Modern/Post Modern Critical Theory

[Decolonize The Left]

I am currently waist-deep in a critical theory program and am struggling with it for multiple reasons.
The first is that I am seeing much of our studies as being esoteric, purposefully convoluted, abstract, and meaningless. Perhaps it is my philosophy background which ended with Wittgenstein, but I simply cannot understand why things need be said the way they are. Everything is layers of abstractions upon abstractions, and these abstractions are then praised as profound. This obsession with profundity is tiring. I am more than capable of reading it all and understanding it all, but I am continually frustrated by advocates of things like 'object-oriented ontology.'
The second is that, despite the majority of the writers we are reading being on the left (generally speaking) and many of them professed Marxists, I am not seeing anything of a class analysis, or even an economic-centered analysis, in our discussions. There is ample critique of oppressive things, like the media, technology, etc... but no following through on this critique to anchor it in a material perspective. In fact, even materialism has come under fire in our readings, albeit the critique was very generalized and abstract. If and when I do speak up, my position is characterized as materialist, constructivist, and even positivist.

I will be in this program for some time still. Does anyone have any suggestions for better critical theorists? What am I to do with my 'ordinary-language philosophy' leanings? How ought I handle this situation when I perceive the following: despite all the critical knowledge and ability, I don't see anyone having a political vehicle to make change - hence the theory tends to fire off into the dark at many different topics but doesn't ever return to real life.

And finally, this is unrelated but very important: What would you say to Zizek if you could meet him?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Critical pedagogy is generally quite good, if you can find the authors who write succinctly (bell hooks, alex moore and many others from the Institute of Education) and those others whose ideas are rooted in practice (Paulo Friere, although his writing is incredibly difficult and wordy).

I agree that there is nothing more annoying and hypocritical than academics writing from a critical modern/post-modern perspective about people like us as if we are just pawns in their academic career games. They do nothing for the causes they purport to be focused on, because their words on the page are inspired by words not actions, and thus they only inspire in others more words, rather than actions.

I have most respect for somebody like bell hooks, whose academic writings are very clearly intended to be mass read, not just by the academic elites, and whose writings are inspired by her own real-world actions, not some meta-analysis of education or other words on a page. Her stuff is beautiful, seriously:wub:

[Hit The North]

Yeah, a lot of this stuff is reminiscent of the Young Hegelians and it's like they've never read The German Ideology. The bottom line is that these critical theorists are not underpinned by real transformative social forces and because ideas don't change society, their radical dreams remain, at best, as utopian schemes. Even when there is an attempt to engage at the level of political action it rarely rises above the level of left-reformism.

Really, it is a return to the limitations of pre-Marxian social criticism, confounded by the influence of academic competition and engaging in an endless semantic reinvention of the wheel.

Personally, I've always found Alex Calinicos to provide a useful analysis of these kinds of theorists and if I was you I would embrace the materialism that is levelled against you and start from there.

If I met Zizek, I'd ask him to stop talking or provide me with a towel.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Personally, I've always found Alex Calinicos to provide a useful analysis of these kinds of theorists

Ha, really? He's been a tenured academic for nearly 40 years. He is the embodiment of ivory tower heterodox theory!

[Red Economist]

I am currently waist-deep in a critical theory program and am struggling with it for multiple reasons.

I can't speak as someone whose engaged with philosophy or critical theory in an academic setting, but I know enough to know I don't envy you. best of luck.
[Quick Note: I've learned philosophy mainly from Marxist sources, so my response may not have the clarity you deserve as a philosophy student. generally, I just improvise and figure out 'what works' logically or in practice so it will lack the systematic approach that comes from degree level education but I hope it's helpful.]


The first is that I am seeing much of our studies as being esoteric, purposefully convoluted, abstract, and meaningless. Perhaps it is my philosophy background which ended with Wittgenstein, but I simply cannot understand why things need be said the way they are. Everything is layers of abstractions upon abstractions, and these abstractions are then praised as profound. This obsession with profundity is tiring. I am more than capable of reading it all and understanding it all, but I am continually frustrated by advocates of things like 'object-oriented ontology.'

If I'm not mistaken there is a strong preference for 'idealist' philosophies at the moment, such as post-modernism and 'deconstruction' of meaning. Whilst this has it's uses, it can never be an end in itself, as it runs off into a purely abstract realm in which practical applications are sacrificed for 'profoundity' as you put it.

