In my last post, I posited the idea that in the West we stopped pursuing morality in the name of freedom but that is only half the story. We stopped pursuing morality to fully embrace freedom as our new morality. This new morality functioned as the pursuit of whatever we wanted, making freedom something it was never intended to be. It became you and me at the expense of “we.” Freedom will stop being freedom when morality is removed, and when it becomes about you and me it is already gone. We, as human beings, will never stop pursuing. In most cases, we will pursue our own needs and desires, which sounds nice and sounds safe but, it eventually leads to darker places like narcissism and nihilism.
Today, we are told that we are free, and it is Critical Theory that has freed us. It has unshackled us from the chains that have bound us, but were they really binding us? What if those chains were not binding but restraining? What if they were restraining us from becoming evil, from our own demise and from excess? It is excess that the West has given to us as freedom. Let’s be clear: excess is not freedom, and it never will be, and yet, it defines us. It is our desire; it is our dream. Does having more make us free; does it make us happier? I do know that having more makes us want more, and that is not freedom. That is addiction; that is bondage. When we get more, we want more; it never seems to be enough. That sounds oddly familiar, like something else entirely … something at odds with freedom. What happens when I want something that you want? Is that freedom or are we back to a “survival of the fittest” mentality? Maybe, we never left?
Marxism in the West has taken on many forms and addressed many issues, but it has accomplished its greatest task. It has made the West a land of individualism. We are promised everything, and we have been conditioned to believe that we can have everything. It is this promise that has become our idol, worshipped by everyone at the expense of everyone. Remember Spengler’s critique of civilization, excess was not a point of celebration but a point of concern. It was a warning bell and a flashing red light. In the West, we no longer hear the warning bells or see the flashing red lights? Why? Excess is who we are. This wanting more … it is always there, pushing us to think about ourselves, and every time we do, it is at the expense of someone else. We no longer see others. We only see ourselves. This is what excess does … others become obstacles preventing us from getting more.
Excess has seeped into our being. It now defines our excellence and is our passion. More is better, easier and what we want most. Best is a distant memory. Excess produces no loyalty, no common sense and no honor; there is only individualism and the striving for more. When we stop and look in the mirror, we see something unfamiliar, something we no longer recognize. We have been living in this land of excess for too long. Excess has become who we are. We think it is good for us, but it is a sickness that is slowly killing us. We are no longer ashamed our actions; we no longer take responsibility for anything. We stopped seeking humility long ago. Our only concern is to get as much as we can for as long as we can.
This is the West. Excess has replaced our desire for excellence and our concern about goodness with itself; all we want and care about is more. Sound familiar? This is you and me. This is survival of the fittest, chaos theory and AI all rolled up into one. This is what death looks like at the cellular level right before oncosis. Our concern is for ourselves at the expense of everyone else, and it is not moral, not ethical and certainly not civil. It is gluttony; it is embracing profligacy as if it is the air we breathe and the water we drink. Excess has become life to us. We have been told that we can have it all and we have believed that we could, never giving a second thought to what getting it all would do to us or do to others. Just look out your window and watch the world for a moment. What do you see? Bigger, better, more … everywhere. No one is immune. Excess is us and it is everywhere.
It is 2025; there are few if any traces remaining of the West and its past. The Athens of old is gone and so is Rome, but there is America. It is the land of opportunity, the shining star of the West. It represents all that we could ever want. Is it the West or something else? One author put it this way: “Call American civilization brutish, materialist, or racist (it has been called all of those things), but don’t call it Western. Western civilization declined and fell a century ago, and it’s not coming back.” In other words, the West (America) is not sick; it is not in decline. It is not being rescued or revitalized. It is dead.
The West is dead. We have been living in its decay and rot for some time now. And, to make matters worse, we killed it. That’s right and its death was due to our individualized gourmandizing. It was our wanting more … our never being content with what we have. We embraced excess without considering the consequences and, there are always consequences. We did not think it would matter, but we should have known better. We should have known that having it all was not possible; that everyone can’t be excellent, happy and wealthy all at the same time. Individual fulfillment does not produce collective excellence, community or even a future and it never will. I thought we learned this lesson over 200 years ago. Have we forgotten them already?
It is the end of the story for the West. There is no looking back nor is there wishful thinking. Death is final. There are no second chances and no rescues. Death is death. There is now only looking forward towards a new beginning. This is the way of civilizations; instead of mourning death and avoiding it, we should embrace it because the end of one thing is always the beginning of something new. The death of the West means something new is coming, or it might already be here. It might not be what you want or what I want, but it will not be what we have known. It will be different. We have a choice. We can sit and wait, or we can be part of its development. The choice is yours; the choice is mine. Let’s hope that we make a better choice this time. Let’s hope we are together and not apart, and that we have not forgotten the hard lessons of the past as we move into new beginnings. We will need to remember them, or we will be doomed to repeat them.
This concludes this series. I hope you enjoyed it. Until next time …
My intention was for this to be the last post in this series, but the more I read the more I realized that there was more to say than could be contained in one final post. Therefore, there will be one more post after this one. Let’s get started!
In the 21st century, we have seen many cultural changes. Tried and true traditional beliefs have been attacked, longstanding norms have been destroyed and many new ideologies have emerged. There are those who would suggest that these new ideologies are by-products of the West. Gregg would contend that these new “influential and secular ideologies” offered themselves initially as “emancipations to rationality and science,” which have always been perceived as pathways to reason. Karl Marx and his philosophy, Marxism, asserted itself as one of those pathways, but Marxism, ironically, does not value reason. Marx regarded the human mind as “extremely limited” when it came to knowing truth. His colleague and fellow Marxist, Friedrich Engels, shared this belief, believing that “ultimate truths” are rare in the natural sciences and that the final and ultimate moral truth was “the rarest of all.” Marx concluded that man’s ultimate origin and the nature of good and evil were futile pursuits not worth time or energy, forcing him to embrace a more Promethean view of man as a self-created existential being (Prometheus was a Greek god who modeled humans from clay and taught them agriculture and all the ways to live. He also stole fire and gave it to them, allowing them self-sufficiency.). Reason, or any higher ordered thinking, was not needed in a pragmatic Marxist world. What was needed, according to Marxists, was more Marxism.
To provide Marxism to the masses, Marx and Engels created a secular more widely accepted Marxist ideology, intentionally designed with religious nuances to be presented as more a religious faith than a philosophy. Marx, Engels and other Marxists sought to replace traditional religious beliefs with Marxism, and they did it through the synthesis of faith and reason, a process already adversely impacted by the Enlightenment. It was their intent to replace faith with Marxism through the reason of the Enlightenment. Marxism was entwined with this reason to consume it and squeeze faith completely out of it, turning it into something Marxist-like. It was Marxism that was now synthesized with this new reason, which produced a Marxist worldview that could be packaged and delivered to the world. It was built to critique, not in constructive ways, but with destructive tendencies that weakened and destroyed, paving the way for it to rule. But it was built with a flaw. It assumed a particular understanding of the human condition as true and right.
It was Nietzsche, initially, an advocate of the Enlightenment and of Marxism, who saw this flaw and the manifestations of it. He, ultimately, rejected the Enlightenment, the reason it produced and the Marxism it embraced, recognizing that while it was built to undermined Christianity and those traditional religious norms associated with it (Christianity was both a traditional belief and longstanding dominant ideology.), it would never stop there. Nietzsche understood that it would eventually undermine the entire culture and everything in it. The flaw was an assumption … That human nature was good, and that it only needed a better culture in which to live to thrive. It soon discovered that the human condition was just as corrupt inside a Marxist culture as it was outside of it.
