Chris Kavanagh Profile picture
Aug 31, 2020 30 tweets 6 min read Read on X
So kicking off the chapter by chapter #CynicalTheories review/reaction-a-thon with a look at the Introduction. There’s quite a lot of ground covered over 9 pages so strap in. Image
The introduction starts with a rousing paean of ‘liberalism’ defined as a political philosophy that advocates political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, universal human rights, legal equality, freedom of expression, respect for viewpoint diversity & debate...
...respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, & freedom of religion.

And this is contrasted against the opposing (evil) systems of ‘theocracy, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, fascism, and other forms of discrimination’.
Funnily there’s even a non-ironic nod to prevalent social justice tropes with liberalism being praised as at its best when not just restricted to ‘wealthy white males’. I’d imagine that kind of concessionary hat tip to be largely due to Helen and her desire to appear fair.
In any case, barring some culture war wording (respect for viewpoint diversity) & a rather simplistic binary worldview there doesn’t seem much to object to here. Liberal democracy as preferable to repressive theocratic regimes... sure. I also agree liberalism can be a broad tent.
The next claim is more questionable, though I suspect many would agree with at least 50% of it. Namely, they contend that the liberalism (at the heart of ‘Western civilization’) is at ‘great risk’ from the twin dangers of 1) far right reactionaries & 2) far left revolutionaries.
They see the culture war as all encompassing and reflecting of this battle of ideologies. The inevitable question then would seem to be given the acknowledgment of the twin threat why they are fixated only on the revolutionary left? Their answer...
..is essentially that the right has always been crazy but that the left used to be sane & reasonable because it was based on ‘liberalism’ & so it is the side that has strayed ‘from its historical point of reason and strength’. 🤔 Wonder if they will elaborate on this on RW media.
The secondary justification is that this is all due to the left’s embrace of postmodernism and how that, and reactions to, it has come to dominate all aspects of society, politics, and culture. 🤔

Certainly no hyperbole here.
As the justification against a rather core objection about their focus this feels pretty flimsy to me but c’est la vie. Maybe they give more detail later. People can focus on what they want but when you identify two civilization level threats and then only discuss one... 🤷🏻‍♂️.
Going to use one of my precious screenshots here to illustrate just how insidious and all encompassing they regard postmodernism, though as noted I think the *depending upon your view* here is doing A LOT of work. Image
Anyway, next we are introduced to the important distinction between (good) ‘social justice’ (a concept apparently with a 200 year history associated with Rawls...) and (evil) ‘Social Justice’ which is derived from critical theory and kicked off in the mid 20th century.
I think I actually agree with some core points here. 1) that there is no single ‘correct’ approach that can be attached to a nebulous concept like social justice and 2) that branding does not necessarily reflect commitment to a given value (see the Democratic People’s Republic).
However, we part ways on other grounds. In discussing issues with cancel culture (which they identify as stemming from Social Justice) they describe how counterintuitive this is to a ‘culture accustomed to placing human dignity first & thus valuing charitable interpretations...’
I’m sincerely wondering what culture they are imaging here, where this was ever the norm in public discourse? Being generous I’ll assume they are restricting the comment to (Western) culture in the contemporary era but even then that certainly doesn’t sound reflect my experience.
I’m not a ‘cancel culture’ skeptic (though the term is overused) but I am also skeptical of unspecified comparisons to an idealized past ‘culture’ that can be invoked whenever convenient.
Anyway, the chapter moves on and devotes quite some space (and vivid prose) to outlining just how much they dislike the critical scholar-activists. They are likened to aliens with their own arcane language and no understanding of normal human biology, interactions, or customs.
I’ll admit some of the broadsides here are kinda funny (to me) but the biggest laugh for me came when they devoted a paragraph to essentially claiming to be anthropologists of Social Justice. Image
Next they outline the structure of the book. In part they personify postmodernism and Theory, treating the former as the bastard offspring of the latter. And tracing how it evolved and came to interact with(/utterly dominate) the world.
They claim the book will do two things 1) explain how Theory has developed into the driving force of the culture war and 2) propose ‘a philosophically liberal way to counter its manifestations in scholarship, activism, and everyday life’. (Maybe by cheering on Trump? Sorry...)
Chapters 1 & 2 promise to cover postmodernism from the 1960s up to the 1990s. Then 3 chapters covering various Theory laden fields. With chapter 7 on disability and fat studies (separated because they are newer?). Chapter 8 is on ‘reified postmodernism’... from 2010 onwards.
Chapter 9 looks at real world impacts (I’m expecting a condensed The Madness of Crowds) and Chapter 10 outlines their alternative ideology to Social Justice and how it may help vanquish this vile ideology. Let’s see.
Chapters 1-8 are explained to be providing the necessary foundational knowledge for any would-be Anti Social Justice warrior and chapters 9-10 are aimed at getting them ready to go on the counter attack. There is a very real sense here of heroes fighting the forces of darkness.
For a less cynical take... it seems clear they see the spread of postmodernism & rise of Theory as huge, potentially civilization threatening, developments. They seem sincere in their concerns & describe how this undermines nondiscrimination and recognition of shared humanity. Image
There’s also an obvious link between James’ anti-theist work and the opposition to Social Justice which is not exactly subtle. I’m sure this will come up in more depth in later chapters but it feels like it belongs in that popular genre of ‘everything I don’t like is religion’.
Not to say they aren’t legitimate points of comparison that can be made. I’ll just wait till they are fleshed out before judging. I do remember that massive article he wrote on this topic before so I’d hazard a guess it’ll mainly reiterate those points.
Anyway, the Introduction concludes with a description of the target audience. I think I fall under the category of an interested lay person, I’m certainly not an expert in Critical Theory so will be interested to see how convincingly they make their case.
There’s also another interesting disclaimer paragraph, explaining the book isn’t seeking to undermine LGBT equality or attack academia/universities, where I again sense Helen’s fingerprints. I’d screenshot but I’ve used my three.
And finally the chapter ends with a prediction about how the book will be responded to. They describe three possibilities: 1) dismissal as right wing reactionaries, 2) acceptance as deluded liberals with improper analysis, 3) people who accept that their points have some merit...
...and engage them in good faith. That does seem to leave out the possibility of 4) people who respond in good faith and do not find their arguments to have merits but I guess authors need to be confident in their views.