I would make the observation that post-modernism (probably) transforms ideas into commodities- the 'use-value' of an idea (how far it correspond to objective truth) is dismissed in favor of it's 'exchange value'; how well it's 'sells' as an 'interpretation' of 'reality'. Post-modernism is a kind of bizzare form of consumerism where what our ideas are is up to the 'consumer' without ever considering their practical implications, validity or truth. In this way, it is very useful as a philosophical form of neoliberalism in that the truth is for sale to the highest bidder- that is, whoever can control by force or persuasion public opinion.
The tendency towards obscuring meaning and emphasizing the 'profoundness' of an intellectual position may well be a form of 'marketing' for intellectual ideas and is a measure of exchange value amongst ideas. i.e. you compare ideas based on how 'profound' they sounds and ascribe a value to them as a result- without ever entering into the realm of 'practical applications' of those ideas.

If you're feeling subversive, I would recommend experimenting with a 'post-modern essay generator' as it clearly demonstrates how easy 'bullshit' can pass for 'profound' ideas because no-one actually knows what you're saying. I'm not suggesting you should submit any of these as your own, but it might give you some creative ideas or just take it less seriously. :grin:

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
(there are several on google search results, but I picked this one as it's just at the top of the list).

Marxism is not immune to being excessively intellectual or abstract, and it has it's failings- but the emphasis on 'practice' in Marxism appears to be a pretty good way of avoiding the drift towards insanity when truth becomes a product of interpretation and the subjectivity of the mind. The downside is that it is a 'dogma' and materialism is an article of faith which has a massive confirmation bias and is based on being relatively self-fulfilling. But it is only a dogma is you hold on to notions of free thought; and sometimes 'free thought' can in practical terms be just too free and blur the distinction between sanity and insanity, rendering someone paralisyed because they're stuck in the world of 'interpretation' rather than practical activity.


The second is that, despite the majority of the writers we are reading being on the left (generally speaking) and many of them professed Marxists, I am not seeing anything of a class analysis, or even an economic-centered analysis, in our discussions. There is ample critique of oppressive things, like the media, technology, etc... but no following through on this critique to anchor it in a material perspective. In fact, even materialism has come under fire in our readings, albeit the critique was very generalized and abstract. If and when I do speak up, my position is characterized as materialist, constructivist, and even positivist.

There are legitimate criticisms and limitations to philosophical materialism in both it's marxian and non-marxian forms. But the real question, is do these criticisms really make any practical difference to the world we live in- or are they simply a novel 'interpretation' of things relative to one's current position. There is something deeply reactionary in over-analysis, over-thinking things which leads to personal paralysis and indecision.

I would refer you to the wikipedia on the page on the 'science wars' so you can see the kind of damage social constructivism is doing in the real world; it is the principle intellectual weapon for reactionary forces to cliam that science is 'just an opinion' and-regardless of the intention of academics- has been employed to re-open the "debate" over creation-evolution and emphasise "scientific uncertianties" in climate change models to prevent the mobilization of public opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

This is not to say that 'human beings' don't play a role in coming up with scientific ideas, but it's just being taken too far, to the point where scientific evidence can be dismissed as not being objectively true and really about scientists being driven by self-interest in wanting more grant money for research etc.

Whilst Orwell criticized 'dialectical materialism' as a form of 'doublethink' in 1984, there is something very similar going on in intellectual and academic circles where philosophical subjectivity and uncertianty is emphasised at the expense of objective truth and is giving space for reactionaries from all sides.



I will be in this program for some time still. Does anyone have any suggestions for better critical theorists? What am I to do with my 'ordinary-language philosophy' leanings? How ought I handle this situation when I perceive the following: despite all the critical knowledge and ability, I don't see anyone having a political vehicle to make change - hence the theory tends to fire off into the dark at many different topics but doesn't ever return to real life.

This is the 'real' problem. I would again stress Marxism emphasis on practice as simply 'useful' if not essential for mental health. The problem here, is that you will probably find yourself going against the grain of the course material and will have to read widely to overcome the legalized insanity of excessive subjectivity and intellectualism.
I know it's not an original source, but for your own research- wikipedia is an invaluable tool for explaining philosophical concepts and giving you a portrait of philosophers and the times they lived in (and hence you can figure out why they might have come up with those ideas). in so far as it can give you the 'breadth' to work you way around the ideas, it is brilliant- but it is self-evidently not a substitute for depth and reading original texts, but at least you'll know where to look for ideas you might want to know more about or would find useful.


And finally, this is unrelated but very important: What would you say to Zizek if you could meet him?

Honestly, I haven't read Zizek, so I don't feel able to comment.

