

Policeman Ermolai is a formalist. He sees only dry numbers and facts, and does not spare even the agitated Petka, scaring him with prison for his grandfather.

Plot and composition

The story begins with a description of the usual activities of the grandfather and grandson, who loved to criticize films. The middle part of the story is the only serious confrontation between the grandfather and adults. They criticize the grandfather, from his point of view, unfairly. The story ends with the arrival of a policeman, who draws up a protocol, which is a mixture formal business style with colloquial and illiterate expressions: “He continued his excited state,” “knocked out everything in the world, that is, where it can be seen.”

All heroes are critics, each of them sees the shortcomings of the other, but does not notice the beam in his own eye.

Stylistic features

Shukshin literally describes the appearance of his grandfather and grandson in a nutshell; there are no portraits of other heroes. The character of the characters is revealed, as in a drama, through dialogues and speech.

The author's text is short, reminiscent of stage directions. The speech of the villagers is simple, contains speech errors. Shukshin describes the inhabitants of the Altai village where he is from. This is emphasized dialect words: looks (likes), bothered, recovered. Grandfather uses rude expressions: fuck off, crap. City residents speak politely and with a smile (this is what drives the grandfather crazy).

Thanks to the police report, the story takes on the features of an essay. The reader learns only from the protocol full name grandfather, year (1963), date and month of the events that happened. The official language of the protocol emphasizes the living colloquial ordinary people, which the author admires.

All writing people are divided into two categories. The first group includes the creators of literary works. To the second - those who devote these works critical articles. There is also a third category, which includes people who do not know how to write, but have great respect for this creative process. But today’s article is not about them. We have to figure out what criticism is. What is it for? What is the job of a literary critic?

Definition

What is literary criticism? It is impossible to answer this question in a few words. It is a rich, varied concept. Writers and scientists have repeatedly tried to define literary criticism, but each of them has come up with their own, author’s own definition. Let's consider the origin of the word.

What is "criticism"? This is a word of Latin origin that translates as "judgment". The Romans borrowed it from the Hellenes. In ancient Greek there is a word κρίνω, meaning “to judge”, “to pass judgment”. Giving general definition criticism, it is worth saying that it can be not only literary, but also musical. In every field of art there are people who create works and those who analyze and evaluate them.

There are professions such as restaurant critic, theater critic, film critic, art critic, photo critic and so on. Representatives of these specialties are by no means idle observers and idle talkers. Not everyone knows how to analyze and disassemble a work, be it literature, painting or cinema. This requires certain knowledge and skills.

Musical critic

This profession arose not so long ago - just in the 19th century. Of course, even before this there were people who talked about music and devoted their notes to this topic. But only with the advent of periodicals did specialists appear who could already be called music critics. They wrote treatises no longer on general humanitarian and philosophical topics, mentioning from time to time the work of this or that composer. They occupied a hitherto empty niche.

What is criticism piece of music? This is an analysis and assessment based on deep knowledge and experience. This is a specialty that is acquired at higher education educational institution. To become a critic in this field, you must first graduate music school, then a specialized school, then enter a university, for example, the Tchaikovsky Conservatory at the Faculty of History and Theory. As you can see, acquiring this profession is not easy.

The emergence of criticism

The foundations of this science originated in Ancient Greece. In antiquity, of course, there were no theorists who zealously controlled literary process. Athenian citizens did not gather in the square to listen to a literary critic's treatise smashing Aeschylus's Oresteia or Euripides' Medea to smithereens. But the long, lengthy arguments of Aristotle and Plato are nothing more than an attempt to understand why a person needs art, by what laws it exists and what it should be.

Purposes of criticism

The basis for the emergence and development of this science is the appearance of literary texts. What is criticism? This is something that cannot exist without fiction. The critic pursues the following goals in his work:

• Identifying contradictions.
• Analysis, discussion.
• Identifying errors.
• Scientific verification of historical accuracy.

