Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Claire Lehmann | Why Does Critical Theory Dominate Academia? |
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2024
- Claire Lehmann is the founder and editor of online magazine Quillette. Quillette is a platform for free thought. Free expression and the free exchange of ideas help human societies flourish and progress.
Claire discusses the overtaking of critical theory in the education systems of the West, and the impacts of bias in the classrooms of our younger generations.
View the full conversation here: • Free Thought | Claire ...
#CriticalTheory #Academia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: www.youtube.co....
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.n...
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Support the channel: johnanderson.n...
Website: johnanderson.n...
Podcast: johnanderson.n...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Lehmann and Quillette:
clairelehmann....
/ clairlemon
quillette.com/
/ quillettem
/ quillette
Horkheimer's "Traditional and Critical Theory" is a bit hard to get hold of these days, but here's the gist: Max Horkheimer decided that the Marxist revolution was not coming. The bourgeois democracies had adapted capitalism to turn the workers into consumers, not revolutionaries. This was an ad hoc power grab by the "ruling class" to maintain power. Horkheimer decided that all of Western civilization was made up of layers of these ad hoc power grabs. So, he developed "Critical Theory." A critical theory is 3 things:
1. Explanatory. That is, it explains what is wrong with society (as opposed to a Traditional theory, which explains how the world works).
2. Practical: That is, applicable in real-world activism by dedicated activists (this is why it took over academia, where dedicated activists train more dedicated activists, like virus-replication). Activists seek to change the world with corrosive, cynical criticism aimed at all the ad hoc power grabs that make up all of society.
3. Normative. Or, highly moralistic. Good v. evil, etc...
Thanks. The American "brand" is full of superficial haters whose thinking ends beyond the shaudenfreude of infecting government, businesses and public schools. If our Justice Dept here wasn't infected by it's own corrupt ideology investigations and prosecutions for RICO violations or other creative avenues would be used to save us from these godforsaken nihilists.
I miss you so very much, RFK.
God, please enhance our discernment.
I see.
Outstanding comment. Hat-tip.
wow, I'll save your comment
Critical theory is imbecilic, but in its stupidity lies its strength. Students who process through a college or university are primarily interested in getting a good paying job on a stable career path. If you aren't very bright or poorly educated (and the elementary and secondary school system in the US excels at producing functionally illiterate graduates with poor mathematical skills), then a degree in Sociology, Social Work or Gender Studies is a good choice of major. You can bullshit your way through four years of coursework, and if you show the right aptitude for bootlicking and regurgitation and the proper lack of scruples, you can have a bright career as a government employee in the entitlements industry. Compare that to the considerably greater effort, greater expense for the university, and uncertainty of a job for college graduates in the hard sciences.
"Playing the game to get through" that's exactly what the problem is, in the media, entertainment, city councils and so on.
You can't become a teacher in Canada any more without going along with the Left ideology. My daughter couldn't do it and is now studying engineering.
Math and engineering probably strong in communist countries for the same reason.
@David Hilderman, part of engineering is being as impartial and as neutral, which used to be called objective, before this current onslaught of Leftist, Communistic ideologies.
In all of the provinces? I ask this because here in Alberta youth generally don't take to Leftist ideas.
@@lupinthethird5784 unfortunately universities in Alberta are just as bad.
@@davidhilderman I suppose I forgot how much outside influence Alberta has with regards to its educators. Possibly people from other provinces (mostly Ontario) reworking education here.
Frankfurt School of cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse. In his essay, "Repressive Tolerance", he essentially gave a justification to the sentiment: "Don't engage, just ban. Discussion simply reinforces the power structures you are trying to overthrow."
James Lindsay is reading and explaining "Repressive Tolerance" in a multi-part series on his podcast New Discourses.
@@josephv8102 Thanks Joseph, I will look into that.
In other words, "I can't win the debate, but I can prevent the debate from occurring". Essentially, he is admitting he is a thug rather than an intellectual with a persuasive argement to offer.
Good point.
@@wboquist I remember watching a TV interview Marcuse gave on one of his occasional visits to Germany and saying to myself, "What a world-class narcissist."
Of the various issues discussed in this video my attention was drawn by John Anderson's observation that cultural marxism has found its way from Academia into, among other places, the boardroom. My final ten years of working life was as an employee of a large Housing Association in the U.K. During that period there was a rapid politicisation of the workplace. new departments were opened dealing specifically with 'Inclusion', 'Diversity', and 'Gay Rights' etc, none of which were the driving force as to residents' reasons for choosing to live in Retirement Housing. People of all types and inclinations and cultures chose to live in such accommodation because it was comfortable, generally well-maintained and offered security and privacy, as well as a sense of community for those who were naturally gregarious. Residents did not become such because they wanted to engage in political or cultural dogfights. The Association's claims that they were acting on behalf of residents who felt in some way alienated within their 'community' was entirely disingenious.
What I personally found to be both galling and pathetic was that it seemed that the great majority of the staff of this (and other) big employers, clearly take their moral compass from the pronouncements of their employer. I say 'pathetic' because if the employer promoted a moral mindset which was the total opposite to the one they actually do promote, the workforce would have just as automatically accept the axioms so presented. It is, sadly, typical of the world at large that millions people have no moral foundation of their own, no aptitude for self knowledge or insight, and no energy for thorough inquiry of their own stated 'beliefs'. They build their entire world view on the pronouncements of those 'in authority' over them, i.e. their employers, or the Media.
One might also observe the constant anti-nationhood comments from characters in soap operas, such as Eastenders, quite slyly inserted into the script.
Very well stated. My experience working with gvt and their parasites, Quangos/NGOs, was very similar. What started as an innocuous box-ticking exercise in demographics, a sop to the minority noisy wheels, transformed into a driving force against the whole collective's interest.
All orchestrated and maintained by puppets = the 'lazy millions who have no moral foundation, insight, self-knowledge...'
Well said. Netflix is similarly infused with wokism. Unwatchable now.
As Thomas Sowell said
"The last couple of generations have been raised
to consider facts as optional"
Herein lies one of the serious problems with so called academia
I disagree .
