Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

Starting my day today, I am disturbed anew by this tweet and the charade connected with it. I truly thought that folks would read the relevant material and see through this (latest) mischaracterization.

Let’s look at the facts: (a thread)

https://twitter.com/NeilShenvi/status/1179413374532239367

2/ Since I am not actually a proponent of critical theory, my premise for months has been: If one is going to attribute CT to an evangelical’s beliefs in order to claim dangerous influence, one is required to attribute that which is distinctive to the tradition, not simply ...

3/ ...that which is included, though common to other and much earlier traditions.

Shenvi has not done that and even ignored the actual critical scholars who have defined, given overviews, answered “What is…?, and gave “defining characteristics" of critical theory.

4/ I’ve shown that none of the theorists he claims to be representing suggest is 4 “tenets” as the “core,” nor even defining characteristics (see DiAngelo, Sensoy, Levinson, Collins, etc.).

5/ So, I thought it best to ask some of these very theorists directly. Here is the email sent to several critical theorists:

6/ (An interesting note: because Bronner has not been quoted by Shenvi, the intro to his email was slightly different [as I noted some were in my posts]. I only attribute "characterize critical theories" [plural] to ME. But I consider this basically an irrelevant point anyhow.)

7/ Okay, so what is here?

(1) Shenvi’s own words and links to his articles for reference and fuller context.

(2) The statement that I and others do not believe his tenets are the core of “Critical Theory, critical social theories, nor Critical Race Theory in particular.”

8/

(3) A request of the recipient: “I am hoping you might be willing to comment on Dr. Shenvi’s fourfold construction above, especially whether they are accurate, definitive, and/or distinguishing—do they represent the ‘core tenets of contemporary critical theory’?”

9/ Shenvi is claiming illicit behavior, suggesting I misled Dr. Bronner into thinking I was just asking about the Frankfurt School? Given what is said, I don’t even see how that claim gets off the ground, unless Critical Theory, critical social theories, Critical Race Theory, ...

10/ ...or ‘core tenets of contemporary critical theory’ are Frankfurt School (and the latter, a quote from Shenvi, is the only one I asked a question about or directly attributed to him.)

11/ Next, Shenvi camps on the one phrase, “critical theories” (plural) to suggest that I misled Dr. Bronner (though not included in his email, but oh well). I asked no questions about this phrase and quoted Shenvi's own words with links.

12/ But even more, it is pure obfuscation for Shenvi to claim he has not been characterizing “critical theories”! See his own words from his own articles:

13/ “[Critical theory] originated with the Frankfurt school in the 1930s but has evolved considerably since then. In all its iterations, it is principally concerned with hegemonic power and how that power is wielded by dominant groups.”

14/

“… Post-Colonial Studies, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Whiteness Studies, and Critical Race Theory, among others. These fields can be placed within the larger discipline of ‘critical theory,’ an ideology more popularly known as ‘cultural Marxism.’”

15/

“Critical theory forms the basis for numerous academic disciplines such as critical pedagogy, critical race theory, gender studies, and queer theory.”

16/

“...I’m willing to employ another phrase like ‘critical social justice’ or ‘critical race theory,’ since these are used as well..."

17/ Either Shenvi is talking about various “critical theories” in these posts, or he is now claiming there is one very modern critical theory that retroactively has informed whole fields of critical theory past.

18/ Or, more likely, he is just drawing the lines of what he is addressing ever tighter to avoid the obvious objection that what he has been attempting to characterize is not critical theory as such, nor any “critical theory” as such, but a few ideas from a specific group of ...

19/ ...modern scholars (ignoring also that every one of them believes there is something identifiable which makes their theories properly “critical,” and they tell us what it is.)

20/ So Shenvi’s claim that there are “errors” is just plain false. Next, Dr. Bronner said in the very email that I posted that,

“It seems that your friend has basically thrown together some views (or better clichés) that were gathered from Gramsci and post structuralism.

21/ "They are not the core values of critical theory and they don’t represent its unique perspective either.”

