In his essay “Blind and Dumb Criticism,” Roland Barthes calls to task critics who aren’t certain of the material they are criticizing or how to discuss it. To make his points Barthes uses reviews from a play by Henri Lefebure about the philosophies of Kierkegaard. Barthes sees these critics and realizes that they don’t really know anything about Kierkegaard or existentialism and, in order to hide their “helplessness or their lack of understanding,” they deem such information as an unnecessary hindrance. Those critics, Barthes claims, rewrite the definition of criticism; they move the goalposts and, bu doing so, perform a horrible disservice to a literate population. By declaring knowledge to be an unnecessary evil they prevent others from seeking knowledge. 60 years later, does our society still find itself at this disservice from blind and dumb criticism? Oh, absolutely so!
Barthes identifies two types of critics which definitely exist, en masse, in our current times. The first type consists of those who claim that “the true subject of criticism is ineffable and criticism, as a consequence, is unnecessary,” These are the ones that insist upon relativism devoid of meaning. “It’s just my opinion!” Certainly, everyone has an opinion, but if that opinion is based on nothing then what is the point of having it in the first place?
This can easily be seen in criticisms about films or television shows that center on hot-button social or political topics of the moment. Take films like Get Out or Black Panther as a for instance. These are two films that address the subject of race and much of the discourse surrounding these films look at those issues. The blind and dumb critic you see today will vomit forth their opinion about these films with clear ignorance of the racial issues. This critic will only look at the films through their narrow lens and any information which challenges their opinion is irrelevant–it is information that is not needed to form their opinion. It is a blind and dumb opinion. By pretending that all criticism is valid in order to give theirs a false intellectualism, they blind themselves to any other way of viewing a work; through refusing to enter a conversation with these conflicting viewpoints they are speaking of nothing to nobody–they simply shoot their words into an echo chamber.
An opinion, in order to have weight and meaning, must be informed. A critic does not give their thoughts in a vacuum–they are in conversation with other critics about the same work and idea; a critic is cognizant about the world around them. They seek other opinions, research, and respond to those.
The second type of critic, Barthes notes, “consists in confessing one is too stupid, too unenlightened to understand.” This is another kind of hand-waving many of today’s critics do when confronted with a conflicting opinion. You see this quite often in the phrase “you’re overthinking it.” It implies that to think at all is somehow wrong. The vanity of a blind and dumb critic is the attitude of “you’re too stupid to like/hate this work like I do.” Barthes points to an idea in culture that seems to validate this type of criticism. He states: “The reality behind this seasonally professed lack of culture is the old obscurantist myth according to which ideas are noxious if they are not controlled by ‘common sense’ and ‘feeling.'” It is the blind and dumb critic that assumes a good feeling from their experience of a work is exclusive to all parts of it. It is the blind and dumb critic who believes those who don’t have the same emotional reaction must be unintelligent.
A good critic then is one who does not believe knowledge is evil. There is no such thing as “overthinking.” Every opinion about a work comes from a thinking brain, every thought about a movie or television show or any other piece of media is the product of rational thought. These ideas are informed by knowledge. It is the vain critic, the one who revels in their own ignorance, who proudly proclaims all knowledge outside of their possession is evil or incorrect, that is the blind and dumb critic.
Barthes sees these critics as fearing ad despising knowledge and states: “if on demands so insistently the right to understand nothing about them [the plays[ and to say nothing about them, why become a critic? To understand, to enlighten, that is your profession, isn’t it?” Criticism today so seldom lives up to that standard Barthes feels it should have. Look at the bulk of ‘critics’ on YouTube, people blogging, or any site or person that self-applies the label of “critics” simply because they give an opinion. Is it an informed opinion? Do they seek to understand and enlighten? Are they truly a critic?
This may be a difficult distinction to make. Are the YouTubers or bloggers whose opinions you find merit in truly critics? Or perhaps even you, dear reader, are one of these self-styled critics yourself and may be wondering if what you’ve provided is blind and dumb criticism. Well, for that latter group I can say this much: the fact that you’ve read this and are considering the nature of your own work puts you at least half the distance away from being blind and dumb. You, at least, are willing to consider the knowledge and thoughts of others. The important thing to consider when judging if a criticism is blind and dumb is to ask whose thoughts seem to matter more. Whose opinion bears more weight in the conversation: yours or the person claiming to be a critic. If a critic’s responsibility is to enlighten, then it is you, the reader or viewer, who benefits the most. Otherwise, that “critics” is blind and dumb, spouting their opinion of nothing to nobody.
Does the critic make an effort to become about the work or other opinions of a work? Let’s use Get Out and Black Panther as two readily available examples. The filmmakers, many critics and scholars, and the audience members who have vocalized their thoughts on social media have all firmly established that these films are a means to address racial issues. Viewing these films through a racial lens is important. The good critic listens to these, responds to these views, looks into why a majority of people discuss these films with contemporary politics. Rather than give their opinion in a vacuum, the good critic enters into this ongoing conversation. They can agree or disagree with previous readings, but they have sought knowledge and provide knowledge–they reference information they’ve found and enlighten the reader/viewer to sources and knowledge that they can utilize to expand on their own. Acknowledgment of popular consensus is insufficient. The true critic will state agreement or disagreement with purpose as a means to enlighten their audience. “I agree or disagree because…” They state why. They give a source for what has helped to inform their position: be it a philosophical author, literary or film theorists, or some other knowledge that has helped to craft their view that anyone watching can readily seek as well. The blind and dumb critic will acknowledge these views (maybe) and nothing else. The blind and dumb critic will agree to disagree.
Let’s cement this idea further with an example of television critics. The TV show Rosanne, in its recently rebooted form, attempts to provide commentary on socio-political issues. Topics such as race, gender, sexuality, and immigration are brought to the table for discussion. For instance, a recent episode ventured to discuss the hot-button issue of Islamaphobia by giving Rosanne and family Muslim neighbors–the episode investigated stereotypes involving that. The true critic will discuss the varying views of how the episode addressed Islamaphobia, define the term, mention what others had to say, and then eventually provide their own thoughts on how the episode addressed this topic and others. The blind and dumb critic will not address this topic of Islamaphobia or will only do so from their own view–neglecting all others. The blind and dumb critic will accuse others of “overthinking” the episode. The blind and dumb critic will say others are wrong and that the episode could only be about one specific thing. And God help the ‘critic’ so lost in nostalgia as to so entirely disregard that topic and only talk about the previous iterations of the show and what it would or would not have done. God help the “critic” that completely ignores those topics and focuses on what jokes they thought were funny. The blind and dumb critic will ignore the ideas of others; that Something Worse will ignore that those others or their ideas even exist.
Ultimately, our society, at least as reflected through the culture represented online, values blind and dumb criticism even more than in Barthes’ day. The internet is full of these blind and dumb idols throughout every corner of social media who spew forth uninformed ideas into a vacuum. Major publishers, in an effort to stay afloat, have abandoned the living they paid to educated writers and critics to favor the stipend they toss to blind and dumb vloggers. It’s a wise fiscal decision because the true critics venture to areas we want to avoid. But we shouldn’t avoid those areas. True critics will challenge us. Whether their views about a piece of media through the lens of race or gender may seem out of place, they do bring topics to the table we need to discuss. The blind and dumb critics offer no discussion worth listening to.
Ideas and Literature 