It's not about facts so much but about how they are only used to serve an ideological goal .
If they do not serve the purpose (political, ideological) then they are just ignored.
Seems like everyone in university 'plays the game', ie. they learn what they need to spout, what assessors want to hear, and they spit that out. It's all about the scores, not about learning.
As one of millions that were forced to school at home, I concur. For those parents paying attention, it begins early. I can tell you that we spend more time trying to decipher much of the incredibly nonsensical work, then trying to give the answer that the work is seeking rather than actual learning. Then we spend time countering all the propaganda, including "social studies", which used to be actual history, and even the insane math which involves much redefining of terms, just to name a few. In fact, all of a sudden we received math work that requires both division and multiplication, of which was never previously taught. What my child knows is from what I have taught him. To parents paying attention, this "homeschooling" has provided an incredible opportunity to see what is actually going on in the classroom and hopefully, do something about it.
I learned that in High School while I was studying brainwashing.
Where are we at when the basics of critical thinking and inquiry has to be explained to 'academics'.
Stop giving them free money. It's not being used for good.
Yes. If you don't like cockroaches, stop feeding them.
The thing is it's our money, our taxes, that are spent on these useless bastards
You cant do that, since if you say that .. people will say "Oh you are against education?" thats the beauty of it. They have literally rigged the system.
I work in critical theory, I know many critical theorists in academia. The idea that critical theory "dominates" academia is laughable. And, yes, some reactionaries use "critical theory" as code for their imagined opposition within their version of the culture wars, but coded labels aren't a reflection of reality. There are many, many things wrong in academia, but critical theory, which has no power and no significant weight in academia, is not one of them. Which means that what you should be asking is why is someone trying to trick you into believing something that's not true.
Try standing up at a Uni and publicly rejecting BLM, Femunism, Climate change and the worship of Aboriginal culture. See how tolerant your institution is of diversity.
@@jonahtwhale1779 I have just received more intolerance from you than I have in my 22 years of teaching at university. You truly have no clue.
"Critical Theory" is academic wokespeak for "socialism".
lmao
Wrong. Putting aside the fact that you likely don't even know what Critical Race Theory 'is' (how could your untutored ears know? Note how Claire just dances around the term, playing to the audience's fanciful imagination), you actually are swallowing wholesale the garbled neoliberal worldview that Claire and John actually unwittingly spring from and endorse. Socialism actual 'is' the better goal to aim for amid all the troubles of our age, precisely because the neoliberal Reaganite worldview which conservatives have been pushing for the past 40 years now burns before our eyes. Rampant wealth inequality, civic engagement replaced with petty baronies of privilege and despair, strong men with magical solutions who scapegoat the usual groups for society's problems (immigrants, minorities, 'the foreign enemy'), all the while both ivory tower profs and right-wing nut jobs argue about self-contained culture issues that keep both afloat in an artificial environment. What Claire can't bring herself to tell you is that there is no going back to the good old 1980's or just putting the slightly off-hing Trumpers back in the box. There is only social democracy or corporate fascism in the free countries, and the critical issues of the day do in fact implicate white supremacy, predatory capitalism, and American imperialism, a trifectum that complicates all the debates you hear from the pundit class and which self-serving viewers pick apart as they please. No, Nicholas, wealth must be redistributed downward to correct for the massive upward redistribution of wealth over the past 40 years. Endless growth is a thing of the past. Socialism as a general idea is now a live option however its various proponents choose to define it (and its opponents to corrupt it). You are not yet woke, because you cannot even recognize dreams from reality.
It really isn't socialism.
It's more like "liberal democracy" that Soros wants.
If it was real socialism the Billionares would not support it!
@@karlheven8328 Or maybe they merely want a new variant of it where, instead of just politicians, oligarchs also have their fingers in the pie. There have been many variants of socialism, all resulting in tyrannies. That's why the Nouvelle Philosophes rejected the ideology en masse already in the 1960/70s, calling it fascist by nature - the Reich was bursting at the seams with oligarchs.
@@nicopohl2060 but should one then still call it socialism when really it may look more like crony capitalism in conjunction with elite rule.
Great video. Thanks for posting, from a fan in the U.S.
Totally agree with the points that John and Claire are making.
Taking sides doesn't mean "not being objective". Critical theorists are taking side of the oppressed, of the marginalized.
Could the answer be in evolutionary psychology? Since women are more inclined to collectivism for biological reasons (typically they're not attracted to hard labor such as the trades, so they vote for policies that protect them as a collective,) and women are also now more dominant in academia obtaining the majority of social science degrees which suit their particular tastes in professions such as therapists and social workers?
why not? And as a woman, I was particularly prone to being brainwashed by this ideology because I just wanted to be nice. Being nice and inclusive is a trait that is highly common in females. I'm not saying this is the objective truth, I am just entertaining the possibility of it based on my observation of the spaces I have been in. Many fandoms full of women are more likely to be highly protective of each other and the vulnerable. I believe this is a fertile ground for such virulent ideologies to thrive like parasites. Academia on the other hand.. I wonder... hmm... I listened to a conversation between Jordan Peterson and and Camille Paglia and she described how instead of scientists, literature faculty was roped into the gender studies/womens' studies departments in the early stages. ruclips.net/video/v-hIVnmUdXM/видео.html
Perhaps that could have been the fish head that initiated the decline of empirical rigour in such fields.
I strongly feel the danger came from the lack of scientific and empirical approaches to "women's studies" or "gender studies". If the initial establishments of such schools were based on literature, which is more subjective than say, physics or statistics, then, it's possible that there's the answer. :( :( :(
@@kasvinimuniandy4178 Exactly, being nurturing and inclusive and accepting of others is a more common trait in women, so much so that excess of niceness and acceptance in society can manifest as stringent political correctness.
@@kasvinimuniandy4178 I agree with your assessment.
@@diegoosorio7133 but one has to distinguish between collectivism of totalitarian proportions and collectivism in a liberal way.
