Critical Theory, Critically Analyzed

For John, BLUF:  The Universities have become places where the received truth can not be questioned.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Jordan B Peterson, Critical Theory, and the New Bourgeoisie

From Quillette, by Uri Harris, 17 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Critical Theory draws heavily on Karl Marx’s notion of ideology.  Because the bourgeoisie controlled the means of production, Marx suggested, they controlled the culture.  Consequently, the laws, beliefs, and morality of society reflected the interests of the bourgeoisie.  And importantly, people were unaware that this was the case.  In other words, capitalism created a situation where the interests of a particular group of people—those who controlled society—were made to appear to be universal truths and values, when in fact they were not.

The founders of critical theory developed this notion.  By identifying the distorting effects power had on society’s beliefs and values, they believed they could achieve a more accurate picture of the world.  And when people saw things as they really were, they would liberate themselves.  “Theory,” they suggested, always serves the interests of certain people; traditional theory, because it is uncritical towards power, automatically serves the powerful, while critical theory, because it unmasks these interests, serves the powerless.

All theory is political, they said, and by choosing critical theory over traditional theory one chooses to challenge the status quo, in accordance with Marx’s famous statement:  “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

There’s no question critical theory can be useful, and that viewing societal elements—beliefs, values, norms, institutions—through a lens of power and examining whose interests they serve can provide highly valuable insights.  But as it becomes more widespread and its adherents more powerful a challenging situation emerges, because then critical theory must then be turned on itself.

From the article one sees that, coming out of a Marxist analysis, we questioned the past, but having done so, we stopped questioning.  The reason we have not collapsed from this is, as Adam Smith said, "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."♠  We can only hope that we can plow through this phase and look back and see the good things of the past and bring them back into the mainstream.  I am hoping that, aside from a few believes, the American People realize that Marxism in action is about enslavement of the people, body, mind and soul.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  It was a quip to Sir John Sinclair, upon the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, New York, in October 1777