Can One Pot Call Another Pot Black?

In your opinion, can one pot call another pot black? In this piece, I intend to arrange several premises and conclusions and offer a somewhat different answer to this question.

First, I distinguish between two types of ethics in criticism. The ethics of criticism in the position of the speaker, and the ethics of criticism in the position of the listener. In the position of the speaker, ethical criticism requires observing those points we have more or less heard: that the critic's intention be good, that the individual's action be criticized, not the person himself, that we avoid ad hominem attacks, that we try to offer suggestions alongside criticism, that criticism be made in private rather than in public, that the language of criticism be gentle rather than harsh, and other such matters.

But the ethics of criticism in the position of the listener is that we should not concern ourselves at all with whether the speaker's intention in criticizing is good or bad, whether they are polite or impolite, whether they have a suggestion or not—in a word, whether they have observed the ethics of criticism in the position of the speaker or not. Instead of all these peripheral issues, we should only think about whether their criticism of us is correct or incorrect. Is that poor fellow telling the truth or not?

In my opinion, the improper conflation of the ethics of criticism in the position of the speaker and the ethics of criticism in the position of the listener has many social harms. This conflation causes individuals to always have a strong defensive shield and an excuse for evasion and projection in the face of incoming criticism. Let me clarify my point with an example: Suppose the Parliament criticizes the government for mismanagement in the handling of foreign currency resources. Now, if the government were to fail to observe the ethics of the listener of criticism, it could resort to various tactics: for instance, the government spokesperson might say in their accountability role:

- Unfortunately, most of the criticisms are not out of compassion and have political motives! - Unfortunately, the critics themselves have no noteworthy suggestions. - Even if these statements are true, in the government's view, expressing them under these circumstances is not expedient. - Wouldn't it be better for these individuals to first scrutinize their own performance?! (This is called the "you too" fallacy) ... There are many other ways as well.

But if the government wishes to act ethically in the position of the listener of criticism, it must, first and foremost, only consider whether the critics' criticism—with whatever intention and quality—is true or false? Does it correspond to reality or not? Examining the critics' intentions and calibrating the galvanometer of intention (=mind-reading), determining the expediency of the country, administering a qualification test for the critics, and so on, are not relevant to the government in the position of the listener of criticism.

Let us simply suppose the Parliament's criticism of the government is political and biased. Should the government not be accountable for such criticism? Would the government itself like it if, when it made a biased criticism of the Parliament, the Parliament did not respond? Yesterday, my friend mockingly told me how dirty my shirt collar was. What difference does it make what his intention and expression were, or whether his own shirt collar is clean or not! ... What concerns me is whether his criticism is true or not. I, in the position of the listener of criticism, must seek the truth. The truth pertaining to me! What reason is there that if someone did not observe the ethics of criticism in the position of the speaker, I too should not observe them in the position of the listener?

Now, based on this distinction, I want to take a jab at this proverb. In your opinion, can a pot call another pot black?! I think it can. It is none of the criticized pot's business whether the criticizing pot is black or white. Its duty in the position of the listener of criticism is to investigate its own blackness and think of a remedy.

But this proverb, when considering the ethics of the speaker of criticism, is acceptable and useful. It is stated in the Quran: "Do you bid others to piety and forget yourselves?..." (2:44, Fooladvand translation). From this perspective, it is incumbent upon the black-faced pot to do something about its own blackness before seeking to reform other pots!

This pleasant and heartwarming meaning, with a simple shift—from the position of the speaker to that of the listener—turns into an impenetrable shield against any criticism, especially in the social and political sphere. These common sayings and proverbs, comfortably lodged in our minds and language, only make the conditions for criticism unattainable. This proverb is wrong from the perspective of the ethics of the listener of criticism, and correct from the perspective of the ethics of the speaker of criticism. The "pot" is the mirror of the "pot"! A believer is the mirror of a believer! The listener of criticism has no right to say in response: Stick a needle in yourself before you stick an awl in others!

One might say that criticism not delivered with due regard for its conditions is not constructive. Constructive criticism must be offered with good intentions, kind expression, expediency, and so on. Here, I will merely summarize the fourth chapter of the book The Ethics of Criticism by noting that: "The division of criticism into constructive and destructive has no objective or citable basis." The constructiveness of a criticism depends more on the disposition of the listener than on the expression and method of the critic. For a well-intentioned listener, all criticism is constructive. Yes, the truth is that Jesus (PBUH) took pleasure in the white teeth of a dog's carcass, while I bring the peacock's ugly feet to its attention!

It is an exceptional event for "Snow White" to tell the "pot" its face is black! We are all more or less alike! A whole world of pots, or Snow Whites! If we do not criticize each other and do not come to the aid of one another's disgrace, our situation will become worse and worse! Honestly, I am opposed to every proverb and rigid idea about the possibility of criticism! The conditions for criticizing a subject should not be unattainable! The escape routes from being receptive to criticism must be blocked, and a pot can tell a pot its face is black.

References:

The Ethics of Criticism, Hassan Eslami, Nashr-e Maaref, 1383 [2004] The Ethics of Thinking and Current Confusions, Mostafa Malekian, (lecture text)

.

---

.

Can a "Pot" Tell Another "Pot": Your Face Is Black?

A Point on the Ethics of Criticism

Author: Hamed Safaeipour

.

---

.