Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
There is not unanimous agreement about the difference (see the two additional comments at the end of this discussion). Here is the difference as I see it:
KRITIKS are critical examinations of an existing system from a post-modern perspective. By post-modern, I mean that a kritik usually makes the following assumptions:
--the team advocating the kritik does not need to provide a better alternative-they just need to point out a problematic in their opponent's position*
--humans are not the key focus of a kritik; Rather, language is the key focus in how it changes power relations (for example, the term "rights" may encourage a way of thinking that does not use compromise and hence the language of "rights" gives too much power to those who say they have a "right" and virtually none to those asking for compromise and responsibility)
--there is no grand narrative that can explain all actions
--a kritik seeks to examine relationships and perspectives on knowledge rather than categorize it
--a kritik typically uses deconstructionist, (post)-marxist, power relations (foucault), critical legal scholarship, radical feminism, etc., theory
CRITIQUES are critical examinations of language from a modern perspective. By modern, I mean that a critique usually makes the following assumptions:
--critiques believe that a better alternative can and should be provided
--humans are the key focus of a critique-choices we make in the approach, language, etc., have real consequences on people
--critiques believe that there is an overarching story that explains all actions
--critiques have theoretical underpinnings that seek to categorize knowledge
--critiques
typically uses constructivist, metaphorical, liberal feminist,
standard marxist, liberal legal, etc., theory
*Erik Hofer wrote me and
noted that, "The primary difference I see in the alternative
offered by postmodernists and modernists is that modernists offer
a conclusion, an end point, as the alternative, whereas
postmodernists offer a rethinking, a starting point, as the
alternative." His point being that kritiks do offer an
alternative, it just isn't one grounded in any particular
construct that you can point to--rather, it is grounded in a way
of thinking.
Sean Harris wrote me with the following: Bill Shannahan has been a lab leader at Dartmouth for many years. He's coached at Texas, Weber, and other schools. The years that I was at Dartmouth he was at Texas. He is, arguably, the creator of the kritik in its current form. Texas, when he coached there, was among the first teams to run the kritik. Shannahan told me that he started the kritik, and much of the theory came from him, I believe him. In a lecture that Shannahan gave at Dartmouth, he explained why he calles the kritik "kritik". It has to do with Heidiegger (sp?) and some German stuff, much of which was over my head, but I did get the ghist of it. "Kritik" is German, and the word does not directly translate into English. The German word "kritik" means both "critique" and "critic". In other words, the "kritik" is not just an argument put forth that questions the assumptions of the affirmative, but also has implications for the critic. It's kinda postmodern, if you ask me. But, to make a long story short (TOO LATE!) Shannahan had a justification for the use of the word "kritik", and since he certainly gave the debate argument the name kritik, we ought not make artificial distinctions. Shannahan would say that Jim's examples of "critiques" and "kritiks" are both actually Kritiks. We ought term them as such.
Jim