critical is more critic than reflexive. IMHO reflexive mens thinking about something about general issue, but critical is more about defects and disadvantages.

Hello

I believe these two go hand in hand!

Thanks and regards

Theodora Issa

Maybe if there is a difference, itnis in the accompanying emotional overtones. Reflexive seeks answers while critical just complains

Being critical from my point of view is just putting forward negative points in fact it helps us to make sure that we know the title and content of the subject before criticising.It enables us at first to know on which level we are in the subject. But , reflexive way of looking at a content is just something that we say in general and looking forward for answer and understanding others. I recall only one thing , if we critics we will receive a negative response , in other words complains and a being reflexive means simply searching a probing into answers.

There is some overlap between the two Gazi, but they are not equivalent. The simplest way to explain the difference would be to say that 'reflexive' is being critical about oneself - in short, questioning one's own assumptions, beliefs and motivations. In order to question something, one must be aware of these. Being critical of one's own stance automatically destabilises the stance, makes it provisional and ultimately changes the position of the subject. In my personal experience, I have met some scholars and texts that were critical and not reflexive and some that were reflexive but not critical.

Maybe the difference is historical: in my opinion "critical" should be reported to Immanuel Kant, "reflexive" sounds post-modern ....

Yes. Critical theory is theory that criticises capitalism and current society. Reflexive social theory is theory that reflects on the theory and the theorist itself, maybe critical of capitalism and maybe not. Frankfurt School theorist are all critical but only some of them are also reflexive. Constructivist sociology is most of it reflexive, but only some authors are critical.

Both being critical and reflective are the positive traits. Reflection/ contemplation is a sort of deliberate rumination. It is more concerned with the pondering on inner personal experiences. Reflection helps in personal grwoth whereas, being critical is closely related with scientific inquiry. Science get progress because of the critical thinking.

"Critical" warns us against dichotomies like positive and negative. Both reflexivity and criticism can turn 'negative' quite easily. Have you ever consider the devastating effect that negative criticism can have on a person or an idea?

Hello everyone, thanks for these answers! I see here that there are very diverse interpretations of both terms, but espcially "critical", which sometimes is read as "critique" in the tradition of continental philosophy/critical theory (ex Francesco) and sometime in the sense of "criticizing" (ex Antoni).

I tend to agree with Yiannis' comment that "reflexivity" is being critical about oneself (in the former sense of critique I assume). By oneself, I imagine this could mean about oneself as a person (but also one's own society)?

But - if that is so, wouldn't it only be possible to be critical without reflexivity if one was critiquing an "other"? And more problematically, it would be impossible to be reflexive without being critical, since the former would be a subset of the latter. No?

A second issue - following Luis - critique is often used in the context of critical theories of capitalism, while reflexivity seems much more a self-directed questioning. Do reflexivity discussions signal a post-critical or identity politics type of discourse, in contrast to earlier critical or Marxist-based discourses?

A last provocation - based on Yannis' second comment - if "critical" is about questioning assumptions, I wonder about its supposed "devastating effects" on ideas or people. I would think that it could only have salutory effects (unless the idea was wrong or the people misled, in which case the problem was not the critique but the idea or the misled-ness). In this context, Yannis, I very curious about your phrase "criticism can turn negative", and would love to know what "turning negative" entails.

Anyway- I put the question up because I see the two terms floating around the social scienes literature in so many diverse ways, and wanted to see a bit how people are imagining the concepts. i'm glad you all entered the discussion!

I agree with Yannis: I don't know elsewhere but in Italy - in the society at large - there is a widespread of negative criticism without any consideration of its devastating effects. Better, devastating effects are somewhat calculated as the purpose is to select and exclude people to social opportunities, in the competition for scarce resources. This way criticism, usually salutary, risks to turn into a tool for social discrimination.

So, would another way to differentiate critique from criticism be that criticism aims at attacking/excluding individuals, whereas critique centers around concepts? In that case, what about reflexivity? Is it directed around persons or ideas?