Notably, all that Bronner told Sheni in his own email exchange is that Shenvi’s core tenets “make sense” if applied to post-structuralism and the like, adding,

22/ “Whether they are actually ‘critical’ — or, better, whether they privilege ‘critique’ and the dialectical method is another matter.”

(We should also note that Bronner speaks to Shenvi's four tenets themselves, saying,

23/ "Insistence upon 'social location' as decisive is just another way of invoking the need for relativism and sabotaging a utopian perspective; challenging the idea that violence is not the only form of domination is as old as religion and the critique of it; ...

24/ "...this view has nothing which is unique to critical theory; the division of society into dominant/subaltern classes is also as old as the hills, and has more to do with different forms of populism than critical theory."

25/ I guess Dr. Bronner was mistakenly thinking that "contemporary critical theory" is as old as the hills?)

Finally—and this is very important—when I presented Dr. Bronner’s email, I STATED CLEARLY THAT HE WAS COMING FROM THE FRANKFURT PERSPECTIVE, never suggesting otherwise.

26/ From my post:

“Though his approach is very traditional and rooted in the Frankfurt tradition, I do believe his voice and perspective is nevertheless important in contemporary discussions of critical social theories.”

27/ I then argue from Levinson, DiAngelo/Sensoy, and Collins (the group Shenvi is supposedly representing, “contemporary” critical theorists) that Frankfurt perspective is “nevertheless” important in the discussion of contemporary critical theory.

28/ And what of this group of “contemporary” critical theorists? What did they have to say about Shenvi’s “core tenets of contemporary critical theory”? Well, several answered:

29/ Dr. Bradley Levinson: “These so-called tenets read to me as caricature. They carry minor grains of truth, but they simplify and obscure.…no, I don’t think they capture the ‘core’ of critical social theories. I think the Intro to my book gets closer to doing that ‘properly.’”

30/ Dr. Maurianne Adams: “I would only guess that our clarifications & responses would be further distorted by those with an interest in distorting them.”

31/ Dr. Ozlem Sensoy: “It sounds like your community is engaged in some deep dialogue, which is wonderful to hear about. That said, there are enough problematic elements in the 4-point summary of critical theory below, that I would not [be] able to substantively engage in ...

32/ "...each point over email. Nor would it be possible to explain the problematic summarizations themselves without those interested in critical theory engaging in fuller academic study of the subject.”

33/ Beverley Daniel Tatum: “Thank you for your message. I know that there are people who disagree with my writing (and that of others), and Dr. Shenvi, in his summary of “contemporary critical theory”, seems not to have understood it. However, I am not inclined to try to ...

34/ "...explain again via e-mail that which I have explained quite clearly in my books. I encourage those who have questions to read what I have written. ... you can say that they are not accurately stated.”

35/ Doesn’t sound like these “contemporary” critical theorists think Dr. Shenvi is accurately representing the “core tenets of contemporary critical theory.”

36/ A brother even asked Shenvi if he was willing to use one of the ACTUAL summaries provided by “contemporary” critical theorists as a basis for discussion, rather than his own construction; his answer:

37/ Honestly, what is going on here? If he wants to talk about some "bad" ideas, let's talk about some "bad" ideas. But it would then be time to go back and remove all the false characterizations of critical theory from his site, and end the attempt to pin it on others.

38/ The real funny business here is that a non-expert can misrepresent critical theory in many articles, lectures, and interviews and have a following still wedded to his false characterization—in the face of criticalists own characterizations and direct repudiation of his.

39/ Last, Dr. Shenvi told me Dr. Pat Sawyer was going to write a thread to show that he is right. I haven’t seen it, but we did have this exchange yesterday:

https://twitter.com/RealPatSawyer/status/1179503386003156995

I think Sawyer’s words might actually prove the opposite of Shenvi’s many written claims.

40/40 Just had to get this all off my chest. If you have made it this far, I thank you, hahaha.

For more, see:

alsoacarpenter.com/2019/10/02/a-c…