It seems to me we are using the word "political" when we should be using "religious" or "value hierarchy."
Imagine being in the court system and we had to pick a side without any evidence -> family law.
yup.
Claire's 'dominant narrative' is inherently a moral system grounded on a set of axioms about how reality works in relation to us. As such, personal revelation as a means of knowing reality is axiomatic whereas the scientific method and a means of knowing reality is not.
Genuine Q - what are those axioms please?
@@iggle6448 Istly, that 'systemic power' exists.
2ndly, that 'dominance' exists as an expression of that power. 3rdly, oppression exists as a result of that dominance.
There are others, but these are the fundamental ones.
The only reason it is not as big a problem in Australia is because it is already so accepted. Your population is already amiable to social justice principles due to early indoctrination
Normies just don't want to know about "that stuff", they believe it's bs, doesn't happen or it's fake news.
From what I've seen, and the people I interact with, they do nothing until the hand is on their shoulder, then they scream bloody murder. "Don't look at me, I warned you" is usually my reply.
I'm conflicted about the term "critical theory" and how it's used today, because I took a class in critical theory in college. But it was an English class, and it dealt with analyzing written works, or films, to write reviews of them. It had nothing to do with political agendas. It was more like basic composition, in that we focused on expressing an opinion about a piece, and then providing examples to support that opinion-learning the difference between saying, "This piece is crap" and "This piece is crap, because of this, this, and this."
Critique in general has its place. In critical theory, it refers specifically to Marxist critique, which is inherently dishonest.
@@peterg76yt Very true, the context is important. Just that today, "critical theory" generally has a negative connotation.
Oh my God, an interview that isn't REMOTE.. this is so refreshing
You can say that again.
That's because it dates from way before the current pandemic.
@@DieFlabbergast oh I thought it recent because it was just posted, how did you know?
@@DieFlabbergast I did notice that she sounded a bit dated. Abd true: no mention of the ndemic and of the draconian Victoria policies.
It is remote. You're watching it on RUclips.
Critical Theory would not be so bad if it was used purely as a means of genuine unbiased research and not for political manipulation. The way it is used however is that it starts with a hypothesis, or you could say a conclusion, then deconstructs and criticises the society or whatever it wishes to critique with reference to the hypothesis. Therefore every aspect is examined in order to find that which is bad or negative about it order to end up with a construct of that society or aspect of it that portrays it in a way to suit the hypothesis. It only applies the standard of critique to those parts that suit their purpose.
@Old School Counselor The theory not so much as their proponents.
Why wasn't anyone talking about Frankfurt School 20-30 years ago? Back then everyone was talking about Bilderberg. Isn't it strange that lately the Frankfurt stuff has emerged? Why so late?
The only people talking about the Frankfurt School 20-30 years ago were the "conspiracy theorists", and no-one listens to them until they are right 20-30 years later.
@@happyhappyslapslap No I meant nobody was talking about Frankfurt School 20-30 years ago, I knew quite a few conspiracy theorists back then and looked into stuff too and nowhere did I come across anything to do with Gramsci or the Frankfurt School back then. Gramsci and the Frankfurt seem to have appeared only recently when people talk about Marxism and conspiracy etc. That's my question, why was nobody talking about Frankfurt School and Gramsci 20-30 years ago? It's weird that literally NOBODY was mentioning him decades ago.
@@beheadingbuddha4256 Well . . . Frankfurst School was a bit late on the scene ---Fabianism (based on Marxism) preceded it by many decades.
@@TheMaryaBell But the point is, if the Frankfurt guys were so influential, why didn't the conspiracy theorists talk about them during the 1990s? I knew plenty of Bilderberg sceptics and conspiracy types in the 1990s and NOBODY ever mentioned Frankfurt or Gramsci. Don't you think that's weird? It's as though the Frankfurt Skool and Gramsci suddenly got included in the story of globalism only very recently for some reason. It's odd. I don't doubt the whole globalist Marxist thing, but this sudden, recent fixation on Frankfurt does not match what was being talked about a few decades ago.
@@beheadingbuddha4256 Maybe because conspiracy theorists DID not go to college and therefore have no access to these Theories and did not even notice their rise.
Bilderberg on the other hand is a big nothing burger, because it just shows what everyone already knows (that the rich and powerful are well connected.)
Another very informative interview! Critical theory seems to be predicated upon hatred and divisiveness with many other negative characteristics. I've been reading Marx and I am appalled at the miserable lives of the workers in the mills and factories of industrial Britain. That was part my heritage. My convict grandfather carried Captain Arthur Phillip ashore at Sydney Cove in 1788. He thrived; becoming a wealthy landowner and was appointed the colony's Chief Constable. History, no matter how terrible, must be revered, not obliterated.
Well, what would you expect Marx to say? Remember, no workers were forced to work in their job. That's slavery. Britain achieved freedom and liberty of conscience in the 17th Century. And although hard, it enable anyone to pick up and go -- to find something better. Your grandfather did.
Yes the workers lives were terrible. However, they were preferable to all the other alternatives open to them. There was huge population transfer from the country to these terrible cities. A bit like we see in China or Vietnam today. Horrible working conditions but people are queuing up to take these jobs as the alternatives are worse!
@@jonahtwhale1779 You are assuming that country living was worse. Who says so? It was not worse; just different tradeoffs. No one forced them to go to the cities, let alone stay there. Think about what you are assuming.
@@egverlander Work here or you starve. Nobody's forcing you though! Lmao.
Who says country living was worse? The millions of people who left the countryside to live in the cities. We can still see this today in every ddeveloping country - Brazil, South Africa, China etc. People fl8cking into the cities and living v in shanty towns around the edges of the cities. Horrible but better t than where they have lived in the countryside.
