1/
Wokeness is deeply postmodern.
Most of you have been told postmodernism contradicts other key elements of wokeness like critical race theory, neo-marxism, and standpoint epistemology, which means wokeness can't be postmodern.
This is wrong, and I'll explain why:
A thread🧵
Wokeness is deeply postmodern.
Most of you have been told postmodernism contradicts other key elements of wokeness like critical race theory, neo-marxism, and standpoint epistemology, which means wokeness can't be postmodern.
This is wrong, and I'll explain why:
A thread🧵
2/
We need to understand the objection before we can show why it is wrong, and show just how completely postmodern wokeness is.
The objection revolves around the idea that postmodernism is relativistic, nihilistic, and skeptical of meta-narratives. This needs unpacking...
We need to understand the objection before we can show why it is wrong, and show just how completely postmodern wokeness is.
The objection revolves around the idea that postmodernism is relativistic, nihilistic, and skeptical of meta-narratives. This needs unpacking...
3/
A meta-narrative is a theory that tries to give a comprehensive account of how the world works, and how society works and functions, by appealing to universal truth or universal values. So a meta-narrative appeals to absolute truth to try to explain "the arc of history."
A meta-narrative is a theory that tries to give a comprehensive account of how the world works, and how society works and functions, by appealing to universal truth or universal values. So a meta-narrative appeals to absolute truth to try to explain "the arc of history."
4/
So in 1979 Jean-Francios Lyotard published "The Postmodern Condition" in which he said "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards meta-narratives." What he means is postmodernism does not believe it is possible to have a single true meta-narrative.
So in 1979 Jean-Francios Lyotard published "The Postmodern Condition" in which he said "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards meta-narratives." What he means is postmodernism does not believe it is possible to have a single true meta-narrative.
5/
And this means that because there is no absolute truth, or objectively true theory to explain the world, postmodernism is going to be stuck with relativism and "anti-realism" (the idea that there are no objective moral values, no objective truth, and no normative facts)
And this means that because there is no absolute truth, or objectively true theory to explain the world, postmodernism is going to be stuck with relativism and "anti-realism" (the idea that there are no objective moral values, no objective truth, and no normative facts)
6/
So, the argument is that wokeness can't be postmodern because wokeness is a meta-narrative which thinks it's morality is objectively true, but Postmodernism says morality is relative and there are no meta-narratives to explain the world.
Do we all see how that argument works?
So, the argument is that wokeness can't be postmodern because wokeness is a meta-narrative which thinks it's morality is objectively true, but Postmodernism says morality is relative and there are no meta-narratives to explain the world.
Do we all see how that argument works?
7/
The argument hinges on the idea that there is a contradiction between the absolute truth claims of wokeness, and the relativism and anti-realism of postmodern thought.
Clear?
Good, lets take it apart.
The argument hinges on the idea that there is a contradiction between the absolute truth claims of wokeness, and the relativism and anti-realism of postmodern thought.
Clear?
Good, lets take it apart.
8/
The first point to make is that the postmodern philosophers denied being relativistic. That is, many of the postmodern philosopher were in fact relativists, but they wrongly thought their philosophy was subtle enough to avoid relativism. For example:
The first point to make is that the postmodern philosophers denied being relativistic. That is, many of the postmodern philosopher were in fact relativists, but they wrongly thought their philosophy was subtle enough to avoid relativism. For example:
9/
Jacques Derrida once said:
“As for the ‘relativism’ which, it is said, would worry them, well, where this word has a rigorous philosophical meaning, there is no trace of it in my work. Neither of a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment."
-(Le Monde, (11/20/97), p. 17)
Jacques Derrida once said:
“As for the ‘relativism’ which, it is said, would worry them, well, where this word has a rigorous philosophical meaning, there is no trace of it in my work. Neither of a critique of Reason and the Enlightenment."
-(Le Monde, (11/20/97), p. 17)
10/
Derrida is wrong about this. He may not have intended to shoot relativism into the veins of western liberal democracy, and he may not have thought that would be how his philosophy would be used, but that is in fact what he did, and it is in fact what happened.
Derrida is wrong about this. He may not have intended to shoot relativism into the veins of western liberal democracy, and he may not have thought that would be how his philosophy would be used, but that is in fact what he did, and it is in fact what happened.
11/
So the original postmodern philosophers (Derrida, Foucault, Bauldrillard, Rorty) all end up in relativism.
But, and this is key, even though they were in fact relativists they all SAID they weren't, and thought their theories could escape relativism. This will come back up.
So the original postmodern philosophers (Derrida, Foucault, Bauldrillard, Rorty) all end up in relativism.
