DEVASTATING review of 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴:
"The authors of the volume...appear not to be ‘scholars,’ but rather ideologues and political activists, interested in changing political reality rather than in studying the ancient world. ..."
🧵
2/
"Several months ago, when I was walking along Hills Road in Cambridge on a Sunday afternoon, I saw something unheard-of in Poland. Two students were standing on the pavement, holding up a poster of Lenin and distributing leaflets encouraging people to ‘join the Communists’.
3/
"For a while I wondered whether I should ask these nice-looking young people whether they knew what the Kronstad Rebellion or Cheka were. After all, they were most likely students of one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
4/
"But when I saw how proud they were to pose for a photo besides an image of a fanatical mass-murderer, I realised there was no point in asking. They seemed almost innocent when they asked me whether I wanted to become a Communist. I politely declined.
5/
"This incident came to mind again when I was reading the present volume, 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 (CAWS), which consists of 15 chapters, including ‘Introductions’ & ‘Afterword(s)’ (I do not know why every idea in the volume is in the plural).
6/
"In Chapter 1, written by the editors, four essential features of a new discipline are laid out: first, rejection of the West and ‘Eurocentrism’; second, rejection of the assumption that Classics has an inherent cultural value; ...
7/
"... third, alertness to ‘the injustices and epistemologies of power’ (p. 3); and finally, a commitment to decolonisation.
8/
"The adjective ‘critical’ in the volume’s title originated in the so-called Frankfurt School, which was founded by Horkheimer and Adorno. As Leszek Kołakowski points out in his magisterial 𝘔𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘮 (1976; English translation 1978), ...
9/
"...the main thought behind ‘critical theory’ is that philosophical, religious and sociological ideas are merely emanations of the unconscious interests of social groups (Horkheimer also tried to argue that critical theory is not merely another product of such interests).
10/
"When we deal with any manifestation of ‘critical theory’, even in its most recent incarnations, we should remember that, as Kołakowski puts it, ‘For critical theory...there is no such thing as “facts.”’
11/
"Indeed, this is the true meaning of the authors’ programmatic rejection in this volume of ‘the false positivism of the West.’
For the contributors to this volume ‘facts’ are interpretations created by social groups according to their economic interests and pursuit of power.
12/
"If there are no facts that we can agree on, and no shared rules of discussion, what is it that we do as scholars and academics? And how should we approach the CAWS project? The conclusion must be that there is no possibility of engaging it in a scholarly debate...
13/
"It makes writing this review a paradoxical endeavour because any criticism of the volume is unlikely to be confronted with counter-arguments, but rather treated as an expression of the social interests of a group to which the author belongs.
14/
"In fact, Padilla Peralta asserts at the end of the volume that those who oppose ‘criticality’ (as he defines and practises it) represent ‘right-wing infrastructure.’
The authors of the volume promote such a view. They appear not to be ‘scholars’, but rather ideologues...
15/
"...and political activists, interested in changing political reality rather than in studying the ancient world. In this they follow another founder of critical theory, Marcuse, who saw in Western universities a revolutionary force with the potential to destroy ‘the system.’
16/
"[Marcuse] observed in the last of his influential 'Five Lectures' that there was no question of ‘politicization of the university, for the university is already political.’ Why? Because even mathematics was being used in America for allegedly ‘fascist’ purposes.
17/
"Even as political activism, the CAWS project is questionable on its own ideological grounds. On the first page of the ‘manifesto’ (Ch. 1) Umachandran and Ward posit themselves as defenders of the ‘wretched of the earth’ and opponents of ‘the privileged and the powerful.’
18/
"In her biographical note Ward writes that she has dedicated her life at the university not so much to research as to opposing ‘inequalities, inequities and biases that structure access to higher education’.
The problem is that the authors do exactly the opposite.
19/
"Their view of Classics is hierarchical and hegemonic. In their mind Classics seems to exist only in the United Kingdom and the former British colonies. An uninformed reader of the volume might conclude that there is no Classics in Bulgaria, Brazil or Japan.
20/
"The only world that the authors see consists of the British Empire, which, in their eyes, is the oppressor of the wretched of the earth. Other countries, nations or cultures seem irrelevant, silenced and marginalised (to use the authors’ own language).
21/
"To provide just one counter-example, namely Central-Eastern Europe; Poland, Czechia and Ukraine were also colonised by an empire: the Soviet Empire. The Soviet Union’s economy was entirely built on slave labour in a system of concentration camps that cost millions of lives.
22/
"In the former Soviet colonies Classics was not ‘systemically racist’ or ‘colonial.’ On the contrary, it was seen by many of the ‘wretched of the earth’ as a path towards liberation, equality and dignity.
23/
"There is, for instance, Osip Mandelstam, for whom Classics provided the last refuge of inner freedom during the Soviet terror of the 1930s: he froze to death on his way to a Soviet concentration camp.
