MENGUJI KRITIK DALAM BINGKAI REALITAS
Abstract
Criticism is a fundamental instrument in intellectual and social life; however, in practice, its meaning often shifts from a reflective tool to an expression of subjective interests. This phenomenon becomes problematic when criticism is no longer grounded in factual reality but is driven by emotions, prejudice, or hidden agendas. This study aims to examine the nature of criticism and to test its relevance within the framework of social and intellectual reality. This research employs a qualitative approach using a literature review method by analyzing scholarly works on critical theory, social reality, and public discourse. Data analysis is conducted through content and interpretative analysis to identify the relationship between criticism and the reality that surrounds it. The findings indicate that constructive criticism must be based on rationality, intellectual honesty, and an orientation toward improvement. Criticism detached from reality tends to distort meaning and potentially generate social conflict. This study concludes that sound criticism is not merely an expression of freedom of speech but must be tested through its alignment with reality and moral responsibility.
References
Babu, Y., Mishra, P., Kumar, A., Pandey, C. S., & Pandey, S. (2025). Epistemic injustices and curriculum: Strategizing for justice. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101220.
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412.
Chen, H.-T., Song, Y., & Guo, J. (2024). When disagreement becomes uncivil on social media: the role of passive receiving and active expression of incivility in influencing political polarization. Communication Research, 00936502241285069.
Cooke, S. J., Young, N., Peiman, K. S., Roche, D. G., Clements, J. C., Kadykalo, A. N., … Lennox, R. J. (2024). A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections. Facets, 9(1), 1–14.
Dawson, C., Julku, H., Pihlajamäki, M., Kaakinen, J. K., Schooler, J. W., & Simola, J. (2024). Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9(1), 50.
Eisenegger, M., & Schäfer, M. S. (2023). Reconceptualizing public sphere (s) in the digital age? On the role and future of public sphere theory. Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 61–69.
Hynek, N., Gavurova, B., & Kubak, M. (2025). Risks and benefits of artificial intelligence deepfakes: Systematic review and comparison of public attitudes in seven European Countries. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(5), 100782.
Kutcher, A. M., & LeBaron, V. T. (2022). A simple guide for completing an integrative review using an example article. Journal of Professional Nursing, 40, 13–19.
Mamakos, M., & Finkel, E. J. (2023). The social media discourse of engaged partisans is toxic even when politics are irrelevant. PNAS Nexus, 2(10), pgad325.
Nidzom, M. F., Muslih, M., & Falah, M. Z. N. (2025). Critical theory and social science: A philosophical comparison of Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas. Kanz Philosophia: A Journal for Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism, 11(2), 383–402.
Nurhayati. (2023). DETERMINASI KINERJA GURU : PENGEMBANGAN KURIKULUM, KEPEMIMPINAN KEPALA SEKOLAH. Jurnal Mumtaz Juli, 3(2), 106–116.
Nurhayati, N., & Rosadi, K. I. (2022). Determinasi Manajemen Pendidikan Islam: Sistem Pendidikan, Pengelolaan Pendidikan dan Tenaga Pendidikan Islam. International Edition, 3(1), 451–464.
Reibold, K. (2025). Knowledge-specific epistemic injustice. Inquiry, 1–27.
Splichal, S. (2024). Between (conceptual) crisis and critique: reclaiming the critical epistemic value of publicness. Critical Sociology, 50(4–5), 673–690.
Work, E. (2025). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Yang, F.-Y., Bhagat, K. K., Zhang, W.-Y., Lampropoulos, G., & Guo, Y.-T. (2025). Analysing the relationships between argumentative reasoning and justification beliefs and the effects of prior experience of scientific information. International Journal of Science Education, 1–25.
Younas, A., Kvist, T., & Stolt, M. (2026). Framework and key considerations for designing and conducting critical mixed-methods research (cMMR). J Epidemiol Community Health, 80(1), 55–61.
