Probably the worst article I’ve read on Persuasion. Lindsay’s argument is far stronger than what is shared here. Doesn’t the Identity Trap discuss the intellectual history of how critical studies derived from the failures of Marxism?
Probably the worst article I’ve read on Persuasion. Lindsay’s argument is far stronger than what is shared here. Doesn’t the Identity Trap discuss the intellectual history of how critical studies derived from the failures of Marxism?
Actually no. Yascha similarly misses the cultural Marxism boat. He does not seem to know any of the facts I listed above. Still, The Identity Trap is a great book, and apart from the historical analysis, it does a brilliant job (simply the best) of identifying and diagnosing ID politics problems.
"Many critics of so-called wokeness have argued that it is a form of “cultural Marxism.” But the true history of the identity synthesis turns out to be ... postmodern thinkers" —p.19
Postmodernists had an influence, but many of them were Maoists, and they seem to have picked up their most influential point, the denial of objectivity, from Trad & Crit Theory, 1937. Its very title implies this -- "traditional theory," both science and social science, is worthless for social and political analysis, it explains, because it tries to be objective.
"I try to debunk some of the most sensationalist claims that are now being made about the nature of the left’s identitarian turn—such as the idea that it is simply a form of “cultural Marxism”—p.26
He's right that it's not pure cultural Marxism. That is one of its two main roots. The other is the Black Power movement, which he completely misses. Derrick Bell (Mr. CRT) got his two main ideas from Stockley Carmichael; these are even in his Face the Nation appearance on June 19, 1966.
"the postmodernist tradition of critical legal studies." —p.58 This is his only mention of critical studies.
His Appendix: "Why the Identity Synthesis Isn’t Marxist," gives his full argument.
"Many critics of so-called wokeness contend that the identity synthesis is a form of “cultural Marxism.” ... if you take class and economics out of Marxism, [you get identity politcs]." —p.287 He's right; that's too simple. That's not where CT comes from, but it's a useful partial view of it. Yascha just does not seem aware of the Frankfurt School's development and dissemination of CT or even that CRT was named after CT by Crenshaw, who kicked off the identity politics craze, which perfectly implements CT's path to revolution.
"But for all of these similarities, the differences between the identity synthesis and Marxism weigh just as heavily. .... As I showed in part I, it simply isn’t true that the main intellectual roots for the identity synthesis are Marxist. On the contrary, its original impetus stems from postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard" —p.288
The trouble is he never showed this. He only showed specific PoMo ideas correlate with identity politics but never traces how ideas got from one person to another.
I don’t believe anyone argued that critical theory is exclusively Marxist. To your point, postmodern intellectuals (especially French) built their theories in reaction to the failures of Marxism, in addition to other influences, and therefore should be deemed a derivative of Marxism, as you argue above. But to say, as the author here does, that cultural Marxism doesn’t exist, seems dubious at best, a point you seem to accept above.
I agree. I have not seen anyone argue the CT is exclusively Marxist. However, both Hallam and Mounk seem to believe that debunking "Woke is Marxist" is equivalent to debunking "Woke is cultural Marxism (Critical Theory)." That would only be true if CT were exclusively Marxist.
Probably the worst article I’ve read on Persuasion. Lindsay’s argument is far stronger than what is shared here. Doesn’t the Identity Trap discuss the intellectual history of how critical studies derived from the failures of Marxism?
Actually no. Yascha similarly misses the cultural Marxism boat. He does not seem to know any of the facts I listed above. Still, The Identity Trap is a great book, and apart from the historical analysis, it does a brilliant job (simply the best) of identifying and diagnosing ID politics problems.
"Many critics of so-called wokeness have argued that it is a form of “cultural Marxism.” But the true history of the identity synthesis turns out to be ... postmodern thinkers" —p.19
Postmodernists had an influence, but many of them were Maoists, and they seem to have picked up their most influential point, the denial of objectivity, from Trad & Crit Theory, 1937. Its very title implies this -- "traditional theory," both science and social science, is worthless for social and political analysis, it explains, because it tries to be objective.
"I try to debunk some of the most sensationalist claims that are now being made about the nature of the left’s identitarian turn—such as the idea that it is simply a form of “cultural Marxism”—p.26
He's right that it's not pure cultural Marxism. That is one of its two main roots. The other is the Black Power movement, which he completely misses. Derrick Bell (Mr. CRT) got his two main ideas from Stockley Carmichael; these are even in his Face the Nation appearance on June 19, 1966.
"the postmodernist tradition of critical legal studies." —p.58 This is his only mention of critical studies.
His Appendix: "Why the Identity Synthesis Isn’t Marxist," gives his full argument.
"Many critics of so-called wokeness contend that the identity synthesis is a form of “cultural Marxism.” ... if you take class and economics out of Marxism, [you get identity politcs]." —p.287 He's right; that's too simple. That's not where CT comes from, but it's a useful partial view of it. Yascha just does not seem aware of the Frankfurt School's development and dissemination of CT or even that CRT was named after CT by Crenshaw, who kicked off the identity politics craze, which perfectly implements CT's path to revolution.
"But for all of these similarities, the differences between the identity synthesis and Marxism weigh just as heavily. .... As I showed in part I, it simply isn’t true that the main intellectual roots for the identity synthesis are Marxist. On the contrary, its original impetus stems from postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard" —p.288
The trouble is he never showed this. He only showed specific PoMo ideas correlate with identity politics but never traces how ideas got from one person to another.
I don’t believe anyone argued that critical theory is exclusively Marxist. To your point, postmodern intellectuals (especially French) built their theories in reaction to the failures of Marxism, in addition to other influences, and therefore should be deemed a derivative of Marxism, as you argue above. But to say, as the author here does, that cultural Marxism doesn’t exist, seems dubious at best, a point you seem to accept above.
I agree. I have not seen anyone argue the CT is exclusively Marxist. However, both Hallam and Mounk seem to believe that debunking "Woke is Marxist" is equivalent to debunking "Woke is cultural Marxism (Critical Theory)." That would only be true if CT were exclusively Marxist.