[Thirsty Crow]

I will be in this program for some time still. Does anyone have any suggestions for better critical theorists?Actually, no. The features you mentioned are a hallmark of the Frankfurt School and "critical theory" which is implicitly or explicitly anti-materialist (for almost explicit anti-materialism you can look at the Dialectic of Enlightenment). As for social-political criticism, the basis is the romanticist critique of reason (and with it - common sense, materialism and science; e.g. Marcuse's Reason and Revolution) which ends up in a would-be comprehensive critique of mass producing society (note well, not capitalist mass producing society, but mass producing society in general). I don't think that critical pedagogy Vladimir mentioned has any connection to this sort of thing.

And going off of what Red Economist suggested about reading up on the science wars, I'd also recommend Alan Sokal's work on the (in)famous hoax he did (and some connected works; I can PM you the links if you're interested and hadn't come across it already)


What would you say to Zizek if you could meet him?I wouldn't want to waste my time like that in the first place.

[Hit The North]

Ha, really? He's been a tenured academic for nearly 40 years. He is the embodiment of ivory tower heterodox theory!

He's obviously not just a tenured academic but also a political activist. His approach is to always take seriously the writers he critiques and to direct that critique toward a defence of a more or less orthodox Marxist analysis. How successful he is in this endeavour is debatable but his work at least has the merit of taking on writers like Negri, Badiou and Zizek from a classical Marxist class struggle point of view.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thoughts on Walter Benjamin? Peter Sloterdijk? Agamben? Flusser? Paul Veyne? Simmel? Lefebvre? Bakhtin? Virilio? Bachelard? The list goes on...

I'm quite familiar with Arendt and Foucault, and a bit of Baudrillard as well, so I'm not too worried about these thinkers. McLuhan can be interesting as well. I'd be very interested to hear a shotgun of thoughts on the above-mentioned thinkers as I have relatively no familiarity with them other than what I've read thus far in the class.

Your replies have been very helpful. I think the whole thing can be summed up in LR's line:

comprehensive critique of mass producing society (note well, not capitalist mass producing society, but mass producing society in general).
I find this overwhelmingly true. We even pay lipservice to "capital" consistently, but never will we apply a "profound" critique to the workings of the objectification and commodification of human labor as a mechanism of capitalism (let alone capitalism as exploitation and oppression).

I really appreciate RE's comments on post-modernism and the commodification of ideas. I specifically enjoy the commentary on use-value and the lack-there-of in post-modern critique. This is stunningly accurate as far as I can tell.

So other than a swath of opinions on the thinkers posted above, does no one honestly have any current leftist critical thinkers for me (other than Bell Hooks, Friere, Alex Moore, Alex Calincos, Alan Sokal, ...)? I notice a stunning lack of female thinkers in our cirriculum, non-white thinkers, non-Euro-centric thinkers. I know a lot of this has to do with the nature of upper-echelon academic thought, but I did hope we'd have a broader perspective.

[Hit The North]

Margaret Archer has written interesting stuff from a critical realist pov. But, again, this is academic social theory.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

He's obviously not just a tenured academic but also a political activist. His approach is to always take seriously the writers he critiques and to direct that critique toward a defence of a more or less orthodox Marxist analysis. How successful he is in this endeavour is debatable but his work at least has the merit of taking on writers like Negri, Badiou and Zizek from a classical Marxist class struggle point of view.

His position as a tenured academic arguably holds great sway over both his academic output, and his outlook as a political activist.

I find it hard to take seriously those who profess to be 'revolutionaries', when they hold such a privileged position in capitalist society that arguably it is in their own material interests to maintain the status quo.

[Hit The North]

His position as a tenured academic arguably holds great sway over both his academic output, and his outlook as a political activist.

I find it hard to take seriously those who profess to be 'revolutionaries', when they hold such a privileged position in capitalist society that arguably it is in their own material interests to maintain the status quo.

So you don't take Engels seriously? K.

[Thirsty Crow]

So other than a swath of opinions on the thinkers posted above, does no one honestly have any current leftist critical thinkers for me (other than Bell Hooks, Friere, Alex Moore, Alex Calincos, Alan Sokal, ...)?
Just to offer a brief note, Alan Sokal is a physicist and definitely not primarily known as a leftist theorist; but I'd say that his journey into the make believe land of social constructivism and leftist themed criticism of science is invaluable (while the author actually stresses his allegiance to old school leftism - most probably social democracy - as one of departure points). It's a classic case of a working scientist peering into the philosopher of science's (including the sociologist of science) laboratory to find all sorts of monsters and weird stuff.


