Last year, Helen Pluckrose and I dedicated most of our time to writing a book about how “activist scholarship” has risen to prominence and created societal conditions that threaten to rip our societies apart. Our goal was to document and explain these academic developments as fairly as possible while still making clear how they have equipped a certain kind of social critique, commentary, and activists with the philosophy of postmodernism.
You don’t need to know much about postmodernism to understand why this is a big problem. In fact, you only need to know two key ideas: postmodern philosophy is radically skeptical that objective truth exists and can even approximately be known, and it forwards the competing view that knowledge is just an assertion of politics by other means. That is, the key of postmodernism as a social philosophy is that whether a claim is true or not doesn’t matter and misses the point. All that matters is how that claim can be used politically.
The development of this divorce from the truth, political turn to everything, and ruthless approach to social critique present in “critical theories” is how we arrived at this literally riotous, almost incomprehensible moment in history. So, it matters.
And there is an answer: being principled. Taking a principled stand for truth, depoliticizing, and encouraging fairness and honesty in place of ruthless social critique can defuse this moment and defeat the problem that has created it.
In the last chapter of our forthcoming book, which is called Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody, Helen and I wanted to provide and explain an alternative to both “critical theory”-style critiques and postmodern radical skepticism. We then ended that final chapter—and our book—with a few examples of simple statements of principled opposition people can easily make that take us away from making everything about race, gender, and identity.
In light of the present turmoil, we’re happy to show you this as an excerpt from our book: an example of a principled statement of opposition to the ideology beneath the present mayhem. The statement below applies to the postmodern critical theory called Critical Race Theory, which deals with ideas of race and racism and is covered in great detail in Chapter 5 of Cynical Theories. It reads as follows:
We affirm that racism remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed.
We deny that critical race Theory and intersectionality provide the most useful tools to do so, since we believe that racial issues are best solved through the most rigorous analyses possible.
We contend that racism is defined as prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior against individuals or groups on the grounds of race and can be successfully addressed as such.
We deny that racism is hard-baked into society via discourses, that it is unavoidable and present in every interaction to be discovered and called out, and that this is part of a ubiquitous systemic problem that is everywhere, always, and all-pervasive.
We deny that the best way to deal with racism is by restoring social significance to racial categories and radically heightening their salience.
We contend that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so, that racism is declining over time and becoming rarer, that we can and should see one another as humans first and members of certain races second, that issues of race are best dealt with by being honest about racialized experiences, while still working towards shared goals and a common vision, and that the principle of not discriminating by race should be universally upheld.
We believe making and committing to statements like this can start to make a difference that can walk our societies back from the edge and are glad to share them. We’re grateful to everyone who gives them thought. We’re also grateful to people who will take them up as a template for moving forward together toward building a more unified community. If you agree, feel free to say so in the comments below!
Cynical Theories will be available on August 25, 2020, at the latest, and is currently available for pre-order here. Excerpt provided with permission by the authors and Pitchstone Publishing.
29 comments
Although late in the statement you say, “racism is declining over time and becoming rarer,” you start out with, “We affirm that racism remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed.”
I would have modified the opening statement as follows, “We affirm that racism remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed, but acknowledge that the United States is among the least racist societies in the world, and that Western Culture has done more to oppose racism than any other culture.”
“racism remains a problem in society”
Which “society”?
Whose “society”?
In what part of the world and among what countries’ and peoples’ “societies” are you evaluating “racism”? The 57 mohammedan nation-state “societies”? The 54 African countries’ “societies”? China’s homeland and colonies’ “society”? Other south and east Asian “societies”? India’s “society”? Central and South American “societies”? “Indigenous” peoples’ “societies”?
Any studies, remarks, hate-screeds and shame-blames about “racism” in any of these 6 billion peoples’ “societies”?
I thought not.
“Racism” is not about racism. It is about Revanchism against only one “society”. Guess which one. Better guess quick because it won’t be here much longer.
I have a sommelier certification and have blind tasted with multiple groups here in Chicago. One of the largest groups puts on training seminars and really just does a great job with it overall. In June they made a post stating that they “squarely stand up against systemic racism” and after an email exchange it was stated that members are asked to reciprocate.” I’ve been thinking toward writing an open letter in response given that they’ve done nothing and made no updates on the matter since that time when every company was putting out updated mission statements. This template is very helpful and I look forward to pushing back on them at the 6 month mark. If you could post more examples or accounts about how people have successfully approached their employer or entity about this, that’d be very helpful.
I absolutely agree.
Furthermore, I assert that it’s not only possible, but necessary, to have conversations surrounding racism WITHOUT insinuating that every white person is a white supremacist; that it does more harm than good to encourage white people, or any people, to look internally on a daily basis for signs of sin/evil, because humans tend to find precisely what they’re looking for, whether it exists or not; and that it’s possible to discuss issues of race and racism without shaming people, emotionally beating them, blaming them for instances of race-based oppression that took place decades before their birth, or scapegoating a particular group of people (straight white men, white women, etc). As a whole, people do not react well to being shamed, including those who genuinely need to examine their behavior. Critical Race Theory’s biggest tool is shame, and it comes from a narcissistic need for power, control, and domination. If we’re going to look for genuine evil, we should start there.