24/
"The Czech philosopher Jan Patočka risked his life during the 1970s conducting secret seminars in Prague for young people to discuss Plato: he died as a result of being investigated by the secret police.
25/
"Hanna Malewska, a Polish novelist and editor, lost her job when her journal (Tygodnik Powszechny) refused to publish an obituary for Stalin in 1953: as a result she lived in such poverty that she could only afford to eat buckwheat as she sat in her (literally freezing-cold)
26/
"...apartment writing a historical novel about the legacy of Classics in the face of despotism, war and barbarism.
The volume is dedicated to ‘all those that Classics in its colonial formation has excluded, othered and dehumanised—with love and hope for a different future.’
27/
"However, the authors only focus on some people who are ‘excluded, othered and dehumanised.’ This is evident from the two chapters dedicated to ‘critical Muslim studies’, even though Islam originated, not in the ancient, but in the medieval world.
28/
"My first point was that the CAWS project is not about studying, but about changing reality; the second point is that it is not about the ancient world either.
29/
"The evidence for this is the fact that, according to the authors, it is the ‘critical Muslim studies’ that ‘created a model we could use to build the foundations of CAWS from classics.’
30/
"Are ‘critical Muslim studies’ critical of the Arab Empire, which conquered and colonised vast portions of Africa, Asia and Europe, flourishing for centuries by selling and buying black slaves? Are they concerned with the Ottoman Empire, which abolished slavery only in 1924,
31/
"...a few years after perpetrating the first genocide in history (on the Armenian people), which the Turkish state continues to deny? Slavery was officially abolished in the Arabian Peninsula only in the 1960s and 1970s, while in Pakistan there are still millions of slaves,
32/
"...adults and children alike, who live and work in terrifying conditions. The examples of ‘critical Muslim studies’ included in this volume do not seem to show concern for Pakistani slave-girls who are forced to manufacture bricks from dawn to sunset;
33/
"...instead, the authors deplore the fact that ‘Islamic history has been erased in favour of the classical (and Christian) history of sites in the eastern Mediterranean.’
34/
"This volume has been ‘de-Judaized’, even though Jews never had an empire engaged in slave trade and oppression; instead, they engaged deeply with Graeco-Roman culture throughout antiquity. Two chapters on Muslims ‘oppressed’ by Classics, but there is nothing on the Jews.
35/
"The quality of scholarship presented in the volume is disappointing. As a whole, the collection is incoherent, wandering between reception studies, a few essays on ancient history or literature, even fewer chapters on philology, & the authors’ omnipresent political agenda.
36/
"The language used in the volume tends to be frank about the aims of the CAWS project, and it brings to mind Hannah Arendt’s important point about the frankness of all revolutions (H. Arendt, On Revolution [1990], pp. 98–109).
37/
"Sayyid and Vakil state in Chapter 2 that CAWS as well as ‘critical Muslim studies would be able to ameliorate the Eurocentrism inherent in classical studies and Orientalism by applying one or more of these strategies to destabilise Europe.’
38/
"One may have doubts whether Europe needs ‘destabilisation’ in the current political situation. Padilla Peralta writes that those who understand his call to ‘decolonise Classics’ as a means of introducing diversity to the subject misunderstand him completely.
39/
"Marx said philosophers merely tried to interpret the world, when the point was to change it. Why do we not leave ‘change’ to democratically elected politicians and leave Classicists to interpret the ancient world, since that is their job and only demonstrable competence?
40/
"The subtitle is ‘The Case for Forgetting Classics’; but if we agree that the goal of our discipline is to study and not to change, it is not Classics, but the CAWS project that should be forgotten as soon as possible."
"Natural human cognitive tendencies—like myside bias—make it tempting for people to seek out and agree with low-quality information that affirms their prior beliefs and values while avoiding information that does not. Myside bias fuels the development of ideological silos, epistemic secession, and tribal epistemology. While many view this as largely a right-wing problem, we see this occurring across the political spectrum." 🧵
2/
"The problem runs even deeper than the misuse of information by incompetent, partisan, and/or bad faith actors. People consuming news and information often do not even respond to evidence or arguments. Instead, we rely on our preformed ideas to make sense of what we see. We interpret information to conform to our expectations.
3/
"We are able to excel in the modern world not because of our incredibly complex understanding of it, but because of the community’s collective understanding of it and our trust in and reliance on the expertise of others within that community to sustain it. So it is vital that we rely on information produced by the trustworthy members of the larger epistemic system as we make countless decisions in life. And when we begin to avoid these trustworthy members in favor of untrustworthy ones, our society can begin to falter. Unfortunately, we believe that this is where we are in the U.S. today.
We knew the Critical-Theory left was engaged in a self-defeating enterprise 20 years ago:
"Entire PhD programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always prisoners of language, that we always speak from a particular standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. 🧵
2/
"Should I reassure myself by simply saying that bad guys can use any weapon at hand, naturalized facts when it suits them and social construction when it suits them? Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: what were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?