A great many literary works are created every year. The most talented of them find their readers. However, it often happens that a work that is devoid of any literary value arouses considerable interest. Literary critics do not impose their opinions on readers, but they have a huge influence on their perception.

Once upon a time, no one appeared in the literary field famous writer from Little Russia. His short, romantic stories were worthy of attention, but it cannot be said that they were read. Creation young writer received a resonance in society thanks to the light hand of an eminent critic. His name was Vissarion Belinsky. Aspiring writer - Nikolai Gogol.

Criticism in Russia

The name of Vissarion Belinsky is known to everyone school curriculum. This man had a huge influence on the work of many writers who later became classics.

In Russia, literary criticism was formed in the 18th century. IN XIX century it acquired a magazine character. Critics increasingly began to touch upon philosophical topics in their articles. Analysis of a work of art has become a pretext for thinking about problems real life. IN Soviet era, especially in the twenties of the last century, there was a process of destruction of the traditions of aesthetic criticism.

Critic and writer

It is easy to guess that the relationship between them is not going too smoothly. There is an inevitable antagonism between critic and writer. This antagonism is exacerbated when the creation literary texts and their consideration is influenced by ambition, desire for primacy and other factors. A critic is a person with a literary education who analyzes a work of art without regard to political or personal bias.

Russian history knows many cases when criticism was in the service of power. This is exactly what is described in Bulgakov’s world-famous novel “The Master and Margarita”. The writer has repeatedly encountered unscrupulous critics. IN real life There was no way I could take revenge on them. The only thing that remained for him was to create unsightly images of Latunsky and Lavrovich - typical critics of the 20s. On the pages of his novel, Bulgakov took revenge on his offenders. But this did not change the situation. Many prose writers and poets still continued to “write” on the table. Not because their works were mediocre, but because they did not correspond to the official ideology.

Literature without criticism

One should not assume that critics do nothing but praise or destroy the work of this or that author. They in some way control the literary process, and without their intervention it would not have developed. A real artist must respond adequately to criticism. Moreover, he needs it. writing man, convinced of the high artistic value of his creations and not listening to the opinions of his colleagues, is rather not a writer, but a graphomaniac.

• statements, emphasizing the shortcomings or defects of something.
  • There is criticism of government policy.
• Philol. literature or journalism, associated with the discussion and analysis of literary and artistic phenomena.
  • Theater criticism.
• "a stone for your garden"
• "self-expression of losers", as defined by Hitler
• analysis of the author's work
• and. search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any work, esp. essays; analysis, assessment. Historical criticism, everyday analysis, searching for events, clearing them of embellishments and distortions. Human criticism, gossip, condemnation, and condemnation cannot be avoided. To analyze something, to make an analysis, a search and a conclusion based on it about the merits of something; to condemn, condemn, blame or find fault, discredit. - to be criticized, condemned; defame each other mutually. A critic who criticizes; disassembler, disassembler; detractor, detractor. Critically, based on criticism, analysis; capable of sound, correct judgment, evaluation; prone to blaming, to finding shortcomings; difficult, dangerous (see crisis), leading to a turning point, to a revolution. Critical Studies; faithful, critical mind; critical direction, view of what; critical situation: critical sweat in illness. Disassemble what is critical, based on sound criticism. Criterion, criterion m. touchstone, a sure sign for recognizing the truth. Logical criterion based on the very way of thinking
• comments to the author
• who loves her
• literary genre
• impartial judgment about the author's book
• review of the work
• negative judgment
• assessment of the quality of a literary opus
• blaming someone
• analysis and evaluation of the work
• analysis of the work piece by piece
• analysis of the writer's work
• analysis of the poet's work
• analysis of the novelist's work
• analysis, discussion
• distribution of the work
• advice from opponents
• judgments
• pointing out deficiencies
• "the art of judging"
• “self-expression of losers”, according to Hitler
• analysis, discussion in order to evaluate
• according to Thaddeus Bulgarin, ... in literature the same as the police and the judiciary in the state
• analysis and evaluation of literary, musical, theatrical and other works of art
• analysis and evaluation literary work
• meticulous search for specks in someone else's eye
• constructive comments
• talent dissecting talents
• Karl Marx's essay "... The Gotha Program"
• Moliere's comedy "... schools for wives"
• grinding the bones of a work of art
• review of creativity
• analysis of the work
• review of the poet's work
• "a stone for your garden"
• analysis of shortcomings
• who loves her?
• (Greek krittke, from krino - I judge). Analysis and judgments about the merits and demerits of any subject, work, especially an essay; discussion, evaluation.
• Greek kritike, from krino, I judge, I reason, I argue. Condemnation and analysis of the subject, detailed and thorough.
• discussion and research of the subject. Philosophical philosophy considers only the idea of ​​an object and its relationship to representation. Historical research consists of studying the authenticity of written monuments. Artistic painting explores the internal aesthetic merit of a work of art.
• analysis and discussion; assessment made on the basis of research Ph.D. a scientific position or an entire system, a work of art, individual actions of a person and his entire character, etc. and so on.
• A meticulous search for specks in someone else's eye.
• An unflattering judgment about the author's book.
• Pointing out deficiencies.
• Constructive comments.
• Grinding the bones of a work of art.
• Analysis and evaluation of a literary work.
• Moliere's comedy "... schools for wives."
• The talent of dissecting talents.
• Karl Marx's essay "... The Gotha Program".
• Advice from opponents.
• according to Thaddeus Bulgarin, CRITICISM in literature the same as the police and the judiciary in the state
• essay by Karl Marx CRITICISM Gothic program"
• comedy by Molière CRITICISM schools for wives"