Nietzsche is an interesting case study when it comes to the West. In The Gay Science, he wrote, “it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith which was also Plato’s faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine.” I think Nietzsche understood that truth, God, Christianity, science—all of it came together as one in this culture known as the West. It was this culture that was unique and unlike any culture before it. It was a culture of the many functioning as one; it acted as one, moved as one and changed as one. Nietzsche understood the West, but he also understood that if they stood as one, they would fall as one, and that included everything.
Marxism, to overcome the West, had to undermine the West and overtake the beliefs and ideologies that were so dominant for so long. It forgot that once it had overtaken the West it would, itself, become the dominant ideology, and go from the hunter to the hunted. This is precisely what Nietzsche was addressing in The Gay Science. When he wrote, “God is dead,” he wrote that “we” killed him. Not you or me; not he, but “we” killed him, implying that this collective whole of the West, this many acting as one, was in trouble. He understood that a rejection of any one thing in the West would ultimately be a rejection of everything, including those things that were good. This was the nature of the West.
Freeing individuals to pursue life, liberty and happiness sounds like freedom and functions like freedom for a time, but it does not take long before freedom become excess, and excess becomes selfishness and narcissism. In the West, we stopped pursuing morality in the name of freedom because, in our excess, we became confused regarding what freedom was. Freedom become something it was never intended to be. What happened? You will have to come back and read my last post to find out! Until then …
Many consider the “West” a nebulous term with no meaning and no history and yet most consider it in decline. As I have referenced, when Oswald Spengler published his epic, The Decline of the West, he posited that the West “wasn’t just in decline; it was being dragged under.” His thesis was that all “cultures” go through a process of birth, blossoming, fruit production and withering to the point of death. The withering phase he called “civilization” because he associated it with a process within the withering phase of excess, debilitation, loss of identity and finally, death. Spengler first published his masterpiece in 1918, and at that time, he saw the West in the withering stage. As he pointed out, the beginning of the withering stage is excess. When civilizations reach the point of excess they become fat; that is not a point of celebration but one of warning. Spengler saw the West at this stage, which forces us to consider a question we would rather not: where is the West now?
Let’s be clear: the West is not a country, nor does it have geographical boundaries, but it does have a birth, and because it has a birth, it will ultimately have a death. Its birth, according to Spengler, occurred with the fusion of German nobility and the Western Roman Empire, as Spengler saw his native Germany as part of the West. Others point to the marriage of Athens and Jerusalem, but all are references to the merging of the two known worlds at the time into something new and different. Spengler thought the West “blossomed” in the Italian Renaissance, bloomed in the Baroque period and produced its greatest fruit in the 19th century. Gregg posited that the Enlightenment was one example of its fruit, but fruit is only good for a time; eventually it rots.
The Enlightenment, most would say, was not united with Christianity but instead at odds with it. Gregg rejects that idea and any idea that the Enlightenment advanced individual reason at the expense of personal faith. He acknowledges the rise of and focus on reason, but he also points to examples of reason and faith coming together for good during the Enlightenment. He presents one important Enlightenment figure in support of his supposition: Sir Isaac Newton. It was thought that Newton wrote his Principia Mathematica in response to the “materialist assumptions” of Rene Descartes and his views on planetary movements. Newton believed that the entire cosmos, including planetary movement, were governed by a Holy God and his divine providence. It was his faith that drove him to study the world and understand it. Many Enlightenment thinkers considered religion as superstition, but others, like Newton, did not.
As far as products of the Enlightenment, the founding of America is often referenced as one of its greatest. While there is evidence to support this assertion, there is also evidence, i.e., its foundational documents, that tell another story; one where its founders grounded virtue and human morality in reason bathed in a belief of divine goodness. Those Enlightenment ideas that were at odds with the Christian faith coincide with the rise of reductionism and the scientific method as both were coming of age at this time. It was reductionism and modern science that attacked faith, presenting it as incompatible with reason, for the purpose of crowning reason as the only king.
According to Gregg, there were two claims that severed the reason of Enlightenment with the Christian faith; the first was the belief that there was no fixed human nature, which clashed directly with the Christian belief of a sinful human nature. The second claim—that the only true knowledge was scientific knowledge from the scientific method—contradicted the Christian belief that all knowledge belonged to a Holy God. Gregg argues that both claims isolate science away from faith and subvert all belief in God. Science and faith were presented as mutually exclusive with science celebrated and faith mocked, but, quite unintentionally, the position science claimed and occupied alone would eventually subvert science and reason. We only need to look at current culture and the presence of Critical Theory as proof. It cares nothing for science or reason; it only cares for itself. There is no logic or scientific methodology; it alone is king and ruler. I would like to posit one notion to consider from this point forward: As the Enlightenment was attacking the Christian faith, it was also attacking itself; it just did not know it.
The ideas and principles it deployed eventually came full circle and were deployed against it. Reason, the scientific method and humanism, all used by the Enlightenment to directly benefit itself, were critiqued, undermined and turned against it by other movements like Romanticism, Idealism, Rationalism and Postmodernism. They revealed that the limitations and exclusions the Enlightenment sought to eliminate from the world were alive and well inside its own ideas, in part, due to its own nature. It is this nature that was, in my opinion, adopted, manipulated and used by Critical Theory to assert itself in the West as the new authority. It is Critical Theory that now pushes the West to the brink of decline and death.
Stay tuned for the last post in this series as I discuss where the West is now. Until then, remember thinking matters!
Happy New Year! Welcome to 2025! Today is the day resolutions begin to dance in our heads as we contemplate new beginnings. A new year is strange, is it not? It is the one day of the year when the whole world welcomes … no, celebrates change. Every other day of the year most of the world fights change. Leo Tolstoy provides us a little insight on this. My new year’s gift to you is this quote from him. Read it twice as there is wisdom in his words. Happy New Year!
“We imagine that when we are thrown out of our usual ruts all is lost, but it is only then that what is new and good begins. While there is life there is happiness. There is much, much before us.” Leo Tolstoy
We, in the West, love our freedom, our liberty and all the choices afforded to us. We love free speech, the right to an education and class movement. We vote, are free to be critical and free to believe different things, if we choose. All of these “rights” are ours, at least we believe that they are ours. There is just one minor problem: these rights we claim as ours are found only in the West and nowhere else. They are not really ours but on loan to us from the West, which begs the question, why, then, is the West in decline?
I ended my last post suggesting a connection between Christianity and the West, and in this post, I am going to defend that suggestion. Whether you believe in its truths or not, and you are free to do both in the West, there is no denying the impact Christianity has made, not only on the West, but on the entire world. Many of the beliefs, the values and the traditions we hold dear came to us in the West and from the West, and most of those came to us, like it or not, from Christianity.
When Christianity entered the world, it came into a world that was a mixture of Roman, Greek and Jew. There were three, Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, major civilizations in the world at the time, all trying to conquer each other, but it was Christianity, according to Gregg, that did the conquering. It made the Jewish God of Abraham available to both the Romans and the Greeks while also appropriating and transforming much of the Jewish thinking into a synthesis of reason and revelation. It was Christianity that changed the world by granting rights to those who had never had rights and introducing change that applied to all people. These ideas morphed into what is known as the West and “Western” thought today. According to Gregg, all of it came out of Judaism through Christianity. It was Christianity that introduced three major ideas that were new and radical; it was these three ideas that contributed to the development of this distinct “Western” culture and “Western” mindset.