Hi, critical theorist here. Just for argument's accuracy, citical theorists do not deny truth at all, we just argue that truth is historical and ever changing. Also, quite precise historical evidence shows how universities got prestige and founding because they claimed neutrality, not because they had it. (you can read that in Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World System, vol. IV). I, and many other theorists, would indeed argue that neutrality and objectivity are historical, but not that they are non-existent or meaningless or useless. Truth as objective knowledge is an epistemic invention of the XIX century (empirical historical evidence in the book Objectivity, by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison). We don't argue for the erosion of institutions or relativity, but we do ask how does neutral science was achieved? How come scientists managed to trascend history, culture, economy and politics and get to a place of total objectivity? I am genuinely asking, and would appreciate an honest debate.
Civilization is not a static thing, rather a process and in this process it has always excluded one for the sake of another....
Ironically this channel and videon comment section is an entire safe space where everyone can express and have their views confirmed by everyone else. Where no critical thinking occurs. It looks like a bunch of 60+ sour boomers who were treated badly as kids by their teachers/parents and now expresses their hatred towards academica in the same manner. I feel almost sorry for you.
Eadiest way to preempt critical race theory and save your kids?
1. ALWAYS tell them the truth ,(so they know as firmly as the sky is blue that they can trust you)
2. Tell them teachers are powertripping ideologues not to be argued or questioned or even engaged, but to be obeyed.
3. Teach them to yes their teachers (tell them what they want to hear) to get the A out of them.
4. Tell them to come afterschool to you for real information and for questions.
Seems to work just fine with my daughter (last one was they were telling her driving short distances was a sin, and that her white skin somehow trumps her Mexican heritage/upbringing/culture but that somehow does not seem to apply to a Chinese or Korean.....)
The time for talking is through. These loonies are busy doing whilst we are talking. Time to act.
I prefer the most honest engagement. Direct power concepts.
@Eoinn MacRiocard
When learning to swim, start at the shallow end.
By act I hope you don't mean anything particularly violent.
@Hansi Reichardtsohn
No.
@@lupinthethird5784 no, I mean start. Pressuring politicians, vote with your wallet, battle for change.
We have reached the ‘Reality Inflection Point‘ where it’s almost impossible to distinguish between satire and reality.
Critical Theory with its denigration of truth and facts has put all of academia on a slippery slope from criticizing to outright lying and bullsh!tting:
Dishonesty is an integral part of our social world, influencing domains ranging from finance and politics to personal relationships. Anecdotally, digressions from a moral code are often described as a series of small breaches that grow over time. Here we provide empirical evidence for a gradual escalation of self-serving dishonesty and reveal a neural mechanism supporting it. Behaviorally, we show that the extent to which participants engage in self-serving dishonesty increases with repetition. Using functional MRI, we show that signal reduction in the amygdala is sensitive to the history of dishonest behavior, consistent with adaptation. Critically, the extent of reduced amygdala sensitivity to dishonesty on a present decision relative to the previous one predicts the magnitude of escalation of self-serving dishonesty on the next decision. The findings uncover a biological mechanism that supports a 'slippery slope': what begins as small acts of dishonesty can escalate into larger transgressions.
THE BRAIN ADAPTS TO DISHONESTY
Neil Garrett, Stephanie C Lazzaro, Dan Ariely, Tali Sharot
Nat Neurosci. 2016 Dec;19(12):1727-1732
Excellent post. Thanks for the suggestion. I’m ordering that book. Sure does explain the leftist democrats and liberals in the US.
I see it’s not a book. Oh well, still ordering it.
www.nature.com/articles/nn.4426
@Eoinn MacRiocard funny about my name. It’s just a name. Lol. 🙄
Actually they don’t at all. That’s just the narrative the MSM has created. I and nobody I know had ever read, heard, seen anything from a Q.
@Eoinn MacRiocard you might want to read Ivermectin’s comment above. It explains the leftist democrats and liberals. It’s a scientific document so you won’t be able to argue against it since that’s against your religion of Scientism.
@Eoinn MacRiocard … “It’s gibberish“ is not an argument
@@earlyivermectincancelscovi2522 The utterance says more about its producer than about the ostensible object of critique.
Impartiality, reason, and objectivity don't even matter in Critical Theory. The two primary underlying themes are moral/cultural relativity, which then brings up the second theme of power struggle. Since morality is a social construct and there are relative views on universal truth that are largely normalized and institutionalized by those with power...it is in fact power that dictates what is perceived as truth. That is why cultural marxism is a natural accompaniment since it allows them to pit minorities against the majority in an effort to centralize power, radicalize society, and increase manipulability. This is also why religion is attacked and perverted with intensity since asserts there is a higher power than the state or its institutions that all must acknowledge.
@Geoff Wilkins No, it is what you learn if you want to be able to understand modern philosophies and be able to debate them. Plus, Critical Theory makes its way into everything including international politics, which is what I study.
But John, they are not concerned about objectivity - its the exact opposite and Claire - they won't lose funding bc those that they have trained have moved into the funding bodies and will continue to fund their own ideologues; a self-serving circle.
Hahaha i just read this comment. I basically said the exact same thing you did, just with different words in a 'reply' comment above. I agree the funding will never dry up
@@sminter7521 That is bc you don't have an Aboriginal brother in law who agrees with my ideas.
@@hariseldon3786 You got that right! lmao
I like speakers who maintain an audible volume. I'm too busy for speakers' tactics of dropping their volume as if they have special words and want listeners to draw near & attend very carefully.
