Wait, what?! Postmodernism in its original form would be against Critical Social Justice?! You heard that right. It, like Marxism, would have been, and to the extent that it still gets forwarded, it is.
To explore this seemingly bizarre fact, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose join old-school postmodernist and libertarian thinker Thaddeus Russell on the Unregistered podcast. In this episode of the Unregistered podcast, these three thinkers take a very deep dive into the roots of Critical Social Justice and its Theory. This means diving deep into each of Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, critical theories more broadly, postmodern Theory, and the more modern fusion of these, for the agenda of Social Justice through identity politics: Critical Social Justice.
In this podcast, the three tease apart the contributions of the original Critical Theorists (1920s-1970s), original postmodernists (1960s-1980s), and today’s Critical Social Justice ideologues (“1989”-ish to present) and discuss how these various threads have contributed to today’s runaway moral panic and culture war. Though they each have disagreements with one another in the details, they generally concur that Critical Social Justice is a continuation of the radical New Left (thus Critical Theory) that has taken up elements of postmodern Theory to push its allegedly Socially Just metanarrative: “The Right Side of History.”
Thaddeus Russell has taught at six elite American universities, including teaching modules on postmodern thought, and has since founded his own educational platform, Renegade University, in addition to hosting the Unregistered podcast. He is also the author of A Renegade History of the United States.
Helen Pluckrose is an independent scholar of culture and postmodernism who led the collaboration with James Lindsay on the forthcoming book Cynical Theories (due out “after the pandemic”), which explores the postmodern influences upon Critical Social Justice.
Thaddeus Russell, Helen Pluckrose, and James Lindsay can all be followed on Twitter: @ThaddeusRussell, @HPluckrose, and @ConceptualJames.
5 comments
Just wow. Watched all of it. Took notes. Incredible discourse.
You were far too deferential to Russell, and hence to postmodernism. Yes, it may well be true – or, rather, “true” – that postmodernism/poststructuralism, in its original forms, is not immediately compatible with current SJW/woke ideology and practice. But, that said, there are also good reasons that SJWs specifically relied on, and continue to rely on, postmodernism for their ideological and practical/logistical orientation. The fact is, postmodernism more easily lends itself to such use – to being used in such a manner. There are certain advantages inherent to postmodernism that make it compatible with SJW practice. For example, the obscurantism, i.e., the deliberate use of vagueness and the cultish re-purposing of language; indeed, both postmodernism and SJW practice tend to fetishize vagueness and uncertainty (“skepticism”) in order to dissolve or “unsettle” established or traditional meanings, practices (institutions, etc.). …. Further, SJW practice relies on relativism, in all its forms (cultural, moral, epistemic, etc.), just as heavily as “classical” postmodernism; just because there are a number of “certainties” or “pieties” at the centre of SJW ideology – certain claims and narratives that must be taken as “true” – and which may themselves be subjected to postmodernist deconstruction, it does not follow that postmodernism and SJW practice and ideology have nothing to do with each other. …. For example, there is the theory of power, and of power relations (the ubiquity of power, etc.), that is central to Foucault that SJW ideology has imported in virtually stock format. Then there is also the rather dim view taken of the Western Enlightenment in general; both po-mo and SJW ideology dictate that “the West” is fundamentally corrupt, i.e., on many/all levels, root and branch. Hence Derrida’s constant droning on and on about “onto-theology” or “western metaphysics”, etc. etc. … Post-modernism is “post” precisely because it is also anti-modern. … Besides, post-modernists have no trouble accepting contradictions of all kinds – and indeed, the insistence on logical consistency, the excluded middle or the like, are themselves taken as an indicator of typically Western, hegemonic/imperialistic/totalizing (or what have you) modes of thought that are to be avoided at all costs. Conversely, there are good reasons for the fact that SJW/woke ideology resembles postmodernism, in both style and substance, much more closely than it does classical liberalism, or Western Enlightenment rationalism, etc. …. There is a good reason woke and po-mo thinking bare a family resemblance, namely: because they really are related!
The bottom line is that you guys were far, far too deferential to Russel! From the very outset, he purportedly could only be bothered to talk to you only because you had done all the necessary reading, i.e., you had “put in the work”! (Sound familiar?) No matter how loudly a postmodernist may wish to protest and insist on distancing his cherished intellectual fads from those he deems less attractive, there are many good reasons to associate SJW/woke ideology with postmodernism! The former is exactly what you get, the moment you attempt to attach *any* kind of political programme, with “real world” traction and social application, to the latter. …
‘100 years ago scientists believed that black people were biologically inferior, that Jews were biologically inferior, that women were biologically incapable of doing all sorts of things that men could do… But other scientists came along a few decades later and said no that’s wrong, all those people are biologically equal.’
I am pretty sure the people finding all groups are equal were not scientists, discounting scientists writing with their ideologue hats on like Gould and Lewontin. Hell, Lewontin didn’t even assert they are equal – just that the group differences are swamped by other factors. This really smakced of the recitation of a piety – the statement of a moral truth as if it were objectively true. Very ironic given the subject of discussion.
This was a fascinating podcast–very useful for understanding the intellectual genealogy of Critical Social Justice. As a university person operating in the thick of woke authoritarianism, I also appreciate the Grievance Studies project. However, I am concerned that people are using and/or will use your criticism of this toxic scholarship to attack legitimate scholarship–particularly qualitative work in the social sciences, and pretty much everything in the humanities. Helen and James rightfully defend the scientific method as the best approach we have for establishing truth claims about the material world, but in my opinion, you underestimate the extent to which the tools of science (not the method and its ethos) are deified, then applied inappropriately and uncritically to problems they’re ill-equipped to solve. This frequently happens with statistical techniques, and more generally, with the operationalization of variables. I can measure and quantify almost anything, but that doesn’t mean that numeric abstraction captures something besides, say, a conceptual frame that I (or other human beings) created. Numbers have a veneer of rigor and objectivity, but they can easily act as a smokescreen for bias and outright political manipulation. This is happening, right now, as social justice talk worms its way into a growing number of biological and physical science departments. All of this said, I’m curious about your epistemology and would like to see you write something about how you approached the Grievance Studies project and your study of Critical Social Justice.
A completely unrelated observation. Part of the reason that Critical Social Justice has a hold on universities and our culture is that it is incredibly market-friendly and profitable. Robin DiAngelo is an obvious example of somebody who is profiting off of the Diversity Industrial Complex, but there is no shortage of lower level offenders (see Veronica Ivy, formerly known as Rachel McKinnon). Standpoint epistemology allows narcissistic self-reflection and self-promotion to pass as scholarship and comes with a steady paycheck. Universities then use these “diverse” faculty to market themselves to incoming students. I recently saw an ad for gender neutral underwear with the slogan “Define your own gender.” What’s more market-friendly than the proliferation of identity categories, complete with activist flags and merchandise?
Really good discourse, thanks. I think the bit near the end about people not quite understanding what CT is needs highlighting. I find most people think liberalism and modern progressives are synonymous so a lot of well meaning people get led down the CT path and abandon their loosely held liberalism. This happened to me between 2014 – 2018ish and since then iv had an itch to understand it that only Helen and James seem able to scratch. Keep doing these deep dives and explanations on this site, your upcoming book etc because I think it’s needed.