These three ideas were distinct to Christianity and, as we shall see, versions of them were foundational to Western Civilization. First, reason was viewed as divine, which suggested that the world was created by a Holy God and had order and purpose. Second, there was the idea that all human beings had reason and could employ it with assistance in redeemable ways to know truth, including the moral truth of a Holy God. And third, this Christian revolution started by Jesus Christ emphasized a new form of freedom that the world had never seen before. It was a freedom that unfettered all human beings from rulers and their power and provided them a means to a Holy God and to their own betterment. These three ideas changed the entire world and forms of them took root and became foundational to the West as we know it today.
Those three Christian ideas that changed the world have morphed into three tenets of Western Civilization that we assume to be our own natural rights. They have become a bit distorted over time, but they are still very much alive and active today in the West. We assume they are distinct to the West and products of the West when their geneses are rooted in Christianity. We don’t’ think about them. They are ours, and we assume that they will always be ours because we possess them and have always possessed them. They are part of our normal, our worldview and our paideia if you will. These three ideas are distinct to Western Civilization, and yet they are even more distinct to Christianity, although they are better known by their Western nomenclature. What are they? Well, you will recognize them because they are you and me. These three ideas are three rights we take for granted and call our own; they are the right to an education, the right to a democratic way of life and the right to personal freedom. Each one came to us, not from the West, but from Christianity and along with a host of other “norms” now residing in the West.
Those three ideas created a revolution of sorts that changed the entire world. They gave everyone power that had only been reserved for kings and queens of old. They put totalitarian regimes and those like them on notice, offering something else, a better form of government, and as much as we want to, we cannot ignore their connection to Christianity. It was Christianity that was affirmed as “the true philosophy” by Clement of Alexandria and lauded for its “integration of faith and reason.” It was Christianity that produced churches, hospitals and schools, including the university, which was founded for the training of the church’s clergy and for the pursuit of truth for the sake of truth. This one product (the university) was a statement on the change that Christianity brought to the world. You can find the university in almost every country in the world today and in its vision, you will find a pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. This educational pursuit was a pursuit that the world had never had the liberty, the ability nor the desire to pursue until this Christian revolution, and all of it was rooted in a belief and in a conviction that there is a Creator God who created a world of order that could be known. Today, our colleges and universities have all but forgotten this connection, but they owe their very existence to Christianity.
There is wonderful book entitled, The Dying of the Light, that traces the origins of all colleges and universities in the United States. The striking point about this book is that almost every college or university in this country was originally the product of a denomination … the product of some form of Christianity. The Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, and the Catholics … every denomination that created a colleges or university is in that book and almost every single college or university that was created in this country is in that book. The point not to miss is that these institutions of higher learning were created, in part, due to a mandate from a Holy God and a conviction that this God created a world of order that could be known and should be known, which prompted a curiosity and a desire to learn more about this God and the world he created. One author put it this way, “It [Christianity] launched an age that saw the world as characterized by order, that the human mind can comprehend and a world that merits study simply because it is the world of God.” So, when we talk about the West, in most instances, we are taking about Christianity and its impact on the world.
It is the West that ushered in the study of science, mathematics and medicine. It is the West that employed democracy in real time and presented it as a better more copious option. It is the West that concerned itself with poverty, slavery and racism, albeit imperfectly. No other country, people group, religion or mindset offered anything close to what the West has offered to the world. It is the West that has taken its advances and advanced itself for better or worse, and while it has had its share of issues, indulgences and mistakes, it has still provided the world with so much. This is Western Civilization and the Western mindset all rolled up into this innocuous phrase we use without a second thought, and today, we find it close to death. Why? In my next post, I begin to examine its fall and death. Until then …
A Christmas tradition of mine is to post this poem on Christmas Day. It is one of my favorite poems. It was written on December 25, 1863 by Wadsworth in response to hearing that his son, Charles Appleton Wadsworth had been wounded in a battle in Virginia.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas!
Christmas Bells by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
I heard the bells on Christmas Day Their old, familiar carols play, And wild and sweet The words repeat Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And thought how, as the day had come, The belfries of all Christendom Had rolled along The unbroken song Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Till ringing, singing on its way, The world revolved from night to day, A voice, a chime, A chant sublime Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
Then from each black, accursed mouth The cannon thundered in the South, And with the sound The carols drowned Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
It was as if an earthquake rent The hearth-stones of a continent, And made forlorn The households born Of peace on earth, good-will to men!
And in despair I bowed my head; “There is no peace on earth,” I said; “For hate is strong, And mocks the song Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: “God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; The Wrong shall fail, The Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men.”
I recently read an article about the decline and fall of the West, which produced a single thought in my mind in response to this article … Are we living through what many are calling the decline of the West or has the West already fallen? These two questions produced more thoughts and prompted me to do a little reading on the subject. In several articles I read one book was referenced more than all others, The Study of History by Toynbee. It turns out that this is not just any book but, by most accounts, a masterpiece when it comes to Western Civilization. Let me explain why.
Arnold Toynbee suggested in his book that the West was already in sharp decline. Why did he do this? The Study of History is a multi-volume study of civilization, in which Toynbee studied twenty-one different civilizations across the span of human existence and concluded that nineteen of those twenty-one collapsed when they reached the current moral state of the United States, but here was the shocking part for me: He first published The Study of History in 1931, and in 1931 he posited that the West was in sharp decline and was, according to him, “rotting from within.” Toynbee died in 1975, but I wonder what he would think of our culture today. Are we living in a culture rotting from within or is it already dead?
With this post, I begin a series on the West with the goal of answer the question, is the West in decline or has it already fallen? There are several other excellent books devoted to this topic. Oswald Spengler wrote The Decline of the West, Christopher Dawson wrote Religion and the Rise of Western Culture and Tom Holland wrote Dominion and each author grappled with the same concept regarding the decline of Western Culture. Is Western Culture dead or is it in decline? Let’s find out together. First, let’s explore how the West came to be.
I begin with Samuel Gregg and his book, Reason, Faith and the Struggle for Western Civilization, which is also excellent when it comes to our topic. In his book, he offers his account of the West, which is like the others but also nuanced with some differences. Gregg argues that Western Civilization was conceived in a marriage of Jerusalem and Athens. His answer is like many others and yet he posits that Western Civilization was born through a marriage of “faith and philosophy” in a version of Christianity born in the West that embraced and applied both faith and reason as one. He sees this “one” coming out of ancient Judaism, which he suggests was a synthesis of both faith and reason as applied in the living of life in a new way. Life was no longer about survival, at least not in the West; there were advancements that made life better and allowed progressions in thought and religion. Gregg states that Judaism “de-divinized nature” and was the first worldview/religion to completely reject the ancient idea that kings and rulers were divine and everyone else was to be under them. Judaism, unlike all other religions around it, offered the world a new king. Its rejection of the old idea was through a new view of the cosmos that was spiritually oriented. Judaism saw the cosmos as part of the created order of a universe created by a Holy God and because the universe was created by this Holy God it had order and intelligence and was not formless chaos as all others saw it.