There's a kind of, admittedly light, but all the same existent, parallel, between how various areas of philosophy, for being 'critical' of structures of whatever, are seen as, as the man himself here quickly said, 'disparaging', and the way the current Russian regime, for merely one example, thinks criticism amounts to treachery and treason. Some things simply don't necessarily follow from others unless you're jumping to paranoid oversimplifications. Various frameworks of thinking and organisation are critiqued, criticised, dismantled, etc., etc., because none of them are the full substantive richness of our actual reality, literally none of them (not even 'socialism', or even the never quite defined 'cultural marxism', or yet even 'critical theory', if it could be mistaken for a description, or even imposition of one, as it obviously so much is), yet this doesn't mean that the critique, criticism, even total dismantling, or even total rejection as no longer relevant, means that the object of that is necessarily condisered to not have a worthy place, either in history, or in the present day, or manifestations or functions of itself that aren't very, very valuable, or had or have their very good use in their particular context. Every context is not completely the full one, no model is infinitely nuanced, structures inevitably, even starting from the best places, start to carry themselves along by their own momentum and become the cart pulling the horse, and ones that we can clearly see as just oppressive for us now had some sort of necessary function in some context somehere or somewhen or both or whatever, and it's in the nature of intelligent humans to dig deep down to critique them and shift them forever onward to newer structures, equally criticizable, to stay healthy. This is basically the very 'logos' that Jordan Peterson likes to talk about. The whole focus on 'disparaging' and the other attacks made on basically the discipline of philosophy by people who have only the vaguest shallow representation of at best the surface of it, is mildly reminiscent, in its insistent negativity towards who it's talking about, of Putin calling those who don't just support what he says is 'true Russian culture' and its unity behind his interpretation of it as 'traitors to be spit out like flies'. Things are quickly said here like, 'one has to also change [society]', 'who question the very concept of truth', 'the very foundations of our civilization are undermined', 'everything about our civilization has harmed other peoples', 'no recognition of any of the achievements', but that simply isn't the reality of what they are criticising here. Basically untrue. Their view of it is incredibly shallow, and seemingly devoid of real engagement in what they're complaining about. That they can find a few hundred angry young students who maybe talk like this, among the far more hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who take the ideas properly seriously, just proves how superficially they're looking at the problem. They are actually even attacking a natural and inevitable, very organic aspect of the proper extension of western culture in this type of very rigorous stripping down of structures to get to the creative elements at the core of western civilization that provide the creativity and sane self-reflection and progress that it has enjoyed. They would have wanted to shut Socrates up in his day for his 'negativity'. The view they have of professors in this field accross academia in the western world is just a totally misrepresentative, cartoonish caricature. It really is close to these current extreme Russian nationalists just not understanding what the west is and thinking we're all perverts and satanists. Don't forget too, though there's plenty else these people and other critics haven't even noticed because it seems they haven't even read what they might find on Google about it, that a huge part of the context of the Frankfurt School was their finding themselves in Nazi Germany, and preserving a rigorous thinking that opposed its repressions. They are not tearing down the west; it's a paranoid delusion, with a mission to 'rid our universities of this blight' not far off as deluded as Putin's fantasies about the majority of Ukrainians being Nazis. And a very key thing here is that the whole foundation of the feeling of the worthiness of talking about this, is the belief that the mere spreading of ideas is what makes people what they are, and 'bad ideas' must be not allowed traction, and criticism and opposition is 'disparaging', reminiscent of Russia's law against 'discrediting of the armed forces'. That's so contrary to respect for western culture and its intelligence, and also its spirit of free inquiry and freedom of expression. Those Russian nationalists really believe they're defending themselves against something (though Putin knew and knows its not really true), so did the Nazis, and we see a lot of that longing for an enemy to be pulled out of nowhere here too. This isn't as narrow and far gone as them, just the beginnings, but its in the same direction. Yeah, you can find so called 'culturally Marxist social justice warriors' with as egregious attitudes towards freedom, but that isn't critical theory, post-modernism, etc., etc. It's a phantom, a paranoid projection onto a forced oversimplified reality, heading in the direction of witch-hunt. The core of this is simply: 'they question the frameworks of value in our culture, thus they are the enemy of our culture, and should be brought down', but its the very questioning that keeps the culture alive and creative and improving, the very core value that supposedly distinguishes the west from mrakobesy like Putin's worshippers.
Great discourse, Clair is a superstar!
In America at least the covid lockdowns have revealed the universities as the emperor with no clothes.
how?
@@search4psychoactive64 Primarily because you suddenly realize that you are pay ridiculous amounts of money for a zoom class. Then you start to realize that these zoom classes aren't so different from watching a lecture on youtube. I would argue that there is more knowledge to be gained in a single Jordan Peterson youtube video, or these excellent John Anderson ones, than an entire semester of classes at a university and these are FREE. Also, with all the zoom classes, things are being shared and seen by people outside of the universities and it has revealed for us all the ridiculous biases and things being taught. Universities seem determined to indoctrinate, not educate.
A few observations: Claire is such a beautiful woman. Just great features, I love looking at her. Secondly, Australian universities have different problems than American and European universities in that they are in part captured by the Chinese foreign student population. The upper crust of CCP members send their children to be educated in the Anglosphere (Canada, US, UK, Australia, etc). Because of this they are at least in part participating in a marketplace that is dependent on a foreign nation and its ideological wishes. With regard to the French post-structuralists and post-modernists, their examinations were valuable, but not meant to be prescriptive. The entanglement with "social justice" is an entirely activist invention. It's cynically used to point out flaws in a system without the true intent of fixing them. You see this with weird trans national alliances (BLM for some reason has a position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc). In essence, it's critique without a moral perspective, or with a cheaply manufactured pseudo moral perspective. Finally, the phenomenon of hating your own culture and history has been coined as "oikophobia." Oikophobia is a method of virtue signaling in a post-religious world. It is a largely subconscious practice that is equal parts narcissism, politicking, and moralizing.
Look up James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose for a more solid description of the foundations of critical theory and post-modern critical theory.
Because building things is difficult while tearing them apart is easy. So all the mediocrities that now flood the university system latch onto all they are capable of doing, breaking down what greater minds have built.
Yup, a lot of pseudo-intellectual narcissists in universities.
Great discussion.we need to get rid of government funded and accredited education. When was the last time you heard of gov funding to study classical humanities without the agenda slant.
You think Mark Zuckerberg or Google fund the universities to study morality, ethics and concepts like Privacy?
One of the best deconstruction of critical theory ive seen!
Answer in 1 word: SUBVERSION
There is only change. Context is the Rubicon. Content is the knowledge. Gaming is the skill.
7:09 "and their funding will dry up - potentially." Famous last word…
The most important thing I take away from this is " play the game to get through ".
I am 63 , still working and we have inservice training coming up concerning Cultural Awareness.