So you don't take Engels seriously? K.
Did Engels hold an academic tenure position?

[Hit The North]

No, he had a family interest in actual capitalist means of production. As you know. But thanks for wasting my time :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So you don't take Engels seriously? K.

Engels was exceptional, though, in his association with Karl Marx, and thus in his own significance as a historical figure

It is likely that without Marx, Engels would not hold the same status amongst the revolutionary left that he does currently, although admittedly he produced some groundbreaking works of his own.

I fail to see what is exceptional about Callinicos. He is a tenured academic, he is a leader of a pretty lamentable and irrelevant party and is a rather insignificant figure amongst the current left milieu, nevermind in history.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am currently waist-deep in a critical theory program and am struggling with it for multiple reasons.
The first is that I am seeing much of our studies as being esoteric, purposefully convoluted, abstract, and meaningless. Perhaps it is my philosophy background which ended with Wittgenstein, but I simply cannot understand why things need be said the way they are. Everything is layers of abstractions upon abstractions, and these abstractions are then praised as profound. This obsession with profundity is tiring. I am more than capable of reading it all and understanding it all, but I am continually frustrated by advocates of things like 'object-oriented ontology.'

I don't think it's a matter of the authors purposefully trying to be "profound", but assuming that the reader is familiar with (and accepts in broad outlines the theories of) people like Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty etc. OOO is a good example - prima facie its claim is something so childishly simple any materialist would accept it without even thinking about it. What it actually is is a dense attempt to "correct" Heidegger in one sense. Which means that, if you didn't particularly care for Heidegger and his tool-beings in the first place, you aren't likely to see any value in that.



The second is that, despite the majority of the writers we are reading being on the left (generally speaking) and many of them professed Marxists, I am not seeing anything of a class analysis, or even an economic-centered analysis, in our discussions. There is ample critique of oppressive things, like the media, technology, etc... but no following through on this critique to anchor it in a material perspective. In fact, even materialism has come under fire in our readings, albeit the critique was very generalized and abstract. If and when I do speak up, my position is characterized as materialist, constructivist, and even positivist.

Which just shows the level of confusion some of these people have about materialism, when they conflate it with positivism (!). And it's not as if "constructivism" means anything, mostly it's a label people throw at other people they don't like.

I think Stalinism is as far "left" as you're going to get with these people. Most of them, for all their impressive and r-r-revolutionary verbiage, are social-democrats at best.


I will be in this program for some time still. Does anyone have any suggestions for better critical theorists? What am I to do with my 'ordinary-language philosophy' leanings? How ought I handle this situation when I perceive the following: despite all the critical knowledge and ability, I don't see anyone having a political vehicle to make change - hence the theory tends to fire off into the dark at many different topics but doesn't ever return to real life.

No, I think a lot of these things - rhizoma, becoming-minor etc. - do have practical implications (otherwise they would be meaningless), but the implications are social-democratic and worse. I don't know, have you read any Rorty? His politics are pretty shit, but he's close to both "critical theory" and what used to be called analytical philosophy when I was young.



And finally, this is unrelated but very important: What would you say to Zizek if you could meet him?

Đes' sine oćemo na ćevape?

[Hit The North]

Engels was exceptional, though, in his association with Karl Marx, and thus in his own significance as a historical figure

It is likely that without Marx, Engels would not hold the same status amongst the revolutionary left that he does currently, although admittedly he produced some groundbreaking works of his own.

I fail to see what is exceptional about Callinicos. He is a tenured academic, he is a leader of a pretty lamentable and irrelevant party and is a rather insignificant figure amongst the current left milieu, nevermind in history.

Lol, I'm getting the idea you don't like the guy.

But you might remember that I recommended his work as a possible assist in navigating a path through the confusion of contemporary social theory; I havent suggested we elevate him to a figure of historical importance. So your opinion of him and the SWP is neither here nor there. You could offer a critique of his work, that might add something to this thread.

Meanwhile, if communism is the achievement of a fully humnan society, isn't it in every human being's material interest, whether they realise it themselves? Obviously, this might apply even to the most tenured academic.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I fail to see what is exceptional about Callinicos. He is a tenured academic, he is a leader of a pretty lamentable and irrelevant party and is a rather insignificant figure amongst the current left milieu, nevermind in history.
The connection between a thinker and his actions is too complex in general to be reduced to politics, however reactionary they might be. If it could, we'd be in a position to render judgment on Callinicos without reading his actual work. Is this what you're doing? Because if so, your position is absurd.