There was good, in time and space, and hope and all was not lost, according to Judaism, which was a much different narrative of the world than most other historical and religious narratives of the time. What Gregg was proposing was that in Judaism the Jews found a liberation of sorts of the cognitive from time and space. Judaism affirmed that there was a good God in heaven who was a Holy Creator God and that human beings were part of his created order, and not merely interchangeable parts of a larger machine. Human beings were seen as created in the image of this Creator God; they had purpose and were given responsibilities to live as moral beings in this created order. This was a radically different idea than all other ideas before it and what first makes Western Civilization unique. This was a vastly different worldview and would be distinctly western and a foundational mark of Western Civilization.
The merging of Athens and Jerusalem cannot be underestimated as to its impact on Western Civilization and the Western mind, especially regarding our own current modern Western mindset in the United States. It is the United States that has been the pseudo-capital of Western Civilization for many years now, and it has been the United States that has served as the poster child of the West. The United States has impacted the West, including the Western mindset, more than most. And, now it is this mindset that has become compromised as referenced in part by Alan Bloom in his book, The Closing of the American Mind. It is the American mindset that was so free and so creative that now seems to be more vulnerable and more impacted than all others by the attacks against it. Bloom, in his book, attacks the moral relativism that he claimed was now in control of the colleges and universities. The very freedom brought to us by the West was the very thing being transformed before our eyes. Again, Bloom published his book in 1987, but he appeared to be saying some of the same things. The West, often seen through its colleges and universities, was in decline and dying back in 1987 according to Bloom.
Back to Gregg, he references that Athens brought both contributions and obstacles to human thinking. It was Athens that was known for its skepticism, its irrationalities and its philosophies; most of them stood in stark contrast to the distinct and different worldview of Jerusalem (Judaism). So, how did they merge when all indications are that they should have clashed? The merging of Judaism and Greek thought, according to Gregg, predates Christianity, which is marked by the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There can be no denying the impact of Jesus Christ on the world regardless of your belief about him. Prior to Jesus Christ, educated Jews were more than familiar with Greek thought and moved easily back and forth between Hellenistic and Jewish thinking. This was due to purely pragmatic reasons as the Romans controlled the world and therefore controlled thinking. The Romans were borrowers and refiners. They invented little of their own, but they borrowed from those they conquered and bettered what they borrowed. The Romans allowed those they conquered to keep certain elements of their own culture if they accepted the elements of the Roman culture considered important. It was the Jews who were different than all other cultures; it was the Jews who had this One God who refused to bow down to any other god. Both the Romans and the Greeks viewed the Jews as barbarians. Why? Ironically, it had little to do with their religion and more to do with their thinking and their disposition. The simple answer was that they were not Roman or Greek; the better answer would be to say that they were not Western prior to Christianity. So, there it is … a connection between Christianity and Western Civilization. In my next post, I will explore this connection, but until then …
My father passed the bowl of planta to me. I was starving and grabbed it with both hands. I set it to the side of my plate and took a large spoon-full from the bowl and placed it on my plate. The meat and sauce were waiting. I mixed them all together before beginning to eat. I loved to mix my foods together. My sister, however, did not, which I found strange. She like to keep everything separate on her plate with each food in its own special space. I did not understand this and thought it was another reason to support my assertion that she was from some far away planet.
I loved planta. It was my favorite food. My mother was a great cook and made many fine meals for our family but this one, for me, was her very best. As I inserted my fork into the planta, there was a knock on our door. My father looked up from his plate, looked at my mother and then informed all of us that he would get the door. He put down his fork and rose from his chair and walked to the door and looked out the window.
“Its Butch from next door,” he said as he opened the door. “Hi Butch! What can we do for you tonight?’
“Hey, sorry to bother you, especially at dinner time, but can I talk to you? It’s kind of important and all. Again, sorry folks for interrupting dinner.”
“Sure,” my father said.
“Outside,” Butch said. “On the porch, if you don’t mind.”
“Sure, Butch,” said my dad as he followed Butch out onto the porch, closing the door behind him.
My mother looked at me and then at my sister as she ate. She hated when people called on us at dinner. Dinner was her domain, her happy place. She deemed dinner time as a sacred and protected time that should never ever be interrupted: it was gold and to interrupt it meant whatever Butch needed had better be real important. I looked at my sister and she looked at me, we knew our mother was not happy.
“I am sure there is an emergency at work,” she announced to us as she ate.
My sister looked at me again, but she said nothing. I just kept eating my planta. I knew my father would be in trouble with my mother if it was anything other than work. As I took another bite, I heard the door open and turned to see my father come back through the door.
“What is it?” asked my mother.
“Well, I am not sure. Butch said there is a strange light in the sky tonight—up behind the school.”
“What?”
“Yea, he said most of the town is up there looking at it right now. It has been in the sky for a few hours now. No one really knows what to make of it.”
“Really?” said my mother.
“Yea, and we should go look at it too. He wants me to see it in case it is something more.” My father was one of the three selectmen who ran the town. He was always busy doing something for our little town. My mother supported him, but, at times, she thought it demanded too much from him, like tonight.
“Not until we finish dinner,” said my mother firmly. “There are two other selectmen in this town. Let them look at it until you finish dinner.”
“Right,” my father said with a chuckle. “Let’s eat and then we can go for a walk and see it for ourselves,” he said in his usual calm manner. He knew that dinner was my mother’s sacred time. It would take a real emergency to break away from dinner without finishing it first, and he did not deem this as that kind of emergency.
I looked at my mother and then my father. “What light? I asked as ate more of my planta.
“I don’t really know,” my father said. “Butch said it is the strangest thing he has ever seen. Let’s finish eating first and then go see it for ourselves. The rest of the town apparently is already there.”
We ate what was on our plate as this was my father’s rule for dinner and it was always in play. My sister and I always had to eat at least one portion of everything being offered for dinner. Any complaint was rewarded with another spoonful, which we were also required to eat; nothing ever went to waste. My father grew up with very little. There were times when his family did not have enough to eat for dinner so whatever food we had was a blessing to him and he did not want us wasting any of it.
After we finished dinner, which always included washing the dishes—my mother’s rule—we put on our coats and hats and went out the side door onto the driveway.
“Where are we going again?” asked my mother.
“We are going up street to the back of the school,” said my father. “That is where everyone is looking at this light in the sky.”
“Light in the sky,” said my mother. “It probably just a bright star.”
“Maybe,” my father said, “but let’s take a look for ourselves.”
And, with that, we started walking up the street towards the school. It was a cold brisk night. As we walked we could see our breath in the night time air. My sister did not seem to care, but I couldn’t wait to see it. I tried to look into the sky to see if I could see the light, but I saw nothing. The trees stretching over the road preventing me from seeing the full sky. As we approached the school, we could see others walking up the sidewalk and around the side of the school. We followed the Carriers and the Newtons who were also walking up the sidewalk.
As we walked around the back of the school, we were surprised to find that almost the entire town was there. Butch saw us and motioned to my father. He pointed up into the dark nighttime sky, towards the hill just over the trees. I followed his finger and looked up in the sky and then, I saw it. Bright, round and clear with no movement. It was not a star. It was too close. It just hung in the air and did not move. It was like a moon, lucid and clear but so close and low in the nighttime sky. As I looked at it, I began to get a little anxious. What was this thing, I thought? Butch walked over to us and pointed at it.
“That thing … right there … has not moved in three hours,” he announced.
“You don’t say,” said my father with his eyes glued to the round object in the sky.
My father moved us to an open space on the bank behind the school, which inclined up leading to a flat field the town used as a softball field. There was snow on the bank but not too much as we had not had any large snowstorms yet. As I moved up the bank, I could hear the snow crunch under my boots.
