As a sociologist, I’ve grappled extensively with the notion of “critical distance” within the realm of critique. At its core, this distance refers to the imperative of maintaining a degree of detachment and objectivity from the object under scrutiny. However, this raises complex questions about the nature of such distance – is it a matter of distancing ourselves from dominant representations and discourses or does it necessitate a distancing from our own subjective engagement and investment in the object itself? What exactly are we distancing ourselves from and what are the implications of this distance?
When it comes to empirical research, we encounter a particular tension within critique. On one hand, critique is inherently ambivalent about data, as it seeks to unveil the underlying power dynamics, ideologies and vested interests that inevitably shape the production and interpretation of such data. Critique aims to penetrate beyond surface appearances to uncover the “reality behind the appearance,” an ambition that clashes with an empiricist epistemology.
Yet critique itself can be understood as a mode of abstraction – a process of conceptualization, theorization and interpretation. As such, it cannot entirely escape its own abstracting mechanisms, even as it interrogates the abstractions and constructions inherent to its objects of study. The moment of abstraction is inescapable within critique, as it formulates conceptual frameworks, articulates arguments, and constructs interpretations.
The challenge, then, lies in remaining reflexive about our own modes of abstraction as critical theorists. We must be open to scrutinizing the assumptions and theoretical constructions that undergird our critiques, even as we cast a critical gaze outward. Navigating this tension is crucial if we are to avoid replicating the very problems we seek to diagnose and transcend through critique.
Ultimately, I would argue that the distance of critique cannot be entirely disentangled from the broader abstracting mechanisms it deploys. The key lies in cultivating an ethos of critical reflexivity – a commitment to interrogating our own critical standpoint with the same rigour we apply to our objects of study. Only then can we hope to inhabit that elusive “critical distance” in a manner befitting the emancipatory ambitions of critique.
Mark Carrigan 