I used to go against this but now i am almost the go to guy as i show super awareness and enthusiasm , walk out the room , and put my own views back on .
Job done.
Be carefull, many Germans 90 years ago thought and behaved the same way. Did'nt work out well!
The Frankfurt School was based on a rejection of Marx, despite appearances to the contrary. It was a stepping stone to the post-modernists.
It’s not the fault of the two speakers here they don’t understand this. The mythology around the Frankfurt School is so pervasive they don’t recognise they are imbued with it.
The repeated unattributed quoting of one of Marx’s theses of Feuerbach - “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” - just demonstrates this.
I recommend reading the following:
A letter and reply on Theodor Adorno
Stefan Steinberg 9 November 2009
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/11/ador-n09.html
EXTRACT
... From the very start of his work as a leading member of the Frankfurt School, Adorno rejected the basic maxim of Marxism, which stresses the primacy of economic relations in determining social and political relations. Both Adorno and the head of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer, regarded such a standpoint as inadequate to explain new political phenomena, in particular the emergence of fascism in Germany. Drawing from the work of Sigmund Freud, they sought to explain the rise of National Socialism predominantly through psychosocial factors.
Instead of seeking to determine the roots for the emergence of fascism in the play of living political forces and parties against a background of economic crisis, the leading members of the Frankfurt School authored essays and undertook a series of sociological studies to explain a conclusion they had already drawn-i.e., the complete political impotence of the working class.
In his notes and writings published under the title Twilight (1928-1934), Horkheimer titles one section, “The Impotence of the German Working Class.” Already by this time, he had concluded that the integration of the working class into the capitalist process of production rendered it unviable as an agent for socialism. Adorno agreed with this position. In his history of the Frankfurt School, Rolf Wiggerhaus concludes with regard to this period: “None of them [the leaders of the Frankfurt School] put any hopes in the working class…Adorno expressly denied that the working class had any progressive role to play.” (The Frankfurt School-Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, MIT Press, 1992, p. 123)
While denying the economic and political roots of fascism and writing off the working class as an agency for progressive change, Adorno’s position with regard to Stalinism was no better.
In line with the standpoint adopted by many left-wing German intellectuals exiled by fascism-i.e., “As long as Hitler is alive, there can be no criticism of Stalin!”-Adorno explicitly advocated silence over Stalin’s monstrous suppression of the Left Opposition.
At the height of the Moscow Trials Adorno advised, “At the moment the most loyal position is to keep quiet.” In a letter to Horkheimer, he pleads that the group should “keep discipline and publish nothing which could lead to Russia being harmed.”
...
But he was a socialist, was he not?
I mean he was only against the working class as an AGENT OF CHANGE because it was obvious that it could not fulfill this role.
Therefore the change had to come from the top (Academia).
THis would mean that he was not a marxist, but who agreed with the fundamental goal of marxists! Just that was less focused on the economy than on class and hierarchy.
@@karlheven8328 What you say seems to me to sumarise Adorno's position it also raised the fundamental issues. As far as I know Adorno never said he wasn't a Marxist but his position was Marx's critique had been superseded by the developments of capitalism. (see www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1968/late-capitalism.htm)
----
I think it was Kautsky who first said that socialist consciousness must be brought into the working class. It was Lenin who clarified the type party of party that was required to do this and fight the opportunist adaptation to alien class forces that inevitably express themselves in the working class.
Adorno's objectivist view on the working class didn't mean he had no view on this. His silence on the crimes of Stalinism against the workers movement in the 1930s was effectively a support for Stalinism.
Why do you say "it was obvious that it could not fulfill this role."? Obvious to whom?
---
For the question of the relationship of Marxism to the working class the following is an excellent place to start:
Lenin’s Theory of Socialist Consciousness: The Origins of Bolshevism and What Is To Be Done?
www.wsws.org/en/special/library/russian-revolution-unfinished-twentieth-century/08.html
The revolutionary wheel missed a round of mccarthyism
The current cancel culture is societal McCarthyism.
McCarthy did nothing wrong.
Everyone he accused ended up being a traitorous commie.
@Eoinn MacRiocard yeah, they were.
@Eoinn MacRiocard is this the right room for an arguement?
@Eoinn MacRiocard it absolutely is!
1. The academic canon is not by any means contradicted by criticisms. In fact, criticism lies at the heart of the canon. 2. Non-recognition of achievements is such a different subject matter that it is in fact a straw man. In fact, until you started talking, the academic canon had, amongst academicians, a negative connotation because it suggests a lack of change which is the central motif of academia. All human knowledge is and must remain in a state of constant change. Criticism is at the heart of change. Critical theory then, is a manifestation of the language and methodologies of examining received wisdom critically in order to accelerate the change that must exist in order that academia can continue to do its job, that of pursuit and maintenance of constantly changing body of human knowledge.
anyone throwing me a pity party or calling me a PoC will get their jaw broken
Critical Theory has never been evidence-based. As such it allows one to say almost anything about everything. It gives the critic endless degrees of freedom. When Critical Theorists can 'theorize' plausible sounding ideas to convinve themselves, then, obviously, they'll do that. Publishing theory is easier than publishing fact. I don't think there's a 'long march through the institutions' with a plan to attack the culture. I think corrosive ideas about the culture are inevitable when infinite degrees of freedom are available to academics to promote their ideas.
Most interesting and accurate.
Oh Claire, calling Quillette a magazine for free thought these days is really just a generic umbrella term for anything ranging from disagreement with dominant positions within the humanities to all of the harmful and self-centered reactionary posing coming from the right, which in older times would just have been labelled 'common sense' or 'God-given truth', but which now seeks to co-opt the very language of its criticizers. Critical theory certainly can be critiqued itself, but you have no idea how far down the rabbit hole we need to go before really coming to an objective understanding of our own past. Notice how generic and repetitive this interview is. It's been had a million times before, and it will a million times again unless you get to more manageable and debatable points we can all agree on.
