Chris Kavanagh Profile picture
Sep 12, 2020 36 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Ok so #CynicalTheories Chapter 2: Applied Postmodernism. This chapter out of the gate feels thick with hyperbole. We are told: “The postmodernists sought to render absurd our ways of understanding, approaching, and living in the world and in societies.”
The heavily anthropomorphised ‘Theory’ is also up to no good. Bored with its adolescent stage of deconstructing everything, it has now entered its moody teens & wants to mess things up properly.
Lest the anthropomic metaphor be too subtle we get treated to an extended Agent Smith-esque rift on how postmodernism is actually like a contagious virus that mutates into new forms. Why do I get the feeling this is a James-heavy section & he was smirking all the time he wrote?
The new ‘mutated’ applied postmodernism feels set to become the real villain of the book as it is constantly compared unfavorably with the playful and supposedly apolitical original postmodernists. What sets the applied postmodernists apart is that they want to actually do stuff.
What’s more they also believe in a limited form of objective truth! You might think this a positive thing, according to Helen & James’ schema, but sadly the only truth they believe in is that there is oppression based on identities and that the resulting injustice cannot stand.
In a passage reminiscent of Douglas Murray’s ‘Madness of Crowds’, Helen and James outline that the arrival of applied postmodernism came just as complete legal equality was being achieved and discrimination based on race, sex, and orientation prohibited.
The implication here seems to be that having had legal success, activists needed to focus on a new kind of problem, or to invent one in order to continue to justify their existence.
They also invoke a familiar trope on the right that the ‘applied postmodernists’(/progressives) abandoned the reasonable philosophy & requests of the Civil Rights movement to instead promote an unreasonable, revolutionary agenda that betrays the legacy of MLK.
Who are the applied postmodernists you ask? Well they are scholars In fields of postcolonialism, black feminism, intersectional feminism, critical race (legal) Theory, and queer Theory. And their core sin is putting a desire to effect change as their main goal over objectivity.
Here, I might add I have some sympathy for the view that activism and objectivity are at odds, especially in fields that desire to be scientific. Anthropology was involved in such debates for decades and I find myself on the side that favors scientific ideals over activism.
The cognitive anthropologist Roy D’Andrade has a great short article on the topic from the 90s, wherein he makes the case for anthropology retaining its focus on adopting a scientific frame. researchgate.net/publication/24…
It’s fair to say that, outside some specific sub disciplines, my side lost that argument in mainstream anthropology. And it does seem an important division to note. However, it feels like lazy sophistry to tie this stance to being ‘like a religion’ and to imply it’s entirely new.
It might be a new(ish) position as it emerged within certain disciplines, especially social sciences, but I find it very hard to believe that the 1980s were the first time any university subjects were concerned with issuing practical advice intended to change society.
(Baby waking up so ill be back with second half later)
False alarm (for now) so back to it.

I’ve noticed that the scholar Brian McHale gets cited a lot and he seems to share many of Helen & James’ views about the relationship between Theory and postmodernism. They also discuss the paradox where many engaged in Theory appear to...
...disparage postmodernism. The trick here is that they are either correctly noting the missing focus on social justice activism OR it’s because the approach has become so universally accepted that it simply isn’t recognized. It is the default. So, false consciousness then.
Theory is presented as being jealous of the success of liberalism and seeking out a way to gain influence/relevance in the world. I can’t say I’m a fan of this rampant anthropomorphising, as it projects far too much agency onto a collection of ideas.
They argue that for the activist-scholars that emerged in the 80s their mantra was a variation of Descartes ‘I think, therefore I am’ which centered oppression, specifically: “I experience oppression, therefore I am... and so are dominance and oppression.”
They then go on to highlight how the core themes they identified in applied postmodernism emerged in post colonial studies, gender studies and queer theory, critical race theory and intersectionality. Giving potted summaries/quotes from influential figures like Said & Butler.
One point they make here that seems convincing is the extent to which identities become emphasized in these perspectives as both a source of oppression, a source of power, and an analytical framework. They also correctly note that social constructivism does not entail arguing...
...that identities are not real or do not have any influence in the real world. It was also interesting to hear about Mary Poovey’s feminist perspective which seems to have pre-empted the present day Gender Critical and Intersectional feminism debates by a few decades.
I know there are arguments that they have severely misrepresented the views of the scholars presented here but from my place of relative ignorance on the topics the quotes do seem supportive of their interpretations. Though I’m not talking about their broader claims.
Well the baby didn’t wake up but now the other kid did, so I’ll get back to the last section of this chapter later.
The next section returns to the 2 principles + 4 themes framework from the previous chapter and argues that they are all still applicable in ‘applied postmodernism’ with the key changes discussed above. It feels odd to have this in a separate section rather than integrated...
...into the preceding sections to provide some structure but what do I know! One interesting addition they specify is that for applied postmodernism the individual ‘is something like the sum total of the identity groups to which (they) simultaneously belong’.
The final section of the chapter turns to ‘the emergence of social justice scholarship’ detailing a supposedly new shift seen since the 2010s & the emergence of ‘reified’ postmodernism. Not much space is given to flesh this concept out but maybe that is coming in later chapters.
They highlight a growth in emphasis (in social justice inclined disciplines) being placed on marginalized identities, premised on the idea that such people have access to different knowledges. And an inverse growing disdain for the work of white males and science in general.
They also return to the issue of objectivity vs activism but here it is framed as teaching vs activism. Again, while I have sympathy for the need to distinguish between activism and research or teaching that strives for objectivity, I find some of their comments here naive.
In that, I think scholars teaching from a specific theoretical perspective and failing to consider disconfirming evidence or alternative theoretical frameworks they dislike, is incredibly common including in non-social justice fields. I’ve experienced it all throughout academia.
That’s not to say it is a good thing or that it might not be more of an issue in the fields they are discussing, especially if promoted to a virtue, but it feels like they are treating this as some novel threat rather than a depressingly old and common norm.
There are also odd statements like the one below. As far as I understand education, especially prior to university level, it is about presuming that we have enough information to teach things that are considered ‘true’. Of course, how to critically evaluate sources...
...compare theories, and consider probabilities rather than simply collecting facts, is also a part of education. But it seems an odd stance for these authors to be taking that education is not about communicating things which are considered ‘true’, say like 2+2=4.
The chapter ends with the Cynical Theories version of the American Carnage speech. Outlining how the authors see the world and a befuddled public falling into an all consuming social justice black hole.
The thing is I’m also concerned about the same excesses and I don’t think they are all strictly contained to campuses, nor do I endorse the extreme scepticism folks on the left often display towards cancel culture and the like. Yet I still find this all incredibly over wrought.
I mean consider the line below. Are Helen & James really claiming it is sometimes fatal *literally* to challenge social justice orthodoxy? Do they know about Fox news & the pundits who have entire careers devoted to criticizing it? They surely must as they are oft cited by them.
Anyway that’s Chapter 2! Next Postcolonial Theory...

• • •

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!

:(