In any case, I’ll try to limit my natural cynicism.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Kavanagh

Chris Kavanagh Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @C_Kavanagh

May 11
Balaji Srinivasan just posted a 1000+ word tweet to explain why Huberman displaying statistical incompetence and issuing a self congratulatory correction (after it went viral) proves he’s actually a better source of information than out of touch elites & moribund institutions. Image
Balaji is an epic bloviator and the epitome of a podcast guru clocking up 7hrs+ with Lex and 4hrs+ with Sam Harris. His post above conveniently ignores that Huberman trades on his Stanford credentials and is a millionaire, just like Rogan & Johnson. There’s a sales pitch about…
…empowering the audience, but Rogan fans have heard the contempt with which he speaks about poor people working dead end jobs. Balaji, like Rogan/Elon, and really all podcast gurus, is a pretentious elitist windbag who trades on populist rhetoric. But y’know he’s rich so 🤷🏻‍♂️.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 29, 2023
There was a rather heated debate that played out in part in Nature regarding whether evidence for Moralistic High Gods tends to come before or after the emergence of complex societies cross culturally. I think this is largely an unresolvable question due to 1) the limitations…
…in historical & archaeological evidence and 2) the relationship will likely have been different in different locations due to various contextual factors. Other researchers disagree and think we can infer general relationships from the data we have.
The controversy over the Nature paper revolved around how they treated missing data in their datasets. There were debates about the coding of data, the statistical analysis, and the validity of inferences. In any case people still disagree.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 13, 2023
This was very interesting to listen to in order to better understand Huberman & Attia’s approach to science and examining scientific papers. It highlights both their strengths and weaknesses, as well as illustrating the reasons they attract such large followings. Image
In ‘guru’ presentation terms rather obviously they are both excellent speakers. They talk authoritatively & confidently. They also readily slip into using complex technical language, yet always remember to summarise points with simplified metaphors or descriptions afterwards.
The effect of this to a non-specialist audience is to give the impression of a high level technical discussion, made accessible because of the summaries. Whether you see this as performative or reflective of their expertise will probably depend on your attitude towards them.
Read 19 tweets
Feb 14, 2023
This 10,000-word article by Scott Alexander following up on his previous 15,000 one on Ivermectin is a good illustration for me of the limitations of the rationalists. So much ink spilt to arrive at a conclusion relevant experts reached long ago & still...
astralcodexten.substack.com/p/response-to-…
...seemingly little appreciation that researchers are not capable of replicating what conspiracy theorists & anti-vaxxers generate because their success relies on misrepresentation & zealotry. Alexandros got into this topic because of being an obsessive fan of Bret Weinstein...
...he was supported by a fervent ecosystem of covid contrarians and anti-vaxxers. He has no relevant expertise and has demonstrated time and time again he can't understand studies or statistical analysis and has a predetermined conclusion. Ignoring all that info isn't 'rational'.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 1, 2022
The credulous response amongst the heterodox to Rogan's 'apology' is exactly why they fall for people like Bret Weinstein and never anticipate the conspiratorial & partisan trajectory of people like Rubin, Maajid, & Lindsay until it is transparently obvious.
It is an epidemic of credulity.
Meanwhile the people that consume his content critically and regularly deal with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers recognise his apology routine & what it actually signifies.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 17, 2022
The anti vaxx stuff feels like it comes in waves. First, you have the old school anti vaxxers who made use of the pandemic to increase their relevancy (eg RFK Jnr releasing a book on Fauci). Then you have a 2nd wave, which developed from people promoting alternative covid cures.
Here you have people like Pierre Kory, Robert Malone, & Peter McCullough. Most of whom were not public figures pre-pandemic. Obviously, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin play an important role here, as do celebrity contrarian conspiracy theorists like Joe Rogan & Bret Weinstein.
This second wave tended to have greater access to large media platforms than the old school anti vaxxers. They were better able to sell the ‘I’m not anti vaccine just in favour of safe vaccines’ line. But over time they’ve become clearly anti-vaxx, including having more direct…
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(