As I looked up into the sky, there it was just sitting there. It was so round and bright, and white but not too white, sort of milky white and stationary. I did not know how else to describe it. It just continued to hang there in the sky like a small secondary moon but much closer than our real moon. It seemed like it was watching us as much as we were watching it. I couldn’t take my eyes off it. Most of the families from the town had now joined us behind the school. They were looking at the light in the sky, pointing and talking to each other. My father walked over to where Butch was standing.
“Butch, that thing is no star,” said my father. “I am not sure what it is, but it’s no star.”
“It’s not, that’s for sure. What do you think it is?” asked Butch in a low whisper. “Is it something to worry about? Is it … you know … a UFO?”
“I have no idea,” my father whispered back, “but let’s not get too excited. And let’s not say that out loud right now.”
I kept looking at the circle in the sky. I looked at it through the trees. I could see it between two branches that formed an X directly on it. I looked back over my shoulder at the families that had assembled behind the school. Some were laughing and having a good time. Others were whispering to each other and appeared concerned. Some just stood silently starring a that light in the sky. It was clear to me that no one was sure what this thing was and what we should do about it if anything. I was not sure what it was either, but I knew one thing … It was there, it was real and I was watching it.
I looked around and saw that two of the three selectmen were behind the school with us looking at the light in the sky. My father, of course, was one of them; Tillie Manago was the other, but that was not a surprise. Tillie never missed anything in this town. So, that was two of the three. Where was the third? Where was Bruno Mowe and why was he not here? His house was almost directly across the street from the school. Maybe, he knew what this thing in the sky was? Bruno was the elder statesman of our town. He knew everything about our town and always had an answer to give us. I began to wonder why he was not here.
Our little town was situated across the river from one of the very first nuclear power plants built in the country. We benefited greatly from the location of this plant, but not as much as Towson, the town in which the plant was located. The plant bought our little town the finest fire engine in the area and charged the town $1.00 for it. Our town had gotten used to seeing bizarre things related to that plant. Helicopters, investigators in dark suits and dark SUVs had all visited our little town at one time or another, but this … this was different. Was this related to the plant across the river? I began to wonder then I heard a little commotion behind me and turned to see Bruno Mowe in his rubber boots and hunting hat walking up the bank.
“What’s everybody doing here?” He asked.
The crowd said nothing at first, then, my father spoke up.
“Bruno, look,” my father said pointing to the sky. “What do you think that is?” asked my father continuing to point to the light in the sky.
“You know, I don’t know,” Bruno said rubbing his chin as he did when he was thinking, “but I am sure it is nothing to get too excited about.” I am sure there is a very good explanation waiting to he heard,” he said with a smile. He was always positive and said everything with assurance. I looked up and it was still there … in the same spot, right between those two branches of that one tree.
It was getting late and getting much colder. I was starting to get cold, and I could see others were getting cold too. The younger kids who were playing on the playground on the side of the school started to wander back to their parents, complaining of the cold. The adults who were talking among themselves began to shift back and forth to stay warm. I was looking at my mittens and wondering how I could generate more heat for my hands because the mittens were no longer working. Then, I heard someone gasp and a little scream. I turned and looked up and caught a glimpse of the light as it moved quickly to the top of the mountain and disappeared over it. There was a moment of silence and then everyone started talking at once.
“Ok, everyone, calm down,” Bruno said walking through the crowd. “I am sure there is a good explanation for what this was. We will make inquiries. I promise you that.”
“It is like nothing I have ever seen,” said Tullie.
“Me neither” said Olga who lived between Bruno and Tullie. “I have never ever seen anything like that in my life. I think we just saw a UFO!”
“Now Olga let’s not jump to conclusions,” said Bruno with a chuckle. “We don’t know what that was, but we will find out.”
Did I just see a UFO? My 14-year-old mind equated a UFO to a flying saucer from another world, but the reality was a UFO was any Unidentified Flying Object, which could be something from the government and this world. I had just read that last night in a science magazine.
Everyone was cold and with the light in the sky now gone people started to head back to their homes. My father collected us and ushered us back down the bank, across the playground and back on to the street. It was time to go home. As we walked back home, I kept looking behind me, hoping to see the light in the sky again, but I never saw it again that night nor any other night after.
For the next two weeks, I looked up into that night sky every night hoping to get one more glimpse of that light in the sky only to be disappointed again and again. As weeks became months, I stopped looking in the sky and started to forget what that light actually looked like. Other things became more important and soon spring was upon us. The townspeople stopped talking about it, and it faded from all our collective memories. After a year, I forgot about that night all together. That is until one Christmas when I was once again reminded about the light in the sky.
I was at a Christmas party with Alice, who lived in Connecticut with her parents but visited our area often because her grandparents lived next door to mine in the tiny Vermont town my grandparents called home. Alice was my age and every Christmas she came with her parents to stay with her grandparents. We usually hung out with each other because there was no one else our age. We were at a party at her grandparent’s house when someone ask if anyone saw the light in the sky from a year ago. I perked up to see who was asking the question. It was Mike, Alice’s uncle.
“Mike,” I said confidentially. “I saw the light in the sky that night.”
“Yea, how long was it in the sky,” he asked.
“Well, when I got there someone said it had been in the sky for about 3 hours.”
“How long total? He asked.
“Probably, about 4 hours or so.”
“Four hours,” said Mike. “You sure?”
“I am. My family was there too. You can ask them.”
“Did you see it disappear?”
“Sure did! It went over the mountain.”
“Well, I saw it too and it’s been a year, and I still can’t get that light out of my mind. It is driving me crazy. What do think it was? Was it a UFO? Was it something to do with that plant down near you guys?
“I have no idea. I kind of forgot about to be honest until tonight,” I said as I looked over at Alice who just shrugged her shoulders, knowing nothing about the light in the sky. It was funny to me that Mike saw that light and still could not get it out of his mind, and me, well, I had completely forgotten about the light in the sky and that night. I was surprised that it had slipped my mind. I tried to remember what it looked like, but even that memory was faded.
Alice asked me about it later. I told her about that night and how the whole town came out to see this strange light that hung in the sky over our town. I told her about Butch, my father and Bruno. I told her about the cold and snow crunching under my boots, but the light, I couldn’t really tell her what it looked like. I told all that I could remember, which was not much. Mike, on the other hand, remembered everything about the light like it was last night. He saw it from Towson, just across the river. His memory was different. It was not as bright to him and much smaller. It was white and a perfect circle, and as much as he tried, he could not forget it. I, on the other hand, had forgotten all about it. I had to go ask my father about it. My father did remember it. He related the evening to Alice, told her who was there and what the light looked like. As he spoke, my memory of the light started to return to me.
Later in the evening as the people began to go home, it was time for me to say goodbye to Alice. I knew she was going back to her home in Connecticut tomorrow. We said our goodbyes. She gave me a hug and left with her parents. Alice and I were very much alike. We enjoyed each other’s company when we could, but then when it was time to go back to our own lives, hers in Connecticut and mine here, we had no issues doing that.
I never saw another light in the sky again and as far as I know, no one in our town did either. We never found out what the light was, and you know what, that was fine with me. It was a UFO, by all accounts. Was it from this world or another? I do not know, and I probably never will, but I am comfortable with that. As the years went by, I thought less and less about the light in the sky, and more and more about other things like baseball, college and life, but every once in a while, something would trigger that memory and I would, once again, pull it back out of the recesses of my mind and think about it.
