Critical Theory

Identifying Post-Modernism and "Woke" Ideology

Introduction

In my critique of the Disinformation Project I identified a number of problems with their approach to research. Among these problems were a lack of objectivity, a lack of verifiable evidence, a subjective approach to interpreting findings and a general lack of rigour in analysis.

I pointed to the fact that the Director of the Project, Kate Hannah, acknowledged that she adopted a Marxist approach to her research and work. I suggested, rather obliquely, that the Disinformation Project was driven by a Critical Theory approach to their studies rather than an objective and empirical one. And this highlights a problem. Those who adhere to Critical Theory dismiss objectivity and an empirical approach. If evidence is used it is obtained by “story telling” or what empiricists would describe as anecdotal evidence.

The Disinformation Project and its members are free to adopt whatever techniques they like in the pursuit of their objectives, whatever those may be. They are entitled to express their points of view. But by the same token readers of their papers should be aware of the approach that is taken and what thinking lies beneath the discussions and conclusions that the Project adopts.

Sadly such analysis is not a characteristic of the news media for whom the Disinformation Project is the “go to” source for fear-based headlines or convenient and exaggerated sound bites. News media uncritically report what the Project states without checking, verifying or seeking evidential support for their propositions. Added to this the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet continues to provide funding to the Project despite a clearly biased approach to research.

In this article I shall explain as briefly and as clearly as I can the factors behind Critical Theory as a part of the Post-Modernist movement to explain why it is that the Disinformation Project and organisations like it such as FACTAotearoa address issues in the way that they do. Armed with this information, readers may be able to make an informed judgement about the validity of the claims of organisations that use Neo-Marxist Critical Theory in their pronouncements.

The Starting Point

Critical theory should be understood and critiqued for what it is. Critical theory is grounded in Marxism and postmodernism that seeks fundamental and radical structural change of society through activism.

The Marxist theory of history is called dialectical or historical materialism. Marx’s central claim is that class struggle is the driving force of history. Under capitalism, this struggle occurs between the oppressors and the oppressed. Thus there is an imbalance which in current terms is represented as empowerment and disempowerment.

Marx looked at capitalism as an example. The capitalist class (the empowered) owns the means of production and rules over the proletariat (the disempowered). Marx believed capitalism's long-term function was to create the conditions necessary for the awakening of the proletariat class consciousness who then organise into a collective and overthrow the bourgeoisie in a revolution which leads to socialism. This “awakening” or awareness has given rise to the quality of being awoken which has become the basis of the term “woke” – being awoken to important societal facts and issues – especially those of social justice. I think the better term is “awakened” but in this respect, sadly, idiom prevails over good grammar.

Thus a critical aspect of Marxism is the awakening of a collective class consciousness in the proletariat -making them aware of the true nature of their oppression. It is only at this stage that they can form into a collective class, overthrowing the ruling capitalist class in a social revolution and conquer political power for themselves.

By the 1950s, Marxism was in crisis. Marx’s  predictions about history’s progression had failed to materialise and Capitalist and Liberal Democratic societies were seeing rapid improvements in the average quality of life. The world was learning of the horrors of communism and the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia and South America. The abolition of private property, central economic planning and the forced collectivisation of industry and agriculture had catastrophic consequences.

Postmodernism

In the 1960s, a new political, cultural and intellectual movement called postmodernism emerged in a period of significant social change. It is difficult to provide an overarching definition for postmodernism due to the sheer breadth of its applicability, including in music, art and architecture.

It is characterised by a deep suspicion, scepticism and distrust of broad historical concepts, universal values and of any attempts to ground knowledge and truth on absolute foundations.

It is particularly antithetical to the principles of the Enlightenment. Because there can be no universal truths any claims to truth cannot be valid. Or alternatively, all claims to truth are equally valid. Therefore there is no one truth.

Postmodernism is highly critical of the Enlightenment, which was predominantly a European intellectual movement associated with the principles of justice, rationality, individualism and the Scientific method as a means of determining objective and universal truth. Enlightenment thinkers rejected divine revelation and religious belief as the source of moral knowledge.

Postmodernists shared Marxism’s views on the structural power. But instead of economic analysis, they focused on differences in power between groups along cultural and identity lines. Postmodernism was a reaction to the conditions of modernity such as objectivity, individualism, liberal capitalism, and the principles of the Enlightenment which the postmodernist philosophers believed had led to a death of authenticity in Western societies.