But, and this is key, even though they were in fact relativists they all SAID they weren't, and thought their theories could escape relativism. This will come back up.
12/
So, how does wokeness make itself an absolutely true meta narrative if it is based in postmodern philosophy that ends up in relativism and denies meta-narratives and objective truth?
Well, like this....
So, how does wokeness make itself an absolutely true meta narrative if it is based in postmodern philosophy that ends up in relativism and denies meta-narratives and objective truth?
Well, like this....
13/
In 1994, Critical Race Theorist Angela Harris wrote an article where she acknowledges that postmodernism is at odds with enlightenment liberalism. In fact, she calls that fact a "tension," and claims that tension is actually a strength to have "two kinds of narratives"
In 1994, Critical Race Theorist Angela Harris wrote an article where she acknowledges that postmodernism is at odds with enlightenment liberalism. In fact, she calls that fact a "tension," and claims that tension is actually a strength to have "two kinds of narratives"
14/
It isn't that she doesn't know that postmodernism deconstructs everything and is corrosive, she actually says that is it's STRENGTH. That is WHY they use postmodernism.
They use it to deconstruct the law as a mask for power. She says this, explicitly:
It isn't that she doesn't know that postmodernism deconstructs everything and is corrosive, she actually says that is it's STRENGTH. That is WHY they use postmodernism.
They use it to deconstruct the law as a mask for power. She says this, explicitly:
15/
She then says, again in pain clear language, she wants to use both, postmodernism to dissolve the concepts of neutrality and objectivity, then use critical theory (which is neo-marxist not postmodern) to make a new system of law with new paradigms. She says this explicitly:
She then says, again in pain clear language, she wants to use both, postmodernism to dissolve the concepts of neutrality and objectivity, then use critical theory (which is neo-marxist not postmodern) to make a new system of law with new paradigms. She says this explicitly:
16/
So, all the way back in 1994 woke people were already trying to figure out how to make critical race theory and postmodernism work together.
This is why when Kimberle Crenshaw wrote about internationality in 1991 she said it was to bridge politics with postmodern theory:
So, all the way back in 1994 woke people were already trying to figure out how to make critical race theory and postmodernism work together.
This is why when Kimberle Crenshaw wrote about internationality in 1991 she said it was to bridge politics with postmodern theory:
17/
So Critical Race Theory picked up postmodernism early and was trying to figure out how to make use of it. The answer, as it turned out, was to find something that avoided deconstruction, which for them was their oppression. Oppression is real and doesn't get taken apart.
So Critical Race Theory picked up postmodernism early and was trying to figure out how to make use of it. The answer, as it turned out, was to find something that avoided deconstruction, which for them was their oppression. Oppression is real and doesn't get taken apart.
18/
Now, The woke have a theory of knowledge put fourth by Sandra Harding called "standpoint theory." It says objectivity is not setting aside our biases, but rather objectivity is when we start our investigations using women's (and other oppressed groups) "lived experience."
Now, The woke have a theory of knowledge put fourth by Sandra Harding called "standpoint theory." It says objectivity is not setting aside our biases, but rather objectivity is when we start our investigations using women's (and other oppressed groups) "lived experience."
19/
Harding says redefining objectivity this was is a deconstructive strategy (remember, deconstruction is a postmodern method) mean to move us away from a "foundation" of knowledge to build on, and instead give us a "starting point." What does that mean?
Harding says redefining objectivity this was is a deconstructive strategy (remember, deconstruction is a postmodern method) mean to move us away from a "foundation" of knowledge to build on, and instead give us a "starting point." What does that mean?
20/
The point of this, as Ms. Harding states in her paper called "Strong Objectivity" the "Concept of objectivity should be re-conceptualized" So she is switching out the enlightenment liberal idea of objectivity used by science, and swapping in something else.
The point of this, as Ms. Harding states in her paper called "Strong Objectivity" the "Concept of objectivity should be re-conceptualized" So she is switching out the enlightenment liberal idea of objectivity used by science, and swapping in something else.
21/
So what is this new concept of objectivity?
What is this idea that will give us even more robust results then the scientific ideas of newton and Einstein?
Well, it's "situated knowledges."
That's not a typo. It is supposed to say "Knowledges" not "knowledge."
So what is this new concept of objectivity?
What is this idea that will give us even more robust results then the scientific ideas of newton and Einstein?
Well, it's "situated knowledges."
That's not a typo. It is supposed to say "Knowledges" not "knowledge."
22/
The idea is all knowledge is "socially located" and so the only way to have "objectivity" is to say the subject of knowledge is part of the object of knowledge.
Translation: knowledge is "socially located" and created using social assumptions which must be "interrogated"
The idea is all knowledge is "socially located" and so the only way to have "objectivity" is to say the subject of knowledge is part of the object of knowledge.