Synonyms for criticism

• • condemnation

Hyponyms for criticism

• • spacing

Hypernyms for criticism

• • statement
  • discussion
  • judgment

Antonyms for criticism

• • chanting
  • OK
  • praise

Cognates for critic

• Verbs

  • criticize
  • criticize

  adverbs

  • critical
  • critically

  adjectives

  • critical
  • critical

  nouns

  • critic
  • kicker
  • criticism
  • criticality
  • self-criticism

Phraseologisms for the word criticism

• • severe criticism
  • merciless criticism
  • mild criticism
  • below any criticism

CRITICISM

CRITICISM

(from Greek kritike - judgment)

assessment, the ability to evaluate, verify, one of the most important abilities of a person, protecting him from the consequences of misconceptions and mistakes; private – criticism towards oneself (self-criticism). “Critique of Pure Reason”, “Critique of Practical Reason”, “Critique of Judgment” - the names of three works. Kant.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

CRITICISM

V scientific knowledge(from the Greek κριτική - the art of judging) - the active relationship of a given theory to others, their or rethinking of this theory itself from a perspective. her own conclusions. K. and positive interpenetrate each other.

For the ancient philosopher. thinking comprehension of natures. the beginnings of the cosmos made K. a necessary party to the gradual liberation from the shackles of the mythological. and everyday consciousness. thereby excluded. From this point of view, K. presupposes a ready-made truth and lies in its application (applied K.). Such K. was associated with the exclusion of historicism. Thus, according to Hobbes, philosophy that calculates truth “... excludes history, both natural and political...” (see Izbr. soch., M.–L., 1926, p. 11). Therefore, “instead of books, we should read our own ideas...” (ibid., p. 236). The history of knowledge was depicted as a chain of “abstract systems” that only move away from the truth (see E. Condillac, Treatise on Systems..., M., 1938, p. 162; cf. P. Golbach, Common Sense, M., 1924 , p. 4; cf. D. Hume, Study of Human Understanding, St. Petersburg, 1902, p.

Kant's role in developing the problem of Kant is twofold. His merit lies in distinguishing formal errors and containing them. delusions, or “inevitable illusions” (see “Critique of Pure Reason”, St. Petersburg, 1915, pp. 202–03). However, all of his “criticism”, i.e. Communication as a “tool” of cognition is based on the dualism of subject and object. Starting with the fact that K. deals only with the “specifics” of knowledge, he separated everything from true objectivity.

