In early October last year, about a hundred people came together in the National Liberal Club in London for a conference: Speaking Truth to Social Justice, a name that states the conference’s purpose. There, seven talks were given in the hopes of identifying the problem not with social justice, as an idea or a philosophy, but with a dangerous ideological movement that has branded itself with the name Social Justice, which we have since identified more specifically by the name “Critical Social Justice.” In the spirit of social justice, which speaks truth to unjust power, we set out to speak truth to Critical Social Justice.
The last talk of the morning was by Dr. James Lindsay, and in his talk, “The Truth About Critical Methods,” he makes very clear that Critical Social Justice is not the same thing as social justice. He argues that the branding of social justice, which is how Critical Social Justice promotes itself, misleads people about the nature of that movement. More specifically, he explains how Critical Social Justice—the thing “inside the box”—doesn’t match the “social justice” image “on the outside of the box,” leading people to take up with a movement they wouldn’t support if they understood it more accurately. To convey this message, he reads directly from the Critical Social Justice literature wherein scholars and activists call Critical Social Justice by that name and explicitly explain that it is neither a liberal movement, as is often thought, nor the same thing as the “true commitments” of social justice. It is a virus that infects liberalism, and Lindsay draws upon this imagery to make his case (many months ahead of the current Covid-19 pandemic outbreak).
Join us from the Gladstone Library and hear Dr. Lindsay speak truth to Critical Methods and Critical Social Justice, and feel encouraged to join him in laughing at himself for mistakenly thinking that Jeff Goldblum got eaten by a dinosaur.
Watch additional presentations from this conference here.
The audio version of this presentation is available on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Pandora, or by RSS.
30 comments
With respect !!!
Frog asks – So again, I ask: why is it Bad to call people racist but Good to call Critical Theory an enemy of all free societies?
Well for one, the first is directed at people and the second is directed at theory. For two, if your called a racist, whether true or not, your more likely to have your life cancelled.
I do like this statement however:
Frog says – What’s the difference between SJWs saying “words are violence” and people reacting to being called racist by going to Trumpism?
I’m okay with the concept that both things are equally harmful to America.
What’s the difference between SJWs saying “words are violence” and people reacting to being called racist by going to Trumpism?
“Words are violence” really relates to ideas, hence trigger warnings before reading Shakespeare in Universities, to take one extreme example. Calling someone a racist is just an insult, about the worst thing you could call someone today. Again, the primacy of language is important. As you can also read on this site, the definition of racism has been morphed and expanded by these theories so that everyone is complicit is racism and anyone who is not actively “anti-racist” is being racist.
Just because calling somebody racist is an insult doesn’t mean it isn’t true, though.
Heck, this *entire website* is full of insults directed at “Critical Theory” and its adherents, calling them subversive and dangerous to liberalism. This site has an article comparing Critical Theory (negatively) to a contagious virus.
When a claim like “thing is racist” or “thing is illiberal” is made, it’s not an absolute ultimatum, it’s a truth-claim that is subject to contemplation and even scrutiny.
Also, the idea that “racist” is the worst thing you can call somebody today is very odd to me. I’ve been closely observing internet culture for several years now. The internet’s capacity for cruelty is pretty remarkable, going far beyond just calling folks racist.
You should note that many of the proponents of these theories describe them as dangerous and subversive. That is their purpose. Similarly for the article comparing the theories to a contagious virus – those theorists say that in their own paper. That’s the point of the article here.
If these are horrible things, as you seem to suggest, should you not be worried about the intentions of the theorists themselves?
I’m not really *worried* about badly thought-out metaphors, but if you can find a piece of “Critical Theory” that describes itself as the enemy “of all free societies and the overwhelming majority of those who would live within them”, I would be very surprised.
This website isn’t just parroting the terms people use to describe themselves. It’s making its own claims about how “Critical Theory” is uniquely dangerous. Personally I think that’s a little melodramatic, but to each their own, I guess.