I used to look at the abc as the benchmark for reporting news/information then journalism became the new term and slowly but now certainly they have deteriorated into the broadcasters of a constant source of drivel
Yeah , drivel is the perfect description . The Drum .
They say "Follow the money." With academic types, I think "Follow the ego." explains more. They like relativism and agnosticism because that leaves Self on the throne. SJW causes boost their ego, and give them justification for their life of privilege.
When you say it's not bad in small doses, do you mean like putting a frog in a pot of water then slowly turn up the heat until the water boils until the frog is dead?
The original critical theorists weren't prescriptive, they were describing a phenomena. Thinks like social hegemonies do exist, and many of them exist because there are things in place to keep them extant. Asserting something exists or is happening isn't a problem, it's the declaration that it must be undone irrespective of any moral/intellectual consideration.
Bloom's 'School of Resentment'.
"Quilette is a platform for free thought"
"Critical theory is okay, but in small doses"
Something not adding up there, Claire.
Critical Theory is only ok when you see yourself as the oppressed group. Pogrom in Europe and Russia was a factor in the Frankfurt Group’s formulation of this theory which when applied would end the atrocities.
The court example is a good on. If you have to pick side not come to impartial decision from a neutral position you get Trumps impeachment trial. Demarcate vs Republican not a decision based on the facts.
Critical theory appeals to academics because it gives power to theorists without requiring evidence for their assertions.
Critical Theory is one of the most fascinating theory.....
I struggled through Criticism 100A and "Introduction to Critical Theory" (ed. Hazard Adams) at UCI nearly 40 years ago. Hardest class ever, and I studied math, radio, computer science, electricity/electronics and so on. Who knew that it upset right-wing Aussies?
Talking about it is now nonsense. They are on the march and we just keep whining while doing nothing.
We are in a new neo Christian religious paradigm. It is a close copy of Catholicism where we are born in guilt and only through fealty to the central bureaucratic top down order can we achieve salvation. Guilt and shame in these orders are necessary tools to weaken the individual power of the adherants to ensure total submission.
Yes, constant self-flagellation is necessary, even though there is no redemption in this Woke Religion - just never ending penance for the sins of the fathers. A special kind of hell that wokeness offers to all who accept its creed.
Critical theory has been a curse on the world.
Agreed. Political Correctness, however, could have a boon to mankind had it only known when to stop.
This is clear and, to me, very convincing.
I'm troubled, though, when I hear Claire Lehmann say that at least one aspect of critical theory is "really frightening."
I think fear can put some issues out of perspective.
Just how dangerous might critical theory be? It is harder to be sure if the people discussing it allow themselves to be frightened.
In the US there are now many people living and making decisions based on fear. That is not so good, as our recent events demonstrate.
The more impartial one can become, the less one needs to be frightened.
After all, of what does one have to be afraid? Courage!
So we shouldn't be in any way "critical" of racism, colonialism, sexism or capitalism because they're amongst the "foundations" of Western civilisation? We can't ask why some Western countries embraced fascism? Isn't opposing people who "pick a side" in itself picking a side?
Thanks.
This is a valuable extract of the full interview with Claire Lehmann which took place in March 2020, shortly before the coronvirus pandemic imposed restrictions and meetings. Full interview 45 mins
What happened to Claire's podcast?
According to the ABC ALL Australians live within 3km of the CBD. They reflect their views and absolutely no-one else.
The sound keeps cutting out - censorship?
The key to this is to keep an discussion based firmly on facts and not on opinion and preference. The question I would ask is what are the facts. Do they bear out the assertion made and if not, why not.
It dominates because it is the 'easy way out' for any argument.
She's brilliant at explaining problems of critical theory. I like her grounded demeanor.
Ifpeople just say no it will go away
speed to 1.25 for better listening--too slow a speaker.
otherwise, good rebuttal to the woke/intersectie dominance.
This is a very anglo-americancentric view of critical theory. I know German and French experts for Marx, Adorno or Horkheimer who would never dream of being activists, at least not more than the average professor who engages in public debates anyway.
Also I always see the confusion of critical theory and critical *race* theory. The latter requires the former but they are by no means equal. Also I'd challenge the idea that critical theory is one singleminded side of school. There are worlds between Adorno, Marcuse (the proto-SJW) and Habermas or even the CRT people of these days. These people would get their ass beaten by Adorno and others because these people lack the critique of capitalism which is in the heart of critical theory.
so you think Adorno would not have been keen to have this sort of alliance of liberalism with socialism that we see allover in the west?
@@karlheven8328 No, I really don't think so. Because you can't it call socialism in the first place and liberalism is a rather shallow term as he would've well known. What makes you think he would?
@@dohlecarnett1866 But wouldn't you agree that Adornos willingness to Change the Culture (Will to power above all else) is symptomatic of that ideology?
Even if he didn't share the economic ideas of socialism, wasn't he for it still for it as a fundamental change for the culture.
Why did he want to change it, what did he envision?
Doesn't critical theory basically advocate for a very political role of intellectuals who have to make the mass aware of certain injustices etc.
Isn't that exactly what we see today in PC-culture, woke-mentality, promulgated very much in the Universities.
@@karlheven8328 Well, here are my takes on this:
- He wanted to change culture for the sake of reforming or even abolish capitalism. That is the difference to SJW who think that everything is done by virtue signalling and no capitalism critique at all. I don't know what Will to Power means here because this Nietzschean concept (a very misunderstood one btw) wasn't in the center of Adorno's philosophy.
- Again, Adorno is more a critic of capitalism as something that erodes society. His critic of culture was a lot different than the SJWs. Representation in a bloody Marvel film? He would've despised this crap. He hated mass consumerism and was more for people to embrace higher art forms etc.
- Critical Theory advocates for public intellectuals which is something different than politicised sciences. I think the whole university culture wouldn't be on his mind at all because - see above - he would've easily seen that this all is part of capitalism too. As a university teacher he called the cops when the 68s stormed his class lol. I think nowadys Adorno would be considered as 'old left' or 'class reductionist'.
@@dohlecarnett1866 You know, you are not wrong in many ways but also you know maybe the discussion of whether Marx was a Marxist?