The Baden school of neo-Kantianism finally cut off the ability to be critical. evaluative judgments from ability to positive. cognition. The first was interpreted as allegedly having a completely different nature - not categorical, but axiological. Axiological (see Axiology) so deprives K. of objectivity that it declares truth itself to be only one of the values.

Attitude towards K. in modern times. bourgeois philosophy developing in a situation of crisis bourgeois. culture, characterized by ahistorical. trends in various forms. For certain trends that oppose the concept of historical progressivism. development, is characteristic of the renunciation of the classical. cultural heritage. Thus, irrationalists refuse to see progress in science and culture in general, speculating on the fact of alienation (for example, Heidegger). On the other hand, philosophy. schools treats the history of philosophy apologetically, accepting as absolute. the truth of certain extreme forms of idealism. This is, for example, . Neopositivism comes out with an apology for anti-historicism and thereby cultural nihilism generated by antagonistic. division of labor in modern times. science. From this point of view, “...traditional metaphysical teachings should be discarded as meaningless and pseudo-rational..., without delving deeply into their structure and origin” (Topitsch E., Vom Ursprung und Ende der Metaphysik, Wien, 1958, S 2; cf. R. Carnap, Die Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyze der Sprache, see "Erkenntnis", 1931, Bd 2, H. 4, S. 219–42). At the same time, neopositivists just as ahistorically select from the history of logic ideas that are consonant with theoretical ones. designs of modern mathematical logic. In pre-Marxist philosophy, dialectic. an understanding of the essence and role of justice was developed along with insight into the dialectic of truth and error. In classic German philosophy developed that “and its criticism mutually support and explain each other” (I. G. Fichte, Selected works, vol. 1, 1916, p. 7). Hegel systematically developed the dialectic. understanding of K. “Shooting” K. – the construction of his “Phenomenology of Spirit”. Decisive was his understanding of truth not as a result obtained despite the history of errors, but as a process, which is knowledge or “progressive truth” (see Soch., vol. 4, M., 1959, p. 2; cf. t. 10, M.–L., 1932, p. 426). Therefore, “in the history of philosophy we are dealing with philosophy itself,” and its stages are “moments of one whole,” and not “a gallery of opinions” (see ibid., vol. 9, L., 1932, pp. 25, 40, 19 ). Error “constitutes truths no longer as false” (ibid., vol. 4, p. 21), but in a sublated form – sublated by nothing other than K. In this case, “the true must penetrate into strong point enemy..." (ibid., vol. 6, M., 1939, p. 10). This makes K. a way of positively overcoming the subject of K. Penetrating into the contradictions of the achieved culture, such K. acquires heuristic functions. This allowed Hegel to proclaim the true task of K. “... not the purely negative destruction ... of limitations, but the preparation of the path for true philosophy by it” (“Über das Wesen der philosophischen Kritik...”, in the book: ämtl. Werke, Bd 1, Lpz., 1928, S. 129). However, for Hegel, as an idealist, the criticality of theory in relation to other theories was not a derivative of the criticality of human practice.

Only Marx put the problem of K. into action. soil. For Marx, theoretical K. is only an expression of real, practical. criticality of humans as societies. subject of the whole, incl. scientific-theoretical culture. In this practical orientation. reality is the key to overcoming any “uncritical positivism”. Marxist scientific principles. K. are as follows:

1) the principle of coincidence of partisanship with objectivity, which consists primarily in the fact that a Marxist is a scientific. by defining his point of view (see V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 1, p. 380) and, never turning it into dogma, constantly subjects it to self-criticism. This principle excludes any subjectivist distortion of partisanship and not only gives science, but also obliges it to obtain through research and only this way everything without exception of practical things. conclusions and assessments. This is only an expression of the fact that dialectics “...does not bow to anything and in its very essence is critical and revolutionary” (Marx K., Capital, vol. 1, 1955, p. 20). In this light it becomes clear and effective. meaning of chapter titles Marx's works - "Towards a Critique of Political Economy" and the subtitle of "Capital" - "Critique of Political Economy".