James, will there be an audio book?
I second this comment… Please tell us this will be an audio book. As a father of 4 young kids, it will take me a full year to read this book in the only place that I can have privacy… The bathroom.
Audiobook would be amazing!
Much Thanks to all who DENY systemic racism; who DENY that I, you, and all humankind are hard-wired to be racially prejudice. Much Thanks to all who AFFIRM that racism is real; who AFFIRM that you, I and all humankind is capable in overcoming their own racism regardless of race!
.
When we have to, politically, socially or otherwise , define ourselves by race, dividing who we are as humans, will always set us on a path of social and economical destruction and personal failure toward the fight against racism. In fact, many empirical results state the very opposite of division and radical socialist policies as the some of the answers to bring unity, fairness, and justice for all. We are NOT simply races or to ever be divided into races to condone or give any attention to Marxist and Maoist ideologies that have shown over and over a history of mass failure and persecution and death to thousands of innocent people.
.
Marxists and Maoists have a radical agenda that failed in the past and will fail again. We cannot EVER afford, personally, economically, politically, or even religiously be divided by the revolutionists EVER!!! They hate you and I who believe we can rise beyond racism or any type of type of anti-love, anti-logic ideology. We are Human and must be seen as Humans with grand potential to overcome our own ignorance growing tremendously in perfect love for one another. Love, however, is NOT without a strong, assertive countenance to fight radical ideologies harming all of us.
.
Bravo to Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay for standing tall in logic, science and their own love for our people, our society, and our freedom from radical ideologies!
Here here! Thank you Helen and James. And thank you for bringing together such an intellligent and articulate group of commenters and suporters who recognize the importance of debating, opposing, and defeating these corrosive ideas. Thank you all for stepping up to this challenge and helping us avoid being taken down this historical and heinous path once again. Maybe this time we can prevent the disastrous consequences wrought by similar manfiestations of human darkness throughout histroy.
I watched a YouTube video of your speech on The Truth about Critical Methods and you did a great job on identifying what Critical theories were and also on social justice and also the dangers that lie from these ideas and people who espouse them. This article is useful on how to deal with ideas like systemic racism, which seems to only lay blame with our social and political systems without identifying cures. Looking forward to the release of your book.
Absolutely agree! The entire premise of polarizing people by category of race identity (or indeed any other group identity) is fundamentally fallacious. What I think we need more of in the current climate is distinctions as to why this ideology is on the rise, the underlying societal factors that contribute to it (such as spiritual starvation, disenfranchisement of our youth, the darker sides of hyper-connectivity, etc.,), and, critically, who stands to benefit from the broader social impacts of pinning people against each other in a permanent and ever-deepening conflict of ideals. I don’t want to sound conspiratorial, but this social experiment did not come out of nowhere and by itself. It’s a rather intentional and weaponized co-optation of the anti-intellectual momentum spurred by the current administration (no, not blaming DT here, more special interests behind the faux electoral process), as well as the deadwood produced by social stagnation (in this case further spurred by the pandemic and the resultant socio-economic causes). GREAT WORK JAMES!
Agreed. These are the manifestation of our darker human tendancies/inclinations. The 60,000 foot view sees these tendancies manifesting in disciplines accross society, but academia is one of the more visible and sharper points of the same spear. Understanfing the philosophical underpinnings is helpful, but human physchology, ambition, politics, and intellectual laziness all play a role and are everywhere and ever-present. The danger of the current manifestation is in its ability to silence much of its thoughful opposition so it becomes increasingly unopposable.
I do not believe racism exists in the US the way it is being portrayed. Systemic racism, to the degree it exists, is aimed at whites and asians.
The fact that just the accusation of racism results in such attention and condemnation should indicate this.
The elevation of a relatively minor sin to capital status while ignoring all the sins committed in the effort to do so does nothing to address actual racism (which is such a non problem that high profile hoaxes are the norm) but weaponizes it both politically and socially.
Meanwhile legalized favoritism, which is the root for so many social ills historically, is once again embraced by those who should know better. Until we reject the notion that there is more than one standard for everyone we will never be free from those who profit from human misery.
I’ve drafted a variation of this (perhaps influenced by my own perspective in error), but would welcome comments:
PRINCIPLES ON DISCRIMINATION
I AFFIRM that harmful discrimination remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed. We should seek to eradicate such discrimination, not reverse it.
I AFFIRM that Inalienable and Universal Human Rights must be honoured for all, in particular those declared or alluded to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
I AFFIRM that effectively tackling any problem requires accurate analysis, using the best tools and methods available, which are based on logic, reasoning and evidence and include falsifiable claims.
I CONTEND that racism is defined as prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour against individuals or groups on the grounds of race and can be successfully addressed as such.
I DENY that racism should be assumed to be hard-baked into society, that it is unavoidable and present in every interaction to be discovered and called out, and that this is part of a ubiquitous systemic problem that is everywhere, always, and all-pervasive.
I DENY that the best way to deal with racism is by restoring social significance to racial categories and radically heightening their salience.