Postmodernism is suspicious of any systems or processes that push for unity, homogeneity and all-encompassing conditions. Instead, they emphasise the fluid and the unstable, the diffuse and the fragmented, and the local and the micro, by studying the marginal, the different and the other.

For postmodernists, everything is about power. It determines how society is structured and how we think and speak. These ideas can be traced to critical theory, which emerged in Western Europe in the early 20th century.

Postmodernism and Critical Theory

Critical theories identify structural forms of oppression. For this reason, critical theories are popular with left wing academics and are common in fields of study like disability and fat studies, feminism and gender studies, post colonial studies, sexual diversity studies, critical legal theory, and critical race theory.

A critical theory has three criteria.

It must be explanatory in that it explains problems with the current social reality - practical in that and identifies who should change the social reality and how and normative.

It outlines the standards for criticism and the achievable goals for transforming the problems through praxis.

The third feature is the most crucial and embodies Marxist proposition that philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point is to change it. In philosophy, praxis means implementing a theory in the world to achieve an aim.

The core function of critical theory is to awaken a critical consciousness in members of an oppressed group. This is comes directly from the Marxist concept of awakening class consciousness as the precursor to a revolution.

The first step in the liberation of the oppressed to superior of enlightenment during which the oppressed experience a radical change in consciousness that awakes them to the true nature of their suffering. This period of education then turns into practice which is manifests in demonstration, confrontation and rebellion.

As I have already mentioned this is where the term “woke” comes from. Although frequently used to mean politically correct ideas, it refers to being awoken to the reality of oppression. If someone is “woke”, they are awake. They are enlightened and therefore possess a critical consciousness of oppression.

Thus, a person who is “woke” is enlightened and aware of the tension between empowerment and disempowerment and has the ability to recognise oppression.

In addition because of the way that post-modernism and critical theory have developed the “woke” person will reject objectivity and the empirical analysis that characterises Enlightenment thought and will prefer, rather than consider all of the evidence will prefer to adopt the anecdotal “stories” that are interpreted to mean whatever the woke person wishes them to means, given that reality is a subjective condition.

A critical consciousness has three components.

First, it requires a critical reflection and a moral rejection of any identified social and political injustices, which are usually systemic or structural in nature.

Second, it develops political efficacy, - to change the social and political reality through individual or collective activism.

Third, it requires actual participation in social justice activism to transform the perceived opposition.

Dealing with Critical Theory

It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with adherents of critical theory because the approach is irrational. The rejection of an empirical examination, the rejection of the Enlightenment approach to reason, the rejection of individuality and any objective examination makes any discussion slippery in the extreme.

Frequently arguments from the rational side are met with all-embracing “veto” words which in essence sum up the critical theorist approach. If you do not agree with them you will be silenced. The veto word – which sums up critical theory thinking on a subject – will not brook dissent.

For example, if one were to question a certain interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi the critical theorist would dismiss the question as racist. Added to the mix would be a question about whether one referred to the Treaty (in English) or Te Tiriti o Waitangi (in Maori).

The use of racism as a veto word is a form of shorthand for the subset of critical theory embodied in Critical Race Theory

Racism and Critical Race Theory

At its heart critical race theory exemplifies the Neo-Marxist and Postmodern approach by emphasising the conflict between the empowered (the whites) and the disempowered (the coloureds).

Critical Race theory defines racism as an all-encompassing system reinforced by legal authority, institutional control and social power that does not require people to be intentionally racist. One’s very existence is demonstrative of racism.

Racism is also something that is unique to white people. White people benefit from the system of racism through their white privilege, the term that was first outlined in 1989. White privilege refers to unearned advantages based on skin colour that are often unnoticed by white people.

Critical race theory assumes that white people are the de facto beneficiaries of a racist, white supremacist system set up by members of their racial group for their own benefit. White people are therefore responsible as a collective, not as individuals, for the structures and systems of domination, meaning that individual white people are complicit in racism, even if they oppose racism themselves.

It is correct that in some countries such as South Africa under apartheid and certain states in the USA under Jim Crow laws used legal authority, institutional control and social power to enforce segregation and provide for privileges for whites that were not shared with blacks.