2) K. must be explanatory. The subject of K. must be understood as historically necessary and found in history. The analysis of error must always find its objective (see V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 1, p. 216). Negative K., rejecting the criticized concept, “...turns her back to it and... mutters several angry and banal phrases at her” (Marx K., see Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed. ., vol. 1, p. 420). She demands from the object K that it not be what it is. But “...to declare a given philosophy erroneous does not mean to end it” (F. Engels, ibid., vol. 21, p. 281; cf. p. 300). Turning to the question of K. modern. Kantianism, Machism, etc., Lenin stated in 1914 that by that time Marxists had not yet mastered the principles of dialecticalism. positive K.: “Marxists criticized (at the beginning of the 20th century) the Kantians and Humeans more in the Feuerbachian (and Buchnerian) way than in the Hegelian way” (Works, vol. 38, p. 170), because they rejected these concepts “out of the gate” and did not correct or deepen their problems (see ibid.). The more consistent the negativism in K., the more it leads to dogmatization of one’s own. "position", to sectarian narrowness and nihilism. Being unable to explain the definition. misconceptions, such a K. is forced to draw “grounds” for criticism. assessments outside of science. From negativism in K. arise two tendencies that feed each other. One – to the rejection of any K. supposedly in strict “scientific”, as a result of disappointment in it, i.e. to objectivism. The other leads to subjectivist ideologization, to the degeneration of philosophy into moralization, to the open intervention of extrascientific science. considerations (see K. Marx, Theories of surplus value, part 2, 1957, p. 112). Path is critical. overcoming previous scientific development lies only through the complete mastery of the subject of science. “...The first criticism of any science is necessarily in the power of the preconditions of the very science against which it is fighting...” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed. ., vol. 2, p. 33). This “power” comes to an end only when K. moves forward in real problems and becomes above the subject of K. Therefore, “... to refute a philosophical system in general does not mean to discard it, but to develop it further, not to replace it with a one-sided opposition, but to include it to a higher one" (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 38, pp. 157–58).

3) K. is just a special development of the theory. Scientific criticism is positive: it “removes” the criticized concept and forms its own. This is “constructive”, “searching” K. Only such K. is able not only to penetrate into the “core” of the concept being criticized, but also to see the latest possibilities that have not yet been realized, problems that have not yet been solved by it (even if they are incorrectly posed). “True criticism analyzes not answers, but questions” (MEGA, I, Bd 1, Halbbd 1, . 230). Thus, K. acquires a fundamentally important epistemological. function: it helps in solving problems that are insoluble with the help of positive research alone.

Marxism includes in the demand for the scientific nature of society also the demand for its sociality. Social character K. follows from the social nature of cognition. Epistemological and the social “roots” of the concept being criticized do not at all form two independent entities. its foundations. Analysis of epistemological "roots" must be brought to social problems, and a unified social-gnoseological the basis of the entire concept being criticized must be understood as explaining both what is false in it and what is true in it. The importance of theory in science increases along with the growth of social science as a whole. the study of objects and the construction of not fragmentary, but synthetic ones. theories. The latter require a high methodological level. the culture of the scientist and his criticism. , irreconcilable with any dogmatism. Any attempt by a scientist to simply get rid of the social factors of K. and isolate himself in his narrow specialty is utopian and illusory. It only allows these factors to act spontaneously and blindly. Positive , i.e. above them, is achievable only by transforming them and mastering them also within science. We need to deal with them and make them aware. the socially oriented character of all scientific K. The subjectivist distortion of partisanship in K. is overcome not by “non-partyism,” but only by active partisanship, nourished by real practical-critical. attitude and coinciding with objectivity.