So again, I ask: why is it Bad to call people racist but Good to call Critical Theory an enemy of all free societies?
“The internet’s capacity for cruelty is pretty remarkable, going far beyond just calling folks racist.” I agree.
I attribute this to the “protective feeling of anonymity behind a keyboard (or keypad)”. I witness this often, wherein people utter personal insults to others, that they would never say in a face-to-face conversation. In my FB and other online interactions, I steadfastly try to maintain civility. For the sake of that civil discourse, I have excoriated (“verbally spanked”) several fellow Conservatives for their rude FB intrusions into an ongoing civil conversation.
(BTW, this is my “first day” here and I like the civil tones and discourse that I have observed so far.)
“Just because calling somebody racist is an insult doesn’t mean it isn’t true, though.”
The more relevant point is that is that the accusation has become a cheap and easy way to label someone at the slightest pretext- even a phantasmal one- in order to dismiss them and invalidate their credibility and their position, without the necessity of engaging in a debate where the accuser would be outmatched. It’s a way to rig the game in favor of a particular axe-grinding position. Especially for people who lack the skills to make a reasoned case for their own views.
Doing that is also wolf-crying- which is perilous, because a lot of observers tire of hearing accusations of racism being flung about as a cheap tactic, so after a while, they just tune out or begin mocking the accuser. And then one day someone shows up who actually is peddling an authentically malevolent racist line, or engaging in blatantly racist behavior, and when you cry “racism”, the people who have gotten tired of your act think you’re just stunting again. Or, worse, they become more sympathetic to the racist pitch, because you’ve confused matters so much with your track record of whinging about every trivial inference that you can construe as racist, from your pose of self-ordained moral superiority.
Oh, yeah. It’s like that.
When you know the facts are true it is appropriate to proclaim the truth. Let the faults be put in the light.
I don’t think it odd at all, given the context of the talk (liberalism), although you might be on to something in that, I assume, it is an association they are probably not that proud of. Like I said, uncomfortable bedfellows.
Secondly, it isn’t a competition over which is worse (Activists vs Orban). Lindsay, Pluckrose et al consistenly say that if reform doesn’t come from within (the left) then it will likely come from without (populist rightwing backlash). The problem isn’t student activists, it’s that the worldview promoted by postmodern Critical Theory has massive cultural power, has many deep problems, and isn’t popular. I think it has helped give us populism, Trump and the post-truth world. Why would you not want to fix that?
If you think it is a good thing then promote it. Or at least defend it.
“Critical Theory has massive cultural power and isn’t popular.”
These seem like contradictory claims. How would Critical Theory have massive cultural power if a lot of people don’t like it?
I’m also not sure how Critical Theory lead to Trumpism. I keep seeing people say things like that and I don’t see it. My understanding is Trumpism began with the propagation of right-wing populist voices fueled by cultural resentment.
I don’t view myself as a promoter or defender of “Critical Theory” because it’s such an amorphous term that it’s hard to figure out what exactly people are referring to when they express dislike for it.
They are not contradictory claims (I thought you might say that..). They have massive cultural power because that worldview is highly influential in large parts of academia, which in turn has influence on education, media, the arts and so on. So it is a relatively small group of intellectuals pushing the agenda. Well meaning, compassionate lefties go along with (^what it says on the box^) while the rest of society, I’m afraid, doesn’t like it and doesn’t like it being foisted on them. They didn’t vote for it but it seems like they have to take it as a non-negotiable part of the bargain of voting for an economically left party. It looks like they are rejecting that bargin, hence Trump in America and working class flight from the Labour party in Britain. Yes, you could call it cultural resentment. Their social conservatism has been denigrated as racism and fascism by the educated classes.
On “Critial Theory”, you are right, it has been hard for me to figure out. Where we are now has a long and complicated history. It’s probably taken me two years to get to my current understanding. This site seems like a good place to start 🙂
There are another couple of things that confuse me about that explanation.