However, racism as an epithet has expanded beyond the obvious and, according the critical race theorists bores into the subconscious. And because you have to be white to be racist, any comment or critique of a white person by as non-white cannot be racist, because racism involves and imbalance of power – and the disempowered cannot be racist. The language may be offensive or insulting to the listener but it is not racist.

Colonialism and Decolonisation

Associated with racism as a veto word are the words “colonialism” and “decolonisation”. The critical theorist sees the exercise of power by a colonising nation as another form of the empowerment/disempowerment dichotomy that underpins critical theory.

The praxis that is sought is “decolonisation” – the removal of the elements of the colonising power that created the power imbalance. This form of praxis could run very deep indeed. For example the introduction of the English legal system and the Westminster model of governance are extensions of colonial power.

It is probably for this reason that Maori like Wille Jackson and John Tamihere are critical of democracy with its “one person one vote” model because that means that unless the “disempowered” votes with the majority, the minority will never have a voice. This, of course, is arrant nonsense because it overlooks the fundamental premise of democracy which is majority rule with minority rights.

The introduction of the English legal system and the way that system has operated for just over 180 years is currently being challenged by the introduction of considerations of tikanga or Maori cultural customs and practices into the law. It is in this way that a gradual decolonisation of fundamentals of the New Zealand legal system is going to take place. The issue of tikanga is the subject of an examination by the Law Commission in its paper He Poutama which can be found here.

I have two minor observations about that study. Although it purports to be a relatively typical piece of academic writing – the sort of thing that one would expect from the Law Commission -  it uses some of the critical theory tools in developing its discussion. One of these is the frequent use of metaphor rather than a clear analytical discussion of an issue. This allows for a wider range of interpretations because the meaning behind a metaphor is very much a subjective matter. By using metaphor the authors of the paper have conveniently dispensed with rational and objective analysis which Critical Theorists disavow.

The other problem lies in the nature of tikanga itself. In He Poutama and indeed in a recent case, tikanga has been ascertained by evidence from an expert described as pukenga.

This immediately creates a focus for the problem in that there is an absence of a written record of precisely what the tikanga or custom may be.

The law recognises the importance of the written record. The written record fixes information in time and space. The importance of the written record is its reliability and as we know written records offer contemporaneous evidence of transactions that are frequently moulded in different way by the workings of memory and subjectivity.

It is for this reason that documentary discovery is so important in court proceedings. It provides records that may differ from recollections stored in memory or even expose a lie (disinformation is the word so often used today but “lie” is simple and direct)

For this reason it is unwise to rely on the oral tradition because the story changes from telling to telling – shifts in wording, changes in emphasis, bits left out, new bits inserted. Because of these shifts and changes the meaning can alter and the reliability of the account becomes suspect.

In law the written record was everything. The printing press saw to that. From the 1530’s when Justice Fitzherbert told lawyers to put their handwritten casenotes to one side because that did not reflect the law – “put that case out of your books for it is not the law, without doubt” (Year Books 27 Hen 8 23 (Tottell, London, 1556) fo 11 STC 9963: ‘Mettez cest cas hors vostre Livres, car il n’est Ley sans doubte.’)– the reliability and standardisation of the record that print allowed enabled Lord Camden to say in Entick v Carrington “If it is law. it will be found in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law.” Behind that statement is an understanding of the reliability of the written record as opposed to an oral remembering. Thus to introduce into the law rules that are based on a variable oral tradition – one that even varies from place to place within the same culture – is a fraught and risky enterprise.

Michael Clanchy has written a seminal work (From Memory to Written Record – England 1066 – 1307 3^rd ed. Wiley Blackwell Oxford 2013) on the importance of the written word and the transformation of English oral culture to a literate. The production and retention of a number of written records was extended from royal and monastic agencies to much wider forms of everyday business. Charters, writs and other documents became commonplace. And England’s literate mentality developed.

Even so there was a halting acceptance of literate modes by both clerical and lay rulers. The use of writing for business purposes was almost as unfamiliar to many monks in the twelfth century and earlier as it was to knights and the laity. Rules of business such as dating documents were learned with difficulty as did the recognition of the writer’s place in the temporal order. Forgery was rife.

Even as the use of documents increased reading aloud was often preferred rather than scanning silently with the eye.

In the eleventh century unwritten customary law had been the norm, but by the reign of Edward I memory, whether individual or collective, if unsupported by clear written evidence, was ruled out of court. Property rights depended on writing and not the oral recollections of old, wise men.