The Marxist principles of science make high demands on the scientist, aimed against “scientific” philistinism, and entrust him with both the fate of science and the course of all societies. processes. Norms acting as morals. requirements: conscientiousness in K., efficiency, inadmissibility of empty criticism, adherence to principles, etc. - for a Marxist scientist, stem from an understanding of the essence of Q. The scientist must not be a passive supplier of the scientific knowledge required of him. "information", but an active critic-fighter.

Marxist scientific K. is called upon to bring the struggle against the bourgeoisie to complete victory. ideology. The use of appeals to “strength” and dogmaticism as “means” of K. abuse has always been an indicator of K.'s weakness. Evidence of the strength of Marxism is its ability to defeat an ideological enemy with K.'s ideological weapons - on the basis of practical principles. development and economic competition between two systems. For a Marxist, there are no areas or problems that he would leave “at the mercy” of his opponents. Leading the offensive campaign of capitalism in all areas of society. life, will win, for his victory is only an expression of the universal self-criticism of History.

Lit.: Marx K., Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie.. 1857–1858, Moskau, 1939; V., 1953; his, Towards a critique of political economy, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 13; his, Theory of Surplus Value, ibid., vol. 26; Marx K. and Engels F., German, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3; Lenin V.I., On the meaning of militant materialism, Works, 4th ed., vol. 33; Ilyenkov E., Dialectics of abstract and concrete in Marx’s “Capital”, [M. ], 1960, ch. 4.

G. Batishchev. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

Synonyms:

See what “CRITICISM” is in other dictionaries:

Critic... Russian word stress

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word “judgment” is closely related to the concept of “court”. To judge, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze any object, try to understand its meaning, bring... ... Literary encyclopedia

In everyday communication, the true motives and desires of a critic sometimes look frankly irrational and naive, therefore, with the help of simple manipulation, he wraps his simple-minded claims in a camouflage of strict seriousness, in the hope that this bitter pill will be taken at face value and swallowed without choking. It is interesting that not only the victim of the critic, but also the critic himself buys into his own manipulations, not noticing his real motives. What is behind the criticism? The site already has several articles about, which mostly talk about the causes of the painful experiences of the injured party. Here we will talk about attackers - picky critics.

Criticism – constructive and not very

Constructive criticism– this is a “debriefing” that helps to identify mistakes and develop. And here the defendant being criticized, if he is truly interested in improvement, should put aside delusions of grandeur, stop making excuses, and pay resigned attention to what is being said to him.

Such “criticism” is used in order to unobtrusively rub the client’s nose into his misconceptions. But no constructive approach will help when the recipient is focused not so much on development as on self-affirmation. Then any criticism, advice and comments will be perceived as an aggressive attack. That's probably all there is to constructive criticism.

Destructive criticism manifests itself much richer and more intricate. Although her central motive is vulgarly simple, which is why it is hidden behind an abundance of different-feathered guises.

Without any disguises, that is, self-affirmation is not practiced in its pure form, because it is built on self-deception - substitution obvious fact active pride under the guise of some plausible reason, for example, constructive criticism or righteous anger. And when self-deception is exposed, the very structure of self-affirmation crumbles. Therefore, if you stick out your ego, then do it consciously, so at least there is a chance to recognize your self-deception and psychologically “settle down.”

Therefore, critics with a coarsened consciousness assert themselves rather rudely. Their uncouth motives are not obvious to them. Sophisticated people fool themselves with subtlety, presenting themselves in the best light with masterful grace.

In general, with any form of destructive criticism, the critic is trying to convey to us a simple message that he is better than us. Everything else is details - a smokescreen of justifications and justifications drenched in lies.

"Figures" of destructive criticism

Often destructive criticism is charged with envy. The critic wants to be just as good, or even better. And to admit this desire for him means to sink, to realize that he differs unfavorably from the recipient of his envy. I even admit that envy is suppressed sympathy. A critic may adore you, and when these feelings are not answered, they become humiliating and are covered with criticism. "From love to hate one step".