Reflexivity brings the idea of the mirror. Seeing my own reflection on an other surface, or my ideas from an other perspective, makes me think. Is a character of the human condition. Problems arise when, for any reason, spontaneous reflexivity is interrupted... as often happens with ideology or fanaticism

Thank you all for the interesting discussion. I think reflexivity and critique should be differentiated - I agree with Yannis on this point. However, i would like to propose a sligthly different understanding, an understanding which is informed by structuration theory (Giddens) but outlines a distinction Giddens himself does not make.

In my view reflexivity means the continuous monitoring and rationalization of events, actions, happenings and contextsby actors in time-space - by individual as well as by collective actors alike (this presupposes an understanding of a reflexive collective actor). Reflexivity is an integrated aspect of action, carried out by actors when they act. Thus, reflexivity is always connected to the production and use of knowledge by actors, a knowledge which is - following Wittgenstein - mostly practical, meaning actors are able to go on but not necessarily always able to discursively outline why they act as they act, why events happen etc.. The assumption is that actors always have some knowledge of what is going on around them and that they produce and reproduce their knowledge by acting. In this sense, Giddens calls actors quite nicely knowledgeable.

Critique in contrast refers to putting something into question.

Thus, critique is not the same as reflexivity. However critique is based on reflexivity; And reflexivity can lead to a critique.

(I have outlined and discussed this understanding of actors in my publications. Especially for all of you who like to read German there is some stuff out).

Thank you Arnold, Francesco and Gazi for a very interesting discussion. I think that the mirror is a useful starting point for reflexivity - but only a starting point. Consider it like this. A man or a woman who has seen him/herself in the mirror changes - i.e. sometimes we are surprised how tired/ugly/old etc. we look. We then make an effort to change our appearance so that the mirror tells a different story.

I like the idea that reflexivity is a continuous monitoring of oneself. But I would also add that it goes beyond just monitoring our thoughts. It means monitoring our reactions and our emotional responses too (what psychoanalysts call counter-transference.)

Finally, I have written about negative criticism in the journal Management Learnning, Francesco. You will find an abridged version at http://www.yiannisgabriel.com/2013/01/reconciling-ethic-of-care-with-critical.html?q=ethic+of+care

Thank you, Yiannis, only two short additions. The metaphor of a mirror is of course suggestive. However, as you know, one hast to be careful using this metaphor since the metaphor of a mirror suggests that the mirror is reflecting something or myself in an objective way - at least as long as we think of a normal mirror. I totally agree with you that as a rule "the mirror seen" makes something with me. However, the point I would like to make is that actors enact (that means in in a way construct) their images in a mirror, when they monitor themselves or other events, happenings or activities of others in a mirror and make sense of (or rationalize for themselves) what they have monitored. Thus, counter-transference is itself constituted by actors.

In addition, I would say that we as actors monitor and rationalize not only ourselves but events, activities, behaviors of others, their successes (or failures) and motivations etc. included.

A theoretical challenge for me is how we can deal with this issue in contexts of collective actors, e.g. organizations.

Hello Katherine,

Thank you for your comment - very useful!  I myself had been thinking of "critical" from the critical theory tradition, which does focus on issues of self-understanding, both in the sense of understanding the composition and limits of one's own thought (i.e. the Kantian tradition), and also the self-understandings of a society vis-a-vis its ideological and material composition.  Perhaps, from this point of view, I find it hard to see how it is possible to be critical without being reflexive, since "critique" in this sense tends to stress "internal" critique.

I see, though, that if one takes critique to mean 'criticism', than this does not at all imply reflexivity, just opposition. 

Perhaps a deeper question would be whether non-reflexive 'critique' (not criticism) is possible.  I suppose this would be the case of someone critiquing an system that is not one's own, so self-reflexivity would not be required to launch critique.  Yet even here, critique would imply being able to both understand the 'internal' point of view and see its limits, which would seem to require the critic to take up a reflexive position.

At any rate, I think the two concepts should probably be seen as analytically distinct, but bound up with each other in a way that is quite intimate but not totally clear.

Cheers, Gazi