The Reflection on Criticisms
In his side note on autonomy, Kant cautions against the tendency to label the correctness of certain aspects based on moral rules that one believes in, rather than carefully analyzing the underlying causes. This observation has led me to reflect on my own writing, particularly in my previous papers, where I have found myself criticizing certain groups of people or social phenomena. Upon introspection, I realize that these criticisms often stem from my belief in specific social perspectives that I consider to be wrong or unjust.
Through this paper, I examine the moral judgments and criticisms present in my previous writing pieces. By doing so, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of my own biases and the potential unintended consequences of my writing.
In my previous papers, I have criticized several groups and social phenomena. In WP2, I critiqued male attitudes and social norms that perpetuate victim-blaming, focusing on the specific groups and behaviors that contribute to this issue. My attitude towards these groups and phenomena was one of strong disapproval and condemnation. Similarly, in WP3, I criticized societal indifference towards individuals outside of healthcare settings, blaming the specific aspects of society that I found problematic and expressing my disappointment and frustration with this indifference.
While it is essential to acknowledge the necessity of judgment and criticism in certain contexts, it is equally important to recognize the flaws of such criticism. Without judgment and criticism, we risk falling into the trap of false tolerance and nihilism, where every concept and behavior is blindly accepted and granted legitimacy. This can lead to a breakdown of societal standards and values, eventually bringing destruction to society. Criticism, when employed judiciously, can serve as a powerful tool for promoting positive change.
However, in the process of discriminating and judging, I must be cautious not to exclude myself from moral judgment, and to view two sides of the coin equally. It is all too easy to put myself in a position of blamelessness, blaming at others without acknowledging my own biases and limitations. Growing up in a traditional Chinese family, I was raised in a culture where women were educated to be sexually conservative, and their fertility value was prioritized as a means of continuing the family line. However, men, too, bear the burden of reproductivity, with those experiencing infertility or erectile dysfunction often considered incomplete or useless in fulfilling their social function. I was overly harsh in my criticism; rather than targeting a specific group, it’s more appropriate to address the mindset that become oppressing.
Subsequently, I will shift towards discussing the unintended consequences of exposing my readers to others’ trauma, it becomes clear that a more nuanced and thoughtful approach to writing is necessary. In my WP2, I have exposed my readers to the traumatic experiences of others. However, I have come to realize that this approach can have adverse consequences. By forcing my readers to confront painful experiences without adequate context or support, I risk imposing a heavy emotional toll on them. This can lead to feelings of distress, helplessness, and even secondary trauma, particularly for those who may have experienced similar traumas themselves.
Moreover, by presenting these experiences through my own lens and perspective, I run the risk of unintentionally oppressing my readers by imposing a singular viewpoint. It is crucial to acknowledge and respect the individual autonomy of my readers in making moral judgments, rather than forcing them to conform to my own beliefs and values.
Furthermore, I have come to recognize that compelling my readers to develop compassion through witnessing others’ trauma is immoral. While my intention may be to foster empathy and understanding, this approach can easily cross the line into emotional manipulation and force readers to resonance with the content. True compassion cannot be coerced or imposed; it must be invited through careful and neutral analysis that encourages genuine understanding and reflection.
As I introspect with these unintended consequences in my writing process, I have often struggle with the challenge of balancing emotion and neutrality. I find myself between the desire to speak passionately about the issues I care about and the need to maintain a level of objectivity and impartiality in my writing. On one hand, I fear that remaining too neutral may lead to a loss of clarity and impact, making my arguments bland. I worry that without a strong emotional appeal, my readers may not fully grasp the significance of the issues I am addressing or feel compelled to engage with my ideas on a deeper level.
On the other hand, I recognize that relying too heavily on emotional appeal can be problematic. By allowing my own passions and biases to dominate my writing, I alienate readers who may feel manipulated or coerced into accepting my perspective.
As I grasp the role of the writer in this class, I am coming to reject the notion of the writer as an educator or lecturer. Instead, I am learning to embrace the idea of working collaboratively with my readers, engaging them as equal partners in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. This means respecting and valuing their analytical and cognitive skills, trusting in their ability to grapple with complex ideas and form their own judgments and conclusions.
Thus, I am shifting towards a more invitational style of writing, one that seeks to foster open dialogue and collaboration with my readers. I have found that by approaching my writing as a shared journey of exploration and discovery, rather than a one-way transmission of information, I am able to create a more engaging and meaningful experience for both myself and my readers.
In conclusion, through analyzing my previous papers, I have gained a deeper understanding of the specific groups and social phenomena I have criticized, as well as the attitudes and biases that have informed my perspectives. I have come to recognize the importance of self-reflection and acknowledging my own limitations and biases, rather than excluding myself from moral judgment or putting myself in a position of blamelessness.
Moreover, I have become more aware to the potential unintended consequences of exposing my readers to others’ trauma, such as the emotional toll it can take and the risk of imposing a singular perspective. I understand now the importance of respecting my readers’ autonomy in making moral judgments and the need for a more invitational approach to fostering compassion and understanding.
As I continue to learn as a writer, I am willing to find a balance between speaking emotionally and maintaining neutrality, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each approach. I am comfortable to embrace a more collaborative and dialogic relationship with my readers, one that values their perspectives and insights and invites them to participate actively in the exploration of complex ideas.
