The Critical Review

Important! This handout provides general suggestions for writing a critical review. Check with your professor regarding her/his criteria and format guidelines.

     One of the purposes of writing the critical review is to help you understand what you read by practicing putting the material into your own words. This is also a chance to respond to, disagree with, and/or amend what you read. Importantly, writing about what you read makes you an active--and therefore more successful--reader, and should help you learn more effectively.

In preparing to write the formal review, consider your personal response to the reading. What questions does the reading raise for you, and/or what else does it make you think about? What did you learn from this reading? How does it relate to other class readings or discussions?

Most critical reviews should adhere to the following format:

1. Include complete and accurate bibliographical information. The title and author of the work should appear early in your paper.

2. State the main idea of this article. What is the author's primary thesis? Summarize the author's argument in one sentence. You will find it helpful to use a rhetorically accurate verb (such as asserts, argues, suggests, believes, reports; and a "that" clause containing the major assertion (thesis statement) of the work. Use of the "that" clause is crucial, since it will force you to restate the author's central point. For example:
"Brickman, writing for the Board of Trustees, suggests that Denison University will be a better place for students if the fraternity system is revamped."
 

3. Indicate the important facts that the author uses to support the thesis. Here you must paraphrase the main ideas and present important information in order to show how the author constructed the argument. Example:
"Brickman argues that changes to the fraternity system will benefit both that system and the broader University by (1) reducing the University's image as a party school, thereby improving the academic environment; (2) strengthening the financial situation of the Greek system, so that it and the benefits it provides can continue; (3) removing inequities between fraternity members who live in chapter houses versus all other students (who live in University dormitories); and (4) providing opportunities for all students to experience independent living situations."
 

4. State the author's apparent purpose, employing an "in order to" phrase. This is to help you assess what the author wanted the reader to do or feel as a result of reading the piece. (This can be quite difficult to do.) For example:
"Brickman writes in order to garner support for what may be an unpopular decision--especially among Greek students and alumni--that Denison will be a better place, socially and academically, if residential fraternities are discontinued. "

5. Critique the text, the author's thesis, argument(s), and evidence. Do the author’s conclusions seem logical and convincing given the evidence provided? Would you draw different conclusions? Why? Do you trust the evidence presented (for example, does the methodology of data collection and analysis seem sound)? What are the strong points of this work? What are the weaknesses or flaws?

    Richard B. Lee, writing on Dobe Ju/'hoansi of the Kalahari Desert, believes that the success of this foraging group, both in the past and in the face of rapid change, is sustained by an adherence to a communal mode of production that calls for a community of sharing and egalitarianism. He supports this by showing that the key features of traditional Dobe Ju/'hoansi culture--widespread social relations (formed through real and fictive kinship and maintained through gift giving), an egalitarian political order, relatively little effort in the food quest, and a elaborate ritual and religious belief system--have been disrupted by the impact of Western influences, but that a new era of Ju/'hoansi political empowerment has emerged, based on some of the traditional core values. Lee writes to assert that although the Ju/'hoansi have undergone many quick, far-reaching changes, they are able to adapt to new conditions and reproduce themselves as a society, challenging our notion that Western industrialized culture is inherently superior or even desired by all.

    The author provides strong support for his thesis in a well-organized format. He provides many essential details: what the Ju/'hoansi eat, how they get their food, the various types and structures of their camps, the organization of their relationships, their reverence for their ancestors and each other, how their marriages are sustained. He also touches on the negative aspects of the Ju/'hoansi society: the low-but-present homicide rate, their affinity for alcohol and tobacco (becoming greater through the time period documented by the book), and the detrimental changes and social decomposition brought on by outside influences. With this balanced portrayal of the Ju'hoansi, their story is neither romanticized nor condemned. It is evident to the reader that this nomadic world of waterholes and breechcloths, though different from anywhere else in the world, is very much like the rest of the planet in that it has its problems, yet it has its wonders too. This honest view of the Ju/'hoansi is the main strength of the book.

    Lee is successful in his attempt to persuade the reader of the extant self-consciousness of the Ju/'hoansi as a distinct people. However, the lack of specific information in the years following Lee's lengthy stays with the Ju, the years of the late 1970s, is frustrating. After having become familiar with the customs of the foraging people of the Kalahari of the 1960s, the reader feels abruptly shifted from the years of Ju independence and transplanted to a time of settlement, immobility, and growing problems. Lee would do well to more fully incorporate research of his colleagues to better enhance understanding of the conditions which brought the Ju/'hoansi from the independent people to whom we were introduced in Chapter One to those whom we bid farewell in the late 1980s, semi-literate and struggling to maintain vitality.

    Throughout this book, I have felt a closeness with these people and an admiration for the way they live. It helps me realize that our culture is not always the right way for everyone nor is it the most successful one. The Ju/'hoansi lead a life very different from ours yet they survive and even thrive. They live their lives helping each other and sharing with each other. In our society today, the general attitude is one of each person for his- or herself. This causes me to ask myself why we, as a society, are so interested in bringing our way of life to Third World countries. If people are happy with their life, then who are we to say that our way is better? I really enjoyed this reading; it helped bring me close to a culture that I might not otherwise have ever known about.

On page 60, Lee writes:

Each Ju is not an island unto himself or herself; each is part of a collective. It is a small, rudimentary collective, and at times a fragile one, but it is a collective nonetheless. This living group pools the resources that are brought into the camp so that everyone receives an equitable share. The !Kung and people like them don't do this out of nobility of soul or because they are made of better stuff than we are. In fact, they often gripe about sharing. They do it because it works for them and it enhances their survival. Without this core of sharing, life for the Ju/'hoansi would be harder and infinitely less pleasant.

    Many examples of this passage are seen throughout the book, for instance in the sharing of poison arrows and the subsequent sharing of the kill with the whole camp. We should ask why this system works for the !Kung? And why doesn't it work for societies such as ours? This may prove unanswerable but interesting to ponder.