Cynical Theories: Difference between revisions

Cynical Theories (view source)

Revision as of 22:51, 2 November 2020

505 bytes added , 2 November 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|book review|''Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race Gender and Identity'' — {{author|Helen Pluckrose}} and {{author|James Lindsay}}}}
 DRAFT DRAFT
-An important, brave book in our polarised times, in {{br|Cynical Theories}}, {{author|Helen Pluckrose}} and {{author|James Lindsay}} take on the intellectual foundations of the current strain of militant leftist “critical” thought. Brave, because of the repurcussions that tend to rain down, by way of mob action, on those who transgress its principles, even inadvertently — it’s somewhat bracing even writing a favourable book review.
+An important, brave book in our polarised times, in {{br|Cynical Theories}}, {{author|Helen Pluckrose}} and {{author|James Lindsay}} take on the intellectual foundations of the current strain of militant leftist “critical” thought. Brave, because received wisdom declares that the intolerant, populist right is the problem. Brave, because of the repurcussions — mass shaming, mob rule cancellation, livelihood ruination — that sometimes rains down, on those who transgress its principles, even inadvertently — it’s somewhat bracing even writing a favourable book review.
-Call it what you will: critical theory, social justice theory, applied (''post''?) [[post-modernism]], Theory with a capital “T” or just stark raving bonkers wokeness, — it defies easy categorisation and critical appraisal by deliberate design, but {{br|Cynical Theories}} goes there, transgressing its hermeneutical boundaries and pinning it down, articulating it, examining it and shining an unflattering light on the means by which it subverts the traditional liberal values of openness, enquiry and reasoned debate. These are the values that have, in truth, delivered all the remarkable social progress we’ve made in the past half century.
+So I wouldn't fancy having {{author|Helen Pluckrose}}’s mentioned right now. (There’s a simple answer, folks: ''{{maxim|get off Twitter}}. It’s a necrotising disease. Don’t cast a backward glance. You won’t miss it.)
-To be sure, life for the marginalised is by book means perfect, but it’s a journey, we’re in a far better place than we were in 1950, and (notwithstanding the current trend to populism) we are still headed in a fair direction. This is the basic liberal aspiration.
+Anyway. Call it what you will: [[critical theory]], social justice theory, applied (''post''?) [[post-modernism]], Theory with a capital “T” or just raving bonkers wokeness — it defies categorisation and critical appraisal by deliberate design. {{br|Cynical Theories}} wilfully transgresses its hermeneutical boundaries and pins it down, articulating, examining and shining an unflattering light on it and the ways it subverts traditional liberal values: openness, enquiry and reasoned debate that have, in truth, delivered most of the remarkable social progress made in the past half century.
-So suddenly going all fascist about is neither necessary or productive. It may be that overreach by Theory has inflamed, rather than smitten, intolerant populism. The more cynical might even wonder if that is an accident. Few righteous causes can survive the absence of a a wrongdoer.
+To be sure, life for the marginalised is by no means perfect, but progress is a journey, we’re in a far better place than we were in 1960, and (notwithstanding the current trends) we are still headed in a fair direction with a tail wind of basic liberal aspiration.
-Pluckrose and Lindsay echo another point also made well by Murray: social movements are organisations and they acquire their own power structures and currency: these structures do not go away just because the movement has achieved its goals; instead the movement morphs. Where you next? As Theory rightly observes, once people have acquired intellectual and economic power, they do not lightly give it up. Anyone expecting Stonewall to pack up its banners and go home with the legal recognition of gay marriage was always going to be disappointed.
+So, suddenly going all fascist on everything is neither necessary nor productive. Indeed, it may be that Theory’s overreach has inflamed, rather than smitten, the drift to populism. You might even wonder if that is entirely an accident. Few righteous causes can survive without an antagonist.
-So, the objects of social justice have had to adapt, so the power structures can live on, and so campaigners still have something to do. As Theory’s objectives have shifted from the inarguable (political enfranchisement on grounds of race and sex) to the oblique (combating power structures which oppress the overweight) part of the strategy has been to confect hostility to any kind criticism, on principle. All he cause of entrenching those new language games, and the power structures they imply. All this is, of course, highly ironic. Theory has become exactly what it most despises.
+Pluckrose and Lindsay echo {{author|Douglas Murray}}’s observation that social movements are themselves organisations and they generate their own power systems and linguistic structures, and they do not just demobilise the moment the movement has achieved its goals; instead the movement morphs. (As of November 2020, UKIP is reported to be pivoting to be an anti-covid party).
-Reconciling this requires some fancy intellectual footwork. Pluckrose and Lindsay are equal to it: their guide to what they call the “postmodern turn” is at times hilarious, at times outrageous, but always excellent.
+This is exactly as Theory diagnoses about other sociopolitical power structures: once people have intellectual and economic power, through their organisation, they do not lightly give it up. Anyone expecting Stonewall to pack up its banners and go home with the legal recognition of gay marriage was always going to be disappointed.
-“Theory” has somehow escaped Theory, has leeched out of the academy and transformed into doctrinaire, real world militancy. The mob rule of social media has not helped.
+So, the objects of social justice have had to adapt, to nourish those nascent power structures, and so social justice campaigners need to have something to do. As Theory’s objectives have shifted from the inarguable (political enfranchisement on grounds of race and sex) to the oblique (combating power structures which oppress the disabled or the overweight) it has developed a thinner skin, confecting hostility to any kind criticism, on principle. All in t
-{{Author|Helen Pluckrose}} and {{Author|James Lindsay}} are not the first to set all this out, of course — {{author|Douglas Murray}}’s magnificently scathing {{br|The Madness of Crowds}} ploughed the same furrow, but unlike Murray, Pluckrose and Lindsay are ''politically'' aligned with the Theorists, so harder to write off. And where {{br|The Madness of Crowds}} slings (well-aimed) thunderbolts, {{br|Critical Theories}} crafts measured, patient and thorough examinations of the various strains of Theory. It's dismemberment is all the more effective.
+K-he cause of entrenching those new language games, and the power structures they imply. All this is, of course, highly ironic. Theory has become exactly what it most despises.
+Reconciling this double standard calls for fancy intellectual footwork, but Pluckrose and Lindsay are equal to it: their guide to what they call the “postmodern turn” is at times hilarious, at times outrageous, but always excellent.
+“Theory” has somehow escaped Theory, has leeched out of the academy and transformed into doctrinaire, real-world militancy.
+{{Author|Helen Pluckrose}} and {{Author|James Lindsay}} are not the first to set all this out, of course — {{author|Douglas Murray}}’s magnificently scathing {{br|The Madness of Crowds}} ploughed the same furrow, but unlike Murray, Pluckrose and Lindsay hail from the left, and are harder to dismiss out of hand. And where {{br|The Madness of Crowds}} slings (well-aimed) thunderbolts, {{br|Critical Theories}} crafts measured, patient and thorough examinations of the various strains of Theory. Its dismemberment is all the more effective for it.
 It is very easy, and Theorists are prone to to do it, to confuse a robust criticism of of Theory itself with a rejection of the underlying concern to address actual inequities perpetrated on marginalised groups. But to question Theory is not  to be racist. Yet at its extremes, Theory says exactly this, and indeed goes further: any white or male person is irredeemably oppressive, ''whether or not they would quarrel with Theory''. If there are the rules it's not like we of the Privileged have much of a choice, so we might as well enjoy it. But there aren’t the rules, needless to say.