You have no independent existence outside these power dynamics. And in this worldview, individuals only exist at all as a place where these group identities intersect. The “neo” comes from switching out Marxism’s focus on materialism and class in favor of various oppressed group identities, who are constantly in conflict the way classes were always in conflict.
When I refer to “identity politics”, these days, it’s to the species that loves to “other”. Of course “identity politics” has played an important role in securing gay rights, civil rights, women’s rights, and so on, but it didn’t do so by demonizing the opponent. And indeed, Sullivan agrees, though he says it better than I:Īfter concisely summarizing the themes of Cynical Theory, Sullivan discusses its emphasis on both the individual (often seen as a victim) and the oppressed group, and its neglect of the universal-our common humanity. King, which appealed to universal moral sentiments, abjured violence-and were successful. That’s a big contrast to the methods of Dr. It’s thus divisive, and instead of appealing to the better angels of our nature, it demonizes whites (just as Critical Theory as a whole demonizes men and straight people), virtually bullying them into acceding to its demands. To do that you have to come to grips with postmodernism, which is not only risible in content, but impenetrable in exposition.Ĭlick on the screenshot to read I think it’s still in the “free” phase.Īs I wrote yesterday, my problem with Critical Race Theory, as instantiated in the principles of the Black Lives Matter movement (I again emphasize that their main goal- equality of treatment between blacks and other groups-is laudable), is that, in adhering to Identity Politics, it forever sees society as warring groups-ethnic and gender groups, by and large-vying for power in a zero-sum game. Rather, it’s a hybrid between a trade and an academic text, and that’s exactly what’s needed if you want to understand the intellectual roots of Wokeness and Critical Theory in postmodernism. As I’ve said, it’s not a “trade book” in the sense of being a quick and entertaining read. I’ll just highlight his piece on Wokeness and Cynical Theories, a book both he and I recommend. And to make money by writing-what a joy? Not that it’s easy, of course. But he makes a good living doing that, though I don’t begrudge him that because it’s hard work and he has several assistance. When it comes to politics-though not religion: he still adheres to Catholicism, though his discussion of religion has largely disappeared-we’re pretty sympatico, and often write about the same stuff. If you want to subscribe to Andrew’s site, it’s only $50 a year (a measly $1 per week), and you can do so here.
(To his credit, he took a reader’s advice to heart and is giving up issuing tweets that “simply mock or provoke without context.”) The three issues he takes up are wokeness-in particular a review and discussion of Pluckrose and Lindsay’s book Cynical Theories, which I’ve discussed before an attack on Trump for intimating that he’d delay November’s election on the grounds of mail-in ballots and a further defense of J.
Weathercat ct twitter series#
Andrew Sullivan’s Weekly Dish, to which I’ve just subscribed, has his usual tripartite column, along with the “view from my window” series and a place where he reproduces and responds to readers’ beefs.
0 kommentar(er)