Translation: knowledge is "socially located" and created using social assumptions which must be "interrogated"
23/
Another translation might be "scientific results are the product of data meeting up with your cultural assumptions and producing a particular conclusion."
Now, if you think this sounds a like cultural relativism, you are right, it is sophisticated cultural relativism, but...
Another translation might be "scientific results are the product of data meeting up with your cultural assumptions and producing a particular conclusion."
Now, if you think this sounds a like cultural relativism, you are right, it is sophisticated cultural relativism, but...
24/
Harding won't clearly say she wants culturally relative claims accepted as knowledge, what she does is hide behind unclear wording and says "Standpoint theory does not aspire to be value neutral" and has "consistently redefined epistemic standards."
Harding won't clearly say she wants culturally relative claims accepted as knowledge, what she does is hide behind unclear wording and says "Standpoint theory does not aspire to be value neutral" and has "consistently redefined epistemic standards."
25/
Here she tells us what she's doing. She is re-conceptualizing objectivity to include relativism and subjectivity because the language of objectivity has power in the sciences, and her use of the term is "calculated." She says this explicitly:
Here she tells us what she's doing. She is re-conceptualizing objectivity to include relativism and subjectivity because the language of objectivity has power in the sciences, and her use of the term is "calculated." She says this explicitly:
26/
So Harding is also claiming, in very explicit terms, that to adequacy of standpoint projects is not if they are true, it is if they legitimate the correct "practices."
This is, of course, full on relativism hidden just below the surface:
So Harding is also claiming, in very explicit terms, that to adequacy of standpoint projects is not if they are true, it is if they legitimate the correct "practices."
This is, of course, full on relativism hidden just below the surface:
27/
This sort of bait and switch is how a guy like @jasonintrator who is a well respected philosopher at Yale, can say that postmodernism has nothing to do with postmodernism, which the woman who is the leading standpoint theorist says standpoint theory is completely postmodern:
This sort of bait and switch is how a guy like @jasonintrator who is a well respected philosopher at Yale, can say that postmodernism has nothing to do with postmodernism, which the woman who is the leading standpoint theorist says standpoint theory is completely postmodern:
28/
He isn't entirely wrong either, elements of standpoint theory are found in earlier non-postmodern work, but the point is, as I hope I have shown, wokeness has taken Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, Neo-marxism, and anything else it can find off of the foundation...
He isn't entirely wrong either, elements of standpoint theory are found in earlier non-postmodern work, but the point is, as I hope I have shown, wokeness has taken Critical Race Theory, Critical Theory, Neo-marxism, and anything else it can find off of the foundation...
29/
of enlightenment liberalism, hollowed out the worldview, and infused it with postmodernism. It would be like removing the gas engine from a Ford Mustang and replacing it with an electric engine. It would still look like a mustang, but it's something different now...
of enlightenment liberalism, hollowed out the worldview, and infused it with postmodernism. It would be like removing the gas engine from a Ford Mustang and replacing it with an electric engine. It would still look like a mustang, but it's something different now...
30/
It has many of the same features as a regular Ford Mustang, and in the parking lot most people can't tell the difference, but once you look under the hood, or see it in action, it becomes VERY clear that this is a different vehicle.
It has many of the same features as a regular Ford Mustang, and in the parking lot most people can't tell the difference, but once you look under the hood, or see it in action, it becomes VERY clear that this is a different vehicle.
31/
That's what has happened with wokeness. It has replaced the engine of enlightenment liberalism with the engine of wokeness. It take enlightenment liberal ideas and hollows out the liberal worldview and replaces it with the postmodern worldview, but it often keeps the same...
That's what has happened with wokeness. It has replaced the engine of enlightenment liberalism with the engine of wokeness. It take enlightenment liberal ideas and hollows out the liberal worldview and replaces it with the postmodern worldview, but it often keeps the same...
32/
language the paper over and cover up the fact that the switch has occurred.
So, that is what has happened. Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Neo-Marxism and fused with postmodernism and were picked up by the woke as the basis for their wokeness-as-religion.
language the paper over and cover up the fact that the switch has occurred.
So, that is what has happened. Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Neo-Marxism and fused with postmodernism and were picked up by the woke as the basis for their wokeness-as-religion.
33/
So, keep that in mind when talking to a woke person. Even when they sound like liberals, when you get them to define their terms and get clear about EXACTLY what they mean, it is almost always the case that they have adopted the postmodern worldview.
/fin.
So, keep that in mind when talking to a woke person. Even when they sound like liberals, when you get them to define their terms and get clear about EXACTLY what they mean, it is almost always the case that they have adopted the postmodern worldview.
/fin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