Similar motives guide the critic when he notices the success of newcomers. If a critic has signed up to become a professional and builds his self-esteem on this, the success of a beginner for him again borders on the humiliating awareness of his inadequately inflated self-esteem. For this reason, the critic stocks up in advance with clippers of other people’s wings, and joins the terrarium of professional hazing.

The opposite also happens - when a layman gives smug advice to professionals and criticizes them in order to immediately rise to highly authoritative spheres for free.

A powerful motive for criticism can be the bitter experience of one's own omissions. The critic wanted success and victories, but having lost faith in himself, he gave up and succumbed to the suffocating framework into which society harnessed him. He is humiliated by the slave collar around his neck, and in order to justify his decision, he expects others to either suffer as well - as equals with him, or to express great respect to him for his martyrdom. And when others don’t care, the martyr, in order not to feel like a mug and generally close himself off from understanding the current situation, begins to justify his way of life and criticize the freedom for which he did not have the courage.

For a similar reason, we do not like arrogant proud people and all kinds of non-standard personalities. It seems that this, in general, is the “trademark” neurosis of our country. We are hooked on which all respectable citizens, real girls and normal guys. We drive our pride into a corner and harness it to social norms. And for those who did not pacify themselves with this harness, we pronounce a “fashionable verdict.”

A proud person criticizes in order to show that he has access to much more advanced things and knowledge, in comparison with which the object of criticism is consumer stupidity. They say “we have seen such mountains, in comparison with which this one is just a plain.”

A proud person criticizes in order to instill in himself the feeling that everyone except him is an incurable loser, and he is the master of life, or the alpha male, who has bent under himself and therefore has surpassed everyone he could in the hierarchy of existence. In a professional environment, such personnel are called tyrants.

The reason for criticism can also be banal personal hostility. In this case, vindictive criticism can be disguised as any seemingly innocent remarks, advice and comments.

In everyday life, criticism can cover up a typical manipulation designed to induce a feeling of guilt, so that the person being criticized realizes how wrong he was and magically takes the path of atonement for his sins and mistakes. Of course, as a rule, such fabulous transformations do not occur - in best case scenario Instead of guilt, the victim being criticized remains in a calm understanding of the situation; otherwise, he expresses indifference, but most often begins to defend himself with retaliatory criticism.

In a dispute, when opinions differ, opponents descend to criticism in order to justify their way of life and their lives. In this case, the critic is not even inclined to think about what exactly he is criticizing. He is simply “right” because the ego cannot be wrong. The ego rests on the supports of rightness, and for this it recruits all conceivable and inconceivable rationalizations, sometimes reaching the monstrous depth of the intricacies of philosophical “wisdom.”

conclusions

In general, someone else’s opinion is not necessarily an expression of the truth, and in the case of destructive criticism, it is more likely an expression of internal disorder rather than any real facts. It differs from constructive in that it does not always have adequate content, negative emotional energy, and the presence of evaluations.

In order not to be fooled by the critic’s provocations, you should not base your self-esteem on the opinions of others. Other people's reviews can be anything, then self-esteem will be anything - always fluctuating. Is this real? They praised him - good. Scolded - bad. Why prove to the critic that he is wrong? So that he would understand how wrong he was in his bad opinion about our good person? So that we remain correct and approved even in his critical comments? Even if the critic is right in content and expresses himself constructively, there is no such obligation to worry about someone else’s opinion.

Destructive criticism is always an intensification of negative karmic turns, where bad experiences that prompt criticism are consolidated and create complex knots in the natural flow of life energy. The emotional background from this disgrace is methodically darkened, the mind projects more and more more problems to neutral life situations, and life begins to seem unfair and filled with stupid egoists.

The way out, as before, is self-knowledge, a sober look at yourself, your motives and decisions. After any ambiguous situation, it is useful to conduct introspection and meditate to discern those fears that were covered up by superficial reactions.