ATHE 2021: Re/viewing Critics and Resisting -Isms: Towards Reflexive Criticism

Criticism is largely considered a practice of informed opinion writing, a practice that pulls from accumulated expertise rooted in witnessing and writing about hundreds or thousands of productions over the course of one’s career. As a potential byproduct of the job, critics may be more primed to be reflecting on the work of others rather than their own. But it is imperative that critics turn this witnessing to their own writing in order to exercise a practice that truly serves artists, audiences, and archives.

I present my research and critical offerings with recognition that the constraints of the arts journalism field land differently depending not only on one’s identity but also one’s position in the industry. Even so, there is a system that impacts both individuals and the institutions they write for – namely, white supremacy culture. I turn to pedagogist of racial and social justice Tema Okun whose scholarship outlines the characteristics of white supremacy culture as they show up in organizations.

She contends they are “damaging because they are used as norms and standards without being proactively named or chosen by the group” (Okun 1). In the United States and the American Theatre white supremacy culture has an ideological and material grip on our lives, our discourse, and our art. Institutions and individuals have the power to resist white supremacy culture, but it takes a committing to a framework of equity that is grounded in anti-racism and anti-oppression systems. Okun breaks down white supremacy culture into tenets, each outlined with characteristics. She keenly asserts these tenets “show up in the attitudes and behaviors of all of us—people of color and white people” (Okun 1). It is clear, then, that we all perpetuate harm along and beyond racial and/or ethnic social locations and familiarity with the innerworkings of white supremacy culture can mitigate the harm we perpetuate. 

In my thesis work, I introduce possible interventions upon a critic’s practice that incorporate a reflexive and culturally competent approach to their craft. Critics must reflect on their writing and the conversations that emerge from entering a public discourse.

I propose this self-witnessing include a dedication to exercising a reflexive practice. I build upon philosopher and urban planning scholar Donald Schön’s conceptualization of a “reflective practice,” becoming aware of implicit knowledge and learning from experience.

There are three levels of reflection put forth by drama-based pedagogy scholars Katie Dawson and Dan Kelin that transforms Schön’s call for reflection into reflexivity. I apply these frameworks to a theatre critic’s practice in aims of rendering more intentional criticism and a responsive critic.

The first level is “knowing-in-action” which is considered what knowledge is demonstrated in the completion of a task. For critics, knowing-in-action might look like what ends up on their published page. Their published criticism is contending with external factors like word counts, turnarounds, and editing on top of personal interpretations. Thus, what is left on the page showcases what a critic centered as important, as necessary to write about. What gets cut by an editor, unaddressed through drafts, or misinterpreted by the critic is usually an unknown to the reader.

Sometimes, we critics are aware of this distance between demonstrated knowledge and the page, and Schön terms it “reflection-in-action,” which is the process of thinking about what we are doing. Reflection-in-action signals a metacognition, an awareness of what knowledge we are demonstrating.

Third, and most crucially, Schön suggests a need for “reflection-on-action,” a process of taking stock of what has transpired based on completed actions, especially in the face of undesirable outcomes. This third level of reflection does not happen organically. It takes a willingness to self-witness and engage with those who are questioning a critic’s sensibility. Reflection-on-action is also where knowledge gaps become clear and can be addressed. Although language is malleable and some toxic patterns are only clear after decades, there is value in intercepting the harms of the current moment. 

What will further develop a critic’s propensity to move as a citizen in their arts community is centering a pedagogy that invites more resistance upon the dominant white gaze that is pervasive in the field. Reflexivity is a rigorous self-witnessing and with this attention on a critic’s individual personhood, we can then begin to clock the patterns, the systems, that perpetuate inequities.

What comes next is interrogating how the theatre criticism industry and white supremacy culture function on a personal and institutional level. We must name white supremacy culture as a system that continues to plague our society, holding tight to tenets of working that do not make space for moving slow and in community—which may feel both contradictory to and embracing of the “job” of a critic.

It is necessary to name and interrogate how underpinnings of white supremacy culture influence a critic’s ways of working because only then can interventions be made on a personal and, potentially, institutional level.

 A reflexive process instills a responsibility for a critic’s written words and affirms that exercising a propensity to incorporate new knowledge will only strengthen their criticism. What I advocate for is a rigorous generosity, with self and with others. By turning our witnessing as critics onto ourselves, we are remaining vulnerable and vigilant. Vulnerability comes in engaging in dialog with our artistic peers, in acknowledging we are also learning and prone to both speaking and writing in draft with a certain demonstration of knowledge-in-action. Our vigilance, then, includes holding ourselves accountable with reflection-on-action.