3/
"Isn’t this what criticism intended to say: that there is no sure ground anywhere? But what does it mean when this lack of sure ground is taken away from us by the worst possible fellows as an argument against the things we cherish?
"The entire historical legacy of Western civilization has been turned into a battlefield. [The book argues] that the stakes in this conflict could not be higher. For when the past is contaminated, it becomes near impossible to endow people's life with meaning in the present.🧵
2/
"There was no formal declaration of war. But, sure enough, at some point at the turn of the century, a war against the past was launched. The partisans supporting the assault on the legacy of European civilization are not members of a party. They have not issued any war aims and have never formulated an explicit strategic vision. They are also a heterogeneous bunch, a coalition of disparate interests and movements.
3/
"Hostility towards the past evolved slowly, then all at once, its intensification occurring haphazardly without any serious long-term thought. The use of the term 'war' to account for the systematic pursuit of historical disinheritance is not simply metaphorical. In effect, this war leads to the diminishing of the authority of the past, to the discrediting of its legacy, and to the killing of the soul of communities whose way of life remains underpinned by European culture.
"The hardest thing in 23 years for me to watch was the city council yesterday making their statement that in essence said every single one of us are racist by the very uniform and badge we wear. And then the news pans out, and it shows the outside of City Hall, where the city council is making their statement. And what do I seen outside? It's a mobile field force around City Hall protecting the very people that called us racist." 🧵
2/
2020's assault on police was, as the quote above shows, pure hypocrisy on the part of elites. But it was also evil and we knew it, bc Roland Fryer proved in 2016 that its premises were false and, in 2020, that it would cause a huge increase in the deaths of black Americans.
3/
The BLM-led assault on policing in 2020 led, according to @wil_da_beast630, to the homicides of 2,874 more black Americans in 2020 alone than would have died otherwise. Almost 3,000 black lives were therefore "unmattered" in a single year as a result of this movement.
"Over the last 10 years, a cultural revolution has been imposed on this country from the top down. Its ideas originated in the academy, and it’s been carried out of the academy by elite-educated activists and journalists and academics."
Academia's attempt to radically reform society has been crushed: 🧵
2/
After trying to remake society in conformity with its (frankly, rather warped and justly unpopular) criteria:
"The politics of the academy have been defeated. Its ideas, its assumptions, its opinions and positions—as expressed in official statements, embodied in policies and practices, established in centers and offices, and espoused and taught by large and leading portions of the professoriate—have been rejected.
3/
The attempted revolution carried out by academics and other knowledge-economy elites had an agenda that:
"includes decriminalization or nonprosecution of property and drug crimes and, ultimately, the abolition of police and prisons; open borders, effectively if not explicitly; the suppression of speech that is judged to be harmful to disadvantaged groups; 'affirmative' care for gender-dysphoric youth (puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones followed, in some cases, by mastectomies) and the inclusion of natal males in girls’ and women’s sports; and the replacement of equality by equity—of equal opportunity for individuals by equal outcomes for designated demographic groups—as the goal of social policy.
Many of my Dem/left friends feel rage at Trump voters and masochistic hatred for America, which they see as having succumbed to its own latent transhistorical forces of racism and sexism.
This belief is not only false, as @Musa_alGharbi shows in this 🧵, but it also destroys mental health and, I think, makes it nigh impossible to rebuild the party to regain broad appeal.
Harris didn't lose because of racism or sexism, nor because of wealthy elites, third parties, or turnout.
Check it out:
2/
Did Trump win because of racism? No:
"The GOP has been doing worse with white voters for every single cycle that Trump has been on the ballot, from 2016 through 2024. And there’s tons of evidence that Trump’s racialized language has been a major driver of this trend – it’s been a drag on his support among whites rather than serving as the key to his success.
Meanwhile, Harris did quite well with whites in this cycle. She outperformed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden with white voters. The only Democrat who put up comparable numbers with whites over the last couple decades was, incidentally, another black person: Barack Obama in 2008.
Across the board, Harris and Walz improved their numbers with whites – men and women alike. Democrats lost because everyone except for whites moved in the direction of Donald Trump this cycle."
3/
Did Trump win because of sexism? No:
"Kamala’s performance with men was solid. It was her performance with women that destroyed her prospects.
Put simply, it was young and non-white women – the very people who were supposed to ensure Kamala’s victory – who instead helped usher Trump back into the White House.
In fact, even as Kamala’s candidacy went down in flames, women did pretty well at the ballot box this year. For example, as a result of this election cycle, there will be a record number of female governors in the U.S. in 2025. So far, 17 non-incumbent women won House seats; 105 female House incumbents won reelection. 3 non-incumbent women won Senate seats. There were many firsts this cycle as well, including the first transgender woman elected to U.S. Congress.
Voters didn’t seem to have any problem electing women this cycle. They just didn’t respond well to the specific woman that Democrats put at the top of their presidential ticket."