To me, it sounds a little bit like that.
It's the question whether a 'foundational' theorist can be responsible for how their disciples develop and refine their ideas .
I think you are looking at it from too much of a static point of view, Because the the proponents of change are often with one foot still in the old culture.
Anyways, it's of course hard to say whether or not Adorno would support this today or not.
But that does not matter so much to me.
What matter more is whether there is a continuity in ideas between Adorno and these postmodern thinkers of today.
And I would say the answer to that question has to be yes.
Whether or not Adorno knew what his ideas would turn into is another question.
I'd say Adorno certainly gave his disciples the necessary tools to foster change in their way, that may differ in some aspects but is still a similar approach!
So basically you can think critically, but only in small doses, and only so long as your critical thought doesn't extend to examinations of structures of power and how they function. You can think critically, as long as your critical thought is a reiteration of already existing Western thought. Pay attention to the achievements of Western civilization, but treat its colonial past as a "narrative" spread by secret Marxists.
There's a fair bit of self-congratulatory group-think in this video, which is somewhat ironic for a pair of people making careers out of claiming everyone who thinks differently to them has been brainwashed.
I would like someone that writes the whole story of this Frankfurt School, CRitical Theory, marxist, and all the things that they have done because I would like to have a book that tell the whole story
@Luis Search through youtube. There are long videos about just that. Unless removed :/
So...how does one go about moving to Australia???
Its so wonderful that your channel introduces publications like Quillette. Without your channel we would never have come across Quillette. Will look for you on rumble
Quilette and Lehmann are garbage
I am a mature student studying in Europe. This stuff is so annoying the students with no brains swallow it hook line and skinker The ones who hold on to thought and reflection are very disillusioned.
where?
@@karlheven8328 ireland
@@karlheven8328 why is that important
@@marygunning5121 no no, I agree with you I just asked out of genuine interest.
I am a german student and see much of the same.
However what I don't see talked about by the right is that capitalism is really fueling this too, because in my view there is an alliance of big businesses with these cultural marxists.
So one cannot say that this is just about left vs right.
This is more about traditionalism vs modernism!
@@karlheven8328 The alliance between big business and cultural Marxists or critical theory that is as clear as day. I have met some dumb people in university or very aggressive young people who cannot tolerate a different idea. one sure thing the art of conversation is dead.
Critical Theory is a further expansion of dialectical thinking. Instead of type/anti-type/synthesis, a topic is treated like the way that crude oil is refined into a salable product. That process takes the crude feedstock and disassembles the molecules into fragments and atoms. Those various constituents are then filtered and used in reassembly to create the desired result. In the case of crude oil, the product is a technically defined one like JetA kerosene. In the case of Critical Theory, the product is always a conclusion that positions the theorist as having the high moral ground, and the target as low a moral position as possible. It always positions the West and Christianity as having moral failure and the progressive narrative as paramount.
Your with me or against me! In fact or pretend, I don't care.
Ms. Lehmann is very civil and diplomatic. It seems to me that she is describing the situation as it was 20 years ago. Nobody will shift ABC to accept working class and rural Australians. ... As to those students who pretend to comply with idiocy just to get by ... If they are conformists while young, when are they going to stand up for common sense? Because later on they will have to bend forward to get a job, and then to get a promotion, or to secure sales without being cancelled by vigilantes. Even if they are a majority, they have no way to know they are, because they never display their colours. And even in the still secret voting system they vote left. By my experience, it's the young people who are hopelessly lost, because they have never seen anything different in their whole lives. It is worse than in the former soviet block: back there, people learned to be skeptical, but they vented it with their friends. These guys here are just ready sheep or wannabe snitchers.
ad sex drugs and rock ‘n’ roll ,a subverted academia for 2 generations we’re in trouble
Certain courses are particularly valuable and possible to identify. If a country has a points-based immigration theory then these skills should be relatively easy to determine. Those courses should be subsidised.
How about these questions: Why a person who dropped out of University speaks about academia?
Or Why a person who had been a part of administration that pushed Australia into numerous imperial wars of plunder, have a problem with theory that looks at western civilisation as exploitative?
And both of them don't mention those facts.
This is the essence of critical theory, especially deconstruction. Thank you Ms Lehmann and Mr Anderson for self owning.
What, do they wish we still just sat in the dirt and ate bugs.
Academia is not going to stop unless forced to stop, and nobody is going to stop them. So the future is dark.
Critical theory is fine is small amounts? Well it started small and look at the mess we are in. Any examples of CT doing anything good and if so a good not doable else wise. Not enough to understand - you need to change it....well you would need to be sure you had understood it or that change was for the better (if doable at all) - it doesn't seem any of those conditions have been met
C.S. Lewis wrote that the point of seeing through things is to see something through them. He added, "To see through everything is the same as to see nothing at all."
The Weathermen are rising again.
In the form of Anifia.
Critical theory in the form that we see it is expressed as sanitisation and expunging of divergent narratives. It is not dialogical or academic in the slightest
In other words, intellectuals whom are removed from practical life experiences have gotten carried away with theory.
I want to know why. you threw Bret Weinstein under the bus!
Three factors contributing to the recent instantiation of postmodernism:
Tailored algorithmic social media feeds
The normalisation of paradoxical thinking
The appeasement of limbic and dopaminergic appetites
CRT should be banned or at least shunned in schooling.
Claire says we just need to divvy out smaller doses of CRT. No. We don't need ANY of it at all.
I'm saddened to see the world moving backward toward a new dark age.
The funny thing about Adorno (but also Horkheimer and Marcuse) is that they took 'tradition' and 'western values' extremely seriously. Their critique was a critique of capitalism undermining these values... not the values in themselves. During his time Adorno disiked Jazz and had the highest esteem for JS Bach. In the 1960s Marcuse hated the ROlling Stones, in the name of 'serious' music. For that reasons these two scholars are fundamentally hated in the academic left. For being cultural mandarins!!
That's interesting.
How come that he hated Jazz?
Sounds almost reactionary!