I often encounter people on the internet talking about the powerful influence “Critical Theory” has in education, the media, and the arts, but I don’t really see signs of such powerful influence. How exactly does this powerful influence manifest?
And regarding the denigration of social conservatism, on one hand I sympathize with how it’s probably unpleasant to be called racist by a bunch of different people, I also sort of feel like capitulating to Trumpism in response to that is sort of an overreaction.
As I understand it, the original accusation against the Social Justice Warriors was that they were snowflakes who had disproportionate negative responses to criticism. Now I’m being told the problem is this Thing called Critical Theory that causes SJWs to criticize people, and people have a disproportionate negative response to that criticism, and… That’s the fault of the SJWs?
It just seems like a contradiction that SJWs responding to criticism with accusations of bigotry is the SJWs being Snowflakes, while people responding to accusations of bigotry by going MAGA is those people being victims of SJWs.
I also think there’s a lot less political unity in the “educated classes” than you seem to be saying here. There are plenty of highly-educated people who are staunch supporters of social conservatism.
Of course, the “educated classes” are far from a monolith, but I think the point stands. I would recommend The Road to Somewhere as a great book to understand this new political divide.
On “SJWs”, you are asking many of the questions I was a couple of years ago (including how the hell Donald Trump could get elected). I’m not going to ramble on here but on this site you will see descriptions of the theories which characterize words as violence, for example (and dozens like it), where they come from and how they are used in current “discourse”. It’s a long road but it should start to make sense after a while.
You may come to different conclusions than me but I wish you luck in your quest.
The recent events at the New York Times (editors resigning, a US senator not being given space to speak, the same senator being misquoted, etc.) should make clear the powerful influence that Critical Social Justice has for those still in doubt.
Frog, you wrote this:
I often encounter people on the internet talking about the powerful influence “Critical Theory” has in education, the media, and the arts, but I don’t really see signs of such powerful influence. How exactly does this powerful influence manifest?
I’d like to offer some help here but I’m not sure I quite understand what you’re looking for. Can you give me some concrete examples, describe what that would look like to you?
Much of what is called Critical Social Justice used to be called “political correctness.” This has been increasing since the late 1980s/early 1990s, and it seems many Americans got so very fed up with the “PC Brigade” and with elected leaders giving in to said Brigade, that they pounced upon the first candidate they perceived would stand up to the PC Brigade and refuse to take their nonsense. That candidate was Donald J Trump.
You don’t think it’s a little disconcerting that this organization appears to openly traffic in anti-Semitic tropes like “the deep state”, “globalist”, and conspiracy mongering about the influence of George Soros?
This site doesn’t traffic in those tropes, unless you can point to any? Uncomfortable bedfellows are possible when opposing a movement, for example (real) liberals with conservatives, atheists with Christians. It’s almost as if it’s important enough to put those differences aside….
How exactly are ‘deep state’ and ‘globalist’ anti-semitic? Neither of those terms refer to Judaism and are perfectly understandable without reference to the Jewish people
“Deep state” and “globalist” are dogwhsitle terms meant to allude to the anti-Semitic trope that the world is under the control of a conspiracy of Jewish people.
“Uncomfortable bedfellows”? Sure, that’s entirely possible. I just think it’s a little odd that James Lindsay would point out the location of the event he spoke at without indicating the organization that organized the event.
Admittedly I have a hard time believing whatever problems Social Justice Activists Online might have are as severe as the problems that arise from the actions of people like Viktor Orban, who has literally banned certain courses from being taught at universities in Hungary, in positions with real and significant political power.
Orban did not ban any courses, he just defunded grievance studies, which is what we should do also, you fell for leftist propaganda. And Soros’ actions and influence are well documented and opposing him is not antisemitic, unless you think Israel itself is antisemitic for blocking his NGOs.