I could still recall the tense mood of the people there that night. I could remember the whispers and the cold, and then I would wonder, again, what that light in the sky was, but I am not Mike, who still talks about it to this day. I resigned myself to the very real fact that I will never know, and I decided that I am fine with that. It bothered me for the first few weeks after seeing it, but every week that went by something else filled its void. As I grew older, I realized that life is about mysteries, and becoming comfortable with them. You can’t possibly know everything and that is fine with me. Everyone has mysteries; if you don’t, you need to get out more.
We have now come full circle to the point where the theory is to be normalized. As Horkheimer and others developed this theory, the initial intentions, I believe, were rooted in standardizing it in ways that positioned it to become “normalized” in culture. To do this positivism and interaction with it had to be addressed; it was, for all intents and purposes, foundational to almost everything … science, philosophy and even worldview. Horkheimer, in his essay, intentionally presented Critical Theory as if it had positivist intentions; he wrote, “In so far as this traditional conception of theory shows a tendency, it is towards a purely mathematical system of symbols. As elements of the theory, as components of the propositions and conclusions, there are ever fewer names of experimental objects and ever more numerous mathematical symbols.” While it appeared in this statement that Horkheimer embraced positivism, we learn later in his essay that he did not embrace positivism as it was, but as it needed to be for Critical Theory to assume its dominant position in culture. He saw the positivism that he encountered in much the same light as capitalism, as that which was “dominated by industrial production techniques,” or by the bourgeois, and as that which needed change.
To combat the positivist dominance he encountered, Horkheimer, as I highlighted in an earlier post, destabilized traditional theory, which was foundational to positivism, allowing Critical Theory the needed space to surpass positivism. To do this, he believed that Critical Theory must be capable of doing two things: it must push traditional theory to view culture within a historical context, which I discussed at length earlier on why this was important, and its critique must incorporate all the social sciences. Horkheimer explained that a theory can only be considered “a true critical theory if it is explanatory, practical and normative,” but to do this required the presence of all social sciences in its foundation and its practice. His theory must explain social issues through practical means in responses that stay inside the parameters of the field addressed, much like traditional theory, but it also must speak to and address all of culture to change it. This was “critical” theory and Horkheimer and others created it to be much different than traditional theory.
By offering a “critical” theory rooted in all social sciences that addressed a field while speaking to and addressing all of culture, Horkheimer presented a better and more improved theoretical option, but for whom? His “critical” theory was constructed to present Marxism as the norm and position it to assume the dominant positions of culture. Through his “critical” theory, he deconstructed “traditional” theory and its production for one reason; his perception was that traditional theory failed to address power and the status quo through the social sciences. Horkheimer presented Critical Theory as a theory that not only addressed power and the status quo but would use the former to deconstruct and the latter to fundamentally change the foundation of traditional theory, creating the means for Critical Theory to engage and transform culture.
Traditional theory has long been confined to the field it served, and it worked best inside the parameters of that specific field because its goals were confirming true propositions within specific fields. Critical Theory, while technically not part of science, was built to interact aggressively with all fields, including science, for greater purposes. Its interests extended beyond specific fields and into culture itself, positioning itself as dominant over all fields for the purpose of changing culture and the norms of it. Critical Theory was to interact with all of culture through power structures where it assumed the dominant position. Its goals were not confined to one experiment or one field; instead, they were much larger and more broad, purposeful and directed at cultural transformation.
Traditional theory had always focused on coherency and on the distinction between theory and praxis within intimate settings. It followed the Cogito in its view of knowledge, embracing the idea that knowledge was grounded in self-evident propositions, which Horkheimer used to introduce the idea of individual genius into the concept of traditional theory. Traditional theory typically explained facts through the application of universal truths or laws by subsumption that either confirmed or denied the truth proposition proposed. Horkheimer, as I discussed, posited that the “universal” part of the theoretical equation was rooted in the individual and not in the process, which rooted traditional theory in time and space, leaving it exposed. To confirm truth, traditional theory willingly partnered with positivism, rooting itself in an objective process, which had historically been considered the better option of confirming scientific investigative truth. Traditional theory would defend a scientific truth through empirical confirmation which embraced the idea of an objective world where knowledge was confirmed through empirical means, thought to be a mirror of reality. This view was not only rejected by Critical Theory but overrun and changed by it.
Horkheimer and, for the most part, all the Frankfurt School, rejected the notion of the objectivity of knowledge due to its historical and social foundation, which, ironically, came courtesy of Horkheimer’s hand and was used later to normalize Critical Theory. Horkheimer wrote, “The facts which our senses present to us are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ.” In other words, Horkheimer, with this statement, was confirming that it was the individual genius of the observer that made traditional theory work, which positioned it in time and space, allowing it to be overrun by the “better” and more dominant Critical Theory. Traditional theory, with its roots in an objective view of knowledge, was now susceptible to Critical Theory because of its objectivity, which was now grounded in the time and space of the individual and not in the dialectic process of theory. This made traditional theory historical, which exposed its past dominance, making it as vulnerable to the criticisms of Marxism as everything else. Critical Theory, for Horkheimer, was that which would solve the issue of the “partiality” of the “culturally impacted” observer and of the past dominance of the oppressors; for Horkheimer, it was Critical Theory that would free individuals from what he saw as their entanglement in a social embedded perspective of interdependent oppression.
Traditional theory, historically, had been evaluated through practical implications with no real practical consequences of significance outside its field; knowledge, as a mirror of reality, was more a “theoretically-oriented” tool than anything else, which clarified knowledge as a product and one that was objective. Critical theory was presented as “the” theory, void of any kind of bias towards knowledge that is objective; it presented itself as that which considered knowledge through functional relationships to ideologies and societal liberties. Considering this perception, knowledge becomes what Critical Theory needs it to be … societal critique, cultural action and subjective, directly impacted by the dominant and ultimately a means to transform reality. This is where we find ourselves today, living in a reality that is being transformed before our eyes. So, how do we recognize Critical Theory as we live each day?
Six Ways to Recognize Critical Theory:
Here are six ways to recognize Critical Theory in everyday life. First, Critical Theory views language as a social activity and as a vehicle of ideology so the adage, “sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is wrong to Critical Theorists. Words will hurt you and are considered harmful to advocates of Critical Theory therefore, they need to be attacked and treated as acts, and those inside Critical Theory will treat them accordingly. Words will be attacked and treated as criminal acts. Second, there will be no rules associated with anything rooted in Critical Theory for one purpose; it is Critical Theory that is the ultimate authority, and it makes all the rules. If norms are being assessed and critiqued through Critical Theory, almost anything goes. Stealing, vandalism, rioting, and fighting are all justified if they are manifestations of the oppressed who are “rightfully” pushing back against their oppressors. Who are the oppressed? Well, they are anyone who has not been in a position of power in the past regardless of their personal efforts. Third, those critiquing and assessing generally have authority even if they have no experience in the area that they are critiquing and assessing. Their authority comes from believing and rooting themselves in Critical Theory, which is ultimately “the” authority over all fields and all theories. For example, a political philosopher critiquing a medical procedure with no formal medical training will have more authority than the medical professional due to the authority of Critical Theory. We can expect to see more of this if Critical Theory continues to rule.