I CONTEND that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so, that racism is declining over time and becoming rarer, that we can and should see one another as humans first and members of certain races second, that issues of race are best dealt with by being honest about racialised experiences, while still working towards shared goals and a common vision, and that the principle of not discriminating by race should be universally upheld.
Thank for this. I’ve been tracking the trend of critical theory taking over our national discourse around social justice since around 2015. Now the school for which I work is recommending we read White Fragility and “do the work” to root out racism in our school. Well intentioned people are letting this Trojan horse right in the front gates. Thank you for the framing and statements I can use to help guide the discussion in a more productive way.
Excellent! Lately I’ve been thinking of saying “black people matter” when asked if black lives matter. Because the question is always loaded and needs to be reloaded. Your excerpt will help me explain why I say that instead of utter a shibboleth.
Completely agree. Thank you so much for your work in support of liberal thought. Your voice is desperately needed and appreciated. Looking forward to the book!
So… This is why one reason I am fighting conspiracy theories that use pseudoscience. I did not understand why there was such a hatred of academia by my Christian relatives. They threw out the baby with the bathwater?
They prefer “common sense” over scientific trends that they don’t prefer due to political ideologies. I see their “common sense” as scientific illiteracy.
Thank you both for all of the hard, tedious work that you’ve done over the past, few years in analysing Critical Theory, and distilling it down into an accessible form that exposes the beast underneath the beguiling mask. There are so many of us out here who feel hopeless and fearful on a daily basis about what is happening across western society, witnessing both youths and naive friends and associates fall prey to its clutches, while it has quickly infiltrated into media, businesses, and longstanding institutions. There is yet hope!
Don’t think I have ever been so excited about a book release. I will be counting down the days till the 25th August. Just hope it’s not banned.
“that we can and should see one another as humans first and members of certain races second”
I would change this statement for myself. I’d say “that we can and should see one another as human individuals first and members of certain races second, or third, or never.” After all, race – that is to say, dividing people by color – has only superficial scientific basis, and as a social phenomenon can only have meaning to an individual who believes that it does.
I agree. Too late though if their book has already gone to the publishers. Still, so glad it says what it says anyway, and that someone is speaking up who has a platform to do so. Thank you so much James, Helen, and Peter. Ps. You probably don’t need one, but I used to work as a scientific editor and proofreader, so if you want a helping hand with any materials please reach out. I’d be happy to give my services free of charge. So grateful for what you guys are doing. All the best from the UK (here CRT is only more recently rearing its ugly head, and sadly is going unchallenged and/or is being promoted by companies, politicians, academia, and mainstream media).
Agreed: In fact, genetically, ‘races’ of human beings have absolutely no basis as they do in animals. The human genome is the same in each distinctive population of mankind; there is not an iota of difference detectible, but there are difference of genetic expression (e.g. our skin pigmentation). All outward developmental diferences like facial features, body shape and skin type do not come from different genes, but the switching on/off of epigenetic adaptive features and some genes apparently designed precisely for this purpose! They can switch on/off in one or two generations, and this is not unique to human beings of course.
Using the obvious feature of darker skin colour as an example; this is produced by greater/fewer melanin cells and is not required in Northern latitudes, else we would make too little vitamin D, essential for health. To make the point clear: An aboriginal Australian and an Inuit person, two perhaps historically most isolated of human families, that Charles Darwin might have called ‘savages’ (some scientists of his day believed that some ‘races’ were lesser beings in developmental terms, and lacked intelligence) would have absolutely no trouble making a family.
This fact is entirely unlike other animals groups, even other mammals in the primate groups, which have a lot of ‘races’ or varieties of distinct breeding and which cannot easily be hybridized to make a half-way variety since these varieties often show species-distinctiveness (we generally call these a different species). With man, there is only one species.
We are therefore, I believe wonderfully, ALL one race, and the word, strictly speaking, is redundant. I so wish it were fully redundant, but I obviously recognise that powerful racial discrimination issues still exist, whether for political reasons, or personal discrimination. I agree with the entirety of Lindsay and Pluckrose’s thinking, that the way to destroy racism is never going to be to encourage racial disctintive rights-ism and the revolting intersectionalist thinking that perfuses so much of what passes for intelligent conversation and supposed ‘pc’ today.
Great job James and Helen. I am buying a copy.
Bravo!
Thank you.
I see this as part of the process that Bret Weinstein talked about, of reclaiming all of the terminology that has been appropriated and weaponised by critical theory. That appropriation has happened below the cultural radar and needs to be made easily visible. How do we do this reclaiming? I guess we start by being really grounded in knowing what WE mean and don’t mean by the terms we use and why these distinctions are so important.
This is great. How about making a short video expressing these principles, that can be shared easily on social media? Perhaps do it in the format of a short conversation between James and Helen?
Yes, this is awesome. THANK YOU for all of this. I agree that a video we can share would be good. But how about contrasting it with the new so called racism in the same short video. That way those who watch it and who aren’t familiar with the ins and outs or haven’t quite put their finger on what is wrong (but get the sense that something is wrong) will also benefit from it.
I agree.
At last, I can breathe free again. Thanks for succinctly explaining what has gone wrong in academia over the past fifty years.