One common "defense" that people put forth when they receive a code of conduct warning is that the person issuing the warning is "not accepting constructive criticism gracefully" or "not being welcoming". However, the whole reason why we're having to enforce the code of conduct is because their criticism wasn't constructive. This article will break down why this defense is specious and give community managers a place to point to when people behaving badly try to use it to justify their destructive behavior.
Before we can get into constructive criticism, it is important to define what criticism is. For our purposes, it is the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of some work. Having this kind of analysis is important and healthy. This is why peer reviews exist. But not all criticism is helpful. Many people, especially the type that attempt to use the above-mentioned defense, seem to think that criticism becomes constructive when the target of it does something positive with the feedback, no matter how negatively it was intended, formulated, or delivered. But it is the content of the criticism that makes it constructive or destructive, not the result.
Constructive criticism is intended to show that a goal is better achieved or a problem is better solved by an alternative approach. Constructive criticism is focused on taking what was proposed and making it better. It often includes suggestions for improvement and creates a spirit of cooperation.
On the other hand, destructive criticism doesn't aim to improve things. Its only goal is to tear things down or show them as invalid. You can often spot destructive criticism by the fact that instead of engendering cooperation, it puts the responsibility for fixing whatever problem is described by the critic squarely on the shoulders of the criticized.
Examples of constructive criticism:
Examples of destructive criticism:
People often use this kind of defense because they believe that if a community values tolerance and inclusivity that means that it must tolerate everything and include everyone. The flaw in this argument is described as the paradox of tolerance. At its simplest, if tolerance is unlimited then those who do not value it will use this boundless acceptance to destroy it. So, in order to preserve the values of tolerance and inclusivity, one must be intolerant of intolerance and exclude those who do not share those values. This means that, we must have standards of conduct to protect and enforce our values. And as I've said before, rules have to be enforced if they are to have any meaning.
I hope that this has helped illustrate the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Additionally, I think the more that people understand that being tolerant doesn't mean putting up with being abused, the better off everyone will be. Do you have other examples of positive forms of criticism? Let us know in the comments below. 😀
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.