Continuing, fourth, there will generally be hypocrisy associated with any movement made under the authority of Critical Theory. For example, those condemning wealthy company CEOs and their high salaries who produce a product and provide viable employment to many will, with the same breath, embrace professional athletes and celebrities who are, in most cases, much wealthier than company CEOs but produce no product and contribute little to society other than entertainment. This phenomenon is a fascinating study waiting for someone to take the time to address it. Fifth, any movement in Critical Theory will trump tried and true established theories and truths in science, medicine or philosophy. It will be Critical Theory that pushes the agenda and the change in the field and not expertise or experience. We see this taking place in government, law and even medicine. And, finally, Critical Theory sees everything as embedded power structures existing in a binary world of oppressed and oppressors. Everyone is either looking to oppress or being oppressed. Everyone is either bias in some way or the victim of some sort of bias directed against them. Dominant norms that are good for society will be condemned, not on their merit or quality, but because they have existed in a dominant position for too long. Overall, we must remember that Critical Theory has as its foundation Marxism, and it will always have Marxist’s tendencies which identify it. Each of the examples I have presented have one thing in common: all of them are Marxist in nature.
This is the world in which we live, and it is a Critical Theory world … for now! One thing I know, all things eventually come to an end. The Babylonians, The Roman Empire, the Greeks … all of them came to an end at some point and so too will Critical Theory. When that day comes, and the history for this movement is written what will it say?
This concludes my series on Critical Theory. I could spend the next year on this one topic, but all things must come to an end; it is time to move on to something new. Thanks for reading and remember, thinking matters!
The Deconstruction and Development of a Theory That Is Critical
I have now arrived at the point where I will pull back the layers of development regarding Critical Theory. Theory, before Critical Theory, had, as part of its composite, elements that were analytically oriented towards analysis with a distinct dialectic tendency. With this dialectic tendency, theory was considered a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world. It required fluidity with an analytical orientation which allowed theorists, especially those in science, to make predictions based upon it being testable under controlled conditions in experiments. In the case of philosophy, theories were evaluated through principles in abductive reasoning and pushed to withstand scrutiny; they were used to test a thesis though the development of an anti-thesis, which was thought to confirm whether the original thesis was true or false. This element of theory was, for Horkheimer, problematic as the dialectic was not only rooted in science but also a benefactor of positivist protection. It was perceived as a process that revealed true scientific tendencies through objective means (positivism). Horkheimer recognized that theory, left untouched, did not have roots or tendencies towards Marxism nor would it ever have any of those tendencies unless its foundational structure changed.
Horkheimer began the deconstruction of general theory by making a connection between theory and society, which pulled a distinctly social element into the perception of theory. He established this connection through what he called the savant or the specialist. This was an important step in the deconstruction of theory; he wrote regarding the specialist, “Particular traits in the theoretical activity of the specialist are here elevated to the rank of universal categories of instances of the world-mind, the eternal Logos.” His point was to establish that it was the individual (a member of society) that was the universal when it came to the theoretical (theory) because, according to Horkheimer, the universal was not theoretical or dialectic; it was, instead, individual genius. It was this push towards individual genius that also established theory as historical. He explained that the decisive elements of theory were nothing more than those activities of society, which are “reduced” to the theoretical through the activities of individuals in society, and in the case of theory, the activities of a specialist or of individual genius were activities of society. This tied theory to the social through the individual (either as a specialist or through individual genius), and it was the individual that rooted theory in the historical through the time and space occupied by the individual.
In his union of theory and the individual, Horkheimer created a bridge from the theoretical to the social via the individual through individual genius, but it was the specialist whose activity he labeled as “the power of creative origination.” This activity, to a Marxist, was production, which Horkheimer labeled “creative sovereignty of thought,” which reinforced that even the individual’s thoughts were social and historical. This effectively removed scientific theory from its privileged and protected positivist (objective truth) position and reduced it to a social action. This was a line in the sand for Horkheimer … a risk he was willing to take. The risk—attacking the legitimacy of all other theories grounded in the scientific through his new “critical theory—was well worth it for him. Coming out of World War II and the oppressive reign of the Nazi war machine, he believed people were open to this radical change he proposed, especially if it “appeared” to bring back the civil liberties and the freedoms they had lost.
For Critical Theory to live beyond its inception, it would need the idea of theory (the theoretical) to be re-cast as a different perception with a different semantical interpretation, one that embraced Critical Theory without requiring Critical Theory to embrace old ideas of theory, change to them or be compromised by them as applied by science. This new theory Horkheimer proposed had to exist as dominant while bringing change to the theories it encountered in ways that pushed them towards tendencies that were critical and Marxist, and the only way to do this was for it (Critical Theory) to be authoritative. When encountering all other theories it had to be “the” critical theory in each interaction. From my perspective, I do not believe this could have happened at any other point in history; after World War II and the Nazi regime’s widespread oppression, Horkheimer saw an opportunity and took it.
Horkheimer, to usher in this change, pushed the theoretical to the point of instability, which produced doubt, setting it up to be re-established as “the” critical theory to remove the doubt that was now there. Theory, for Horkheimer, was now where it needed to be; it was no longer theoretical in any protected sense but instead, it was a true means of production. Its perception was now more a social function or an individual decision than anything theoretical, which made it part of production, which he labeled as a “production of unity,” which reduced production to that of a product. Horkheimer never saw production as something that produces a product; he saw production only as a product of culture, manifesting in the same ways as other cultural products. For him, it had to be a means of production that could be controlled by Marxism. If production was no longer a process of “becoming,” then it would be open to “becoming” something new, something with Marxist tendencies, especially if it was firmly entrenched in the social and the historic. As a product that was social and historic, it would now be oriented towards individual tendencies (the savant or the specialist), opening it up to cultural changes and semantical shifts with distinctly Marxist orientations.
As a product, the process of production was now categorical, easily manipulated and positioned to be re-formed in a different light. Horkheimer’s attack comes full circle, when he wrote, “In reality, the scientific calling is only one, non-independent element in the work of historical activity of man, but in such a philosophy the former replaces the latter.” Linking theory to history allowed it to be supple in much the same way history was, which positioned theory to be pliable … more open to revisions, changes and the influence of propaganda, which would allow it to be impacted by the orientations of scholars and theorists addressing it in much the same way history was addressed. This pliability that was now attached to scientific theory was no longer fluid in any natural sense but mechanical in every aspect of its movement. Its movements were intentional, which allowed it to be manipulated through the power functions of those overseeing it. It would become dependent on individuals and their interpretations, orientations and contexts and it would no longer be dialectic. This created space for Critical Theory to move into and take over the theoretical through the individual.
As I read Horkheimer’s essay, his attack on the theoretical was on full display; he saw all dominant theories and philosophies, as well as those objects we perceive as natural—cities, towns, fields, and woods—as bearing the marks of man and shaped by man’s oppression. They were products of society to him, the means of production and in a perfect Marxist world, equally distributed to all and not left to the bourgeois to manage and control. He was clearly now viewing theory, through a distinctly Marxist lens, as social and historical. Theory was part of society and tainted in all the same ways; Horkheimer wrote regarding society, “The existence of society has either been founded directly on oppression or been the blind outcome of conflicting forces, but in any event not the result of conscious spontaneity on the part of free individuals.” This one statement about society was also to be applied to theory, prior to his deconstruction of it. He saw society as that which was built intentionally with ill intentions. He wrote regarding this thought, “As man reflectively records reality, he separates and rejoins pieces of it, and concentrates on some particulars while failing to notice others.” Those concepts of recording, separating and rejoining are conscious intentional actions impacted by the beliefs and values of those individuals determining the recorded, separated and rejoined. Horkheimer bemoaned the intentionality of society and saw its structure as intentionally created to give the bourgeois everything at the expense of everyone else, and yet he used it to deconstruct theory and recreate it as Critical Theory.