Thus, the absence of a written record means that a judge must take tikanga as he or she finds it without reference to any authoritative written or recorded source.

Misogyny

For the critical theorist any adverse comment about a female is evidence of misogyny. Even if the issue of gender is absent from the comment, there is clearly a form of unconscious or subconscious misogyny especially if the person making the adverse comment is male.

The empowerment/disempowerment issue assumes that the person making the comment is empowered whereas the person about whom the comment is made is disempowered.

It provides an example of the febrile nature of the critical theory analysis and is evidence of the way in which a single word, embodying a complex concept, can disable any further discussion on a topic.

The Trans Problem

Any expression of discomfort about transgender people and their practices is defined as hate speech and as evidence of a desire for genocide – the elimination of trans people.

The comment only need be slightly negative to attract hostility, and the significant point is that although the speaker may not intend hate or genocide what is important is the perception or interpretation of the comment by the person about whom it was made.

Once again this is demonstrative of the disempowerment/empowerment dichotomy and of critical theory because it ignores and overlooks the intention or nuance of the speaker’s remark – an objective view – and concentrates on the impact of the remark upon this listener.

In the wider scheme of things the use of the phrase “I’m offended” expresses a feeling but does not tell us how the listener thinks and why.

Feeling Safe

A term frequently used particularly in discussions about the online environment is that of “feeling safe”. This is a highly subjective use of language but in reality – which the critical theorists would wish to avoid – what is being discussed is an acceptable level of risk.

By concentrating on subjective safety the critical theorist avoids any sort of empirical discussion about a level of risk and then politicises the discussion by suggesting that language itself can generate a sense of “unsafety”, that words can be weapons (as was stated by the former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at the United Nations) and expressed points of view can be tantamount to assault.

Once again this is nonsense and has the following implications. First, it has the effect of eroding the resilience of listeners. Once they are told that certain language or point of view are “unsafe” that message will become a part of the psyche. One need only observe the way in which the phrase is used throughout the media and by organisations to understand this.

Secondly the phrase is designed to restrict and inhibit robust discussion. As a “veto phrase” the words “I feel unsafe hearing that” effectively shuts down discussion which may need to be robust and at times confronting. That is part of living in a democracy which allows for the expression of different points of view. However, an edict that a certain point of view is “unsafe” shuts down the discussion.

The empowerment\disempowerment dichotomy is present in this example in that the empowered is the speaker and the disempowered is the listener who feels “unsafe”. The praxis that resolves the problem is to disempower the speaker. This means that the previously disempowered becomes empowered and the dialectic is reversed.

Misinformation and Disinformation

Misinformation and Disinformation are words that are frequently used as “veto words” and indeed the Disinformation Project has weaponised these words. I have written at length about these words and the Project itself. Suffice to say that in most of the circumstances where the words are used they are directed towards a point of view with which there is often disagreement, but, in the true spirit of critical theory refuses to engage rationally by describing the “misinformation” and analysing or explaining why its amounts to misinformation.

By using “veto words” the critical theorist calls “accepted wisdom” into question.

Closing Comments

Postmodernism has been praised as a useful means of calling everything taken for granted into question. And of proposing alternative accounts of social reality.

Postmodernism and Critical thinking dismiss objectivity and individualism as Western ideologies that are based on the propositions that race is irrelevant, that there are no individual barriers to individual success, and that failure is not a consequence of social structures but of individual character.

This is grounded in the post modern rejection of Enlightenment rationality in the scientific method. Critical theorists suggest objectivity prevents us from examining or changing our own biases, and that it undermines the value of subjective knowledge derived from lived experience.

Critical theory critiques of individualism are also influenced by Marxism. To Marx, individualism is a feature of capitalism because it is synonymous with private property rights. The capitalist ruling class created the ideology of individualism to justify their ownership of private property. Since private property must be abolished, so too must individualism. Following the abolition of private property, individuality vanishes and the bourgeoisie individual is swept out of the way.

In this article I have considered the basis for Critical Theory and the way that it is manifested in modern discourse. I do not suggest for one moment that Critical Theory should be suppressed. However, I do consider that there should be an awareness of some of the tenets of Critical Theory so that when it is encountered it can be recognised and should be exposed and critiqued for what it is. Critical theory is grounded in Marxism and postmodernism is a tool of the Political Left and seeks fundamental, and radical structural change of society through activism.