Thread by @C_Kavanagh

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...