Personally, my concerns about The Deep State and the century-long Progressive desire for a Global Government have nothing to do with religion. It’s about a recognition of human nature, human history, and the corruptive effects of “absolute power” (about which Lord Acton warned us).
In response to the claim that “those that fear tyranny are driven by anti-Semitism”, I could say that notion is a “Globalist trope”, designed to “throw us off the trail”. BTW, what sort of “Old Testament values” do Soros and his cohorts display?
We don’t need this distraction during a time when we are just a “few steps away” from Orwell’s “1984”. I suspect that much of this 2020 chaos is orchestrated to distract us from “the big picture”.
Those of us that share this concern do not wish to spread any irrational fear, but tyranny is the natural condition of humanity, wherein the powerful at the top control everyone “below” them. I see this as reasoned “prescience” rather than paranoia. Aware rather than “woke”.
If we are being led down the path towards Perdition, perhaps knowing “How we got here?” and “Why?”, and passing it along to others, is preferable to the blissfulness of Huxley’s “Soma”.
“The deep state” and “globalist” have NOTHING to do with antisemitism.
The deep state is the giant blob of Fed Govt bureaucrats who live in Northern VA and DC.
No one has ever even claimed Deep State=Jews as far as I’ve ever heard.
As for “Globalist”; that quite aptly refers to the neoliberals and neoconservatives who have wreaked havoc on our country for the last two decades. They want open borders and trade policies that help their wallet but fail the US people.
Stop with the lazy arguments and accusations of bigotry. That’s for youtube forums and twitter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
Lamont says:
“ The deep state” and “globalist” have NOTHING to do with antisemitism….
No one has ever even claimed Deep State=Jews as far as I’ve ever heard.“
This is 100% inaccurate and simply shows many of the people propagating this conspiracy are simply ignorant of its history. It’s like a Mad-Lib. The conspiracy is always the same, but every couple decades the terminology changes a bit.
@A Frog is absolutely correct and Lam Terms like “Globalist,” “Deep State,” and “Illuminati” are all based on the same anti-semitic tropes that go back centuries. Just as the name of the villain evolves, from the “Rothschilds” and now “Soros,” their identity remains the same. Jewish and wealthy.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Mein_Kampf
Adolph Hitler was a globalist who aspired to establish a tyrannical one-world government. By your bizarre argument, opposing the Nazis would be antisemitic!
The term ‘deep state’ refers to the entrenched interests that have always accumulated around centers of power, pursuing their own agenda at the expense of the populace, and it has existed in every country. Again, by your reasoning, criticizing the current Chinese or the ancient Mayan deep state would necessarily be antisemitic despite a distinct lack of Jewish involvement!
Your arguments are a prime example of the ‘Hitler was a vegetarian therefore all vegetarians are Hitler’ fallacy, which is actually the formal fallacy known as ‘affirming the consequent’ which takes the form
All A = B
B
———–
Therefore A.
Which can lead to clear falsehoods, e.g.
All fish are animals
Here is an animal climbing a tree
———————
Therefore, it must be a fish!
https://infogalactic.com/info/Affirming_the_consequent
For the sake of transparency, I think it is important to note that the organization that put this conference together is Sovereign Nations.
This organization also publishes quite a few articles, like this one warning about how the “Deep State of the European Union” is “tireless in its efforts to undermine the conservative-nationalist government of Hungary.”
https://sovereignnations.com/2020/01/24/soros-woke-capital-empire-strikes-back/
Seems like a fair warning about EU meddling which is entirely plausible.
Regardless, the arguments made by the speakers at this conference stand on their own merits.
That certainly is a true and fair warning. The nation state, has been maligned for decades. The EU is an abject disaster. No one wants their undemocratic, liberty-phobic, exploitative one-world Govt. Societies like the EU are ripe for being overrun by leftists and postmodernists who are the very definition of cultural relativists.
Thankfully, countries like Hungary have been able to take back their sovereignty and insist on remaining, fundamentally, an autonomous nation state. I hope the others follow suit.