What Horkheimer initiated so many years ago has come to fruition. Horkheimer has essentially replaced theory with a “critical” theory that is analytically and distinctly Marxist. He took the theoretical, and its dialectic orientation and replaced its praxis with a Marxist one. The authoritative nature of theory, which has been assumed, especially in science, to possess an objective ability to confirm what is true, has now been taken over by a Marxist orientation with intentions oriented towards Marxist truisms. It is Marxist tendencies that are now dominant inside theory. They have been reconfigured to analyze other non-Marxist theories in critical ways … to cast doubt on them until they are overrun by this new configured “critical” theory. In the end, they either submit to it or die. This is Critical Theory; it was created to be “the” critical theory of all theories and to leave Marxism in a dominant position in science and ultimately in society. This is where we find our world today … right where Horkheimer and his colleagues had hoped it would be. It is Critical Theory that drives the ideas in our colleges, pushes the bills in our government and changes the norms in our culture and every idea, bill and norm has tendencies that are critical and distinctly Marxist. As we look at our culture and ask, how did we get here? There is but one answer … Critical Theory! Stay tuned for the next installment of this series. Until then, remember, thinking does matter!
In my last post, I suggested that Horkheimer, to create his new “theory” had to re-create the general idea of theory itself. I posited my own assertions, which, if I am honest, are based strictly on my reading of his essay and my own convictions formed from that reading, which is my attempt to stay inside the spirit of Critical Theory. I tried to limit my secondary sources and keep his essay front and center with little to no outside interference. Right or wrong, I am left with my own assertions; whether they are corroborated by others or even valid seems to me of little consequence considering what I have read so far in his essay.
In a world of Critical Theory, one of the first impressions that came to me was this one: there are no rules. I need only to assert my ideas in persuasive sincere ways and that should be enough, but that is problem. It should never be enough; It should require more because, like it or not, they are my perceptions and those will always be based on me. It is the same with Marxists, Idealists and Pragmatists; beliefs and values always turn into perceptions. The important point is not to assert your perceptions as true but to determine whether your perceptions are true. Let’s jump right into this post with my own assertion.
My initial assertion regarding Horkheimer’s work on theory begins with this thought: to make it “critical” would require it be fully “critical” from all angels and for all situations. The only way I see this being accomplished is if Critical Theory becomes the dominant theory over all other theories. Regardless of the validity of my claim, to answer that question I must examine, in detail, his attack on theory, or the theoretical (I reference it at times this way to clarify it from the categorical or the practical), because whether right or wrong, it reads as an attack to me. My perception is impacted by his statements; for example, he wrote, “The traditional idea of theory is based on scientific activity as carried on within the division of labor at a particular stage in the latter’s development.” Here Horkheimer seemed to direct his attack against theory by linking traditional theory directly to the action of the individual engaged in the theory, and in doing so, he presented the idea that the scientific action of a theory was no different than any “other activities of a society.” What I believe he was positing was that the individual action of employing a theory was, in substance and essence, no different than the individual action of a teacher, a coach or any other person acting according to their own convictions as a member of society; they are all social actions, which, in a subtle way, places science in a position to be overrun by Marxism.
I do not believe his point here was to destroy theory but, to keep it in a state of flux to be used for his purposes. I believe he meant to link current theory to the individual for the purposes of giving the individual power over the theoretical process, which ultimately was a connection to the means of production via the individual. Inside Marxism, the individual and their actions would always be considered a means of production. Regarding this, he wrote, “… the real social function of science is not made manifest; it speaks not of what theory means in human life, but only what it means in the isolated sphere in which for historical reasons it comes into existence.” In this one statement, he reinforced his reduction of science to that of a social function and presented it with Marxist tendencies: as a means of production. With no pressure to defend his assertion, he proceeded to “deconstruct” out the “positivist protection” that science enjoyed, which would always present it as true and never as a means of production.
The result of this deconstruction was a reduction of the theoretical to a position where it would meet all the requirements to be a means of production, but he also does something else that was equally important. He plants into the discussion a subtle historical reference (“historical reasons”). This historical reference completes this reduction of science, from that of a theoretical process with positivist protection (my phrase) to one that was now an action resulting from an individual choice in time and space. This is important because, as a historical reference, the reduction of science was complete, He had moved it out of the theoretical realm and placed it firmly into the social realm, where it will be at the mercy of Marxism as a means of production.
Horkheimer next took aim at society, which he viewed from a distinctly Marxist perspective. He defined society, as “the result of all the work” of all sectors of production in culture. His negative view of capitalism stemmed from his belief that it was the bourgeois in a capitalist state who would be the ones benefitting from the labor of everyone in society, which, for him, was categorically unfair and oppressive. This categorical oppressiveness, for Horkheimer, even extended to all ideas and thoughts of a society. For Horkheimer the necessity of re-establishing the conception of theory in a Marxist tradition was priority one in his development of a new “critical” theory fully capable of competing against those theories already established and dominant. For it to have a chance it needed a cultural foundation that would welcome it and allow it to grow and to have that foundation, he would have to destroy the ideas of capitalism, which operated on ideas like supply and demand and Smith’s invisible hand, which would be almost impossible to control from a Marxist position. He would borrow the radical doubt of Descartes to accomplish this task.
Horkheimer understood that every dominant theory, once doubted, would be less dominant and more vulnerable. For Critical Theory to take hold it had to be the critical lens used in analysis of all other theories and part of that critical analysis had to be doubt, which once used in analysis, by Critical Theory was left attached to the theory analyzed. Horkheimer’s goal was that one day Critical Theory would be the dominant worldview, but the current state of science, with its theoretical roots in qualitative and quantitative methodology, would destroy Critical Theory if it were not first destroyed. For Horkheimer, this was his motivation for his attack on the concept of theory. It was also why he used the radical doubt of Descartes in his critical analysis of theory to change it and then recreate it in the image of Critical Theory.
In his essay, Horkheimer dictated how theory was to be recreated semantically and culturally to reflect Marxist beliefs, and then he labeled this theory as “critical” and used it for critical analysis over all other theories. Horkheimer hoped to accomplish two tasks with his recreation of theory: he would eliminate the original idea of theory, which was a threat to Critical Theory, and recreated it in the image of Marxism. Second, he would use this recreated and reconstructed theory as vehicle to deliver Critical Theory in ways that would assert it as a worldview and as dominant. As we look out at our world, what do we see today? We see those dominant theories of the past willfully submitting to the whims and desires of Critical Theory.
It is Critical Theory that has become the lens of critical analysis, leading the charge to canceling dominant theories of the past and open the cultural door for new theories to come rushing in and these theories connect with no other theories. They make no sense when it comes to science or even medicine and yet, the take hold, are defended and are profoundly impact culture. We need only to look back and ask a few questions. When it comes to Critical Theory, where is dialectic thought? What about the antithesis? We see those theories of the past cast into the darkness of doubt by the shadow of Critical Theory, and they either align with or, in some cases, are replaced by Critical Theory or they fade away and die.
This is our world today. It is a world where Critical Theory has become more dominant than we even realize, and that is by design. My next post will explore how theory became “critical” theory, with the hope of educating all of us in ways that will help us identify Critical Theory and its impact. Until then …
When examining Critical Theory through the eyes of Max Horkheimer, we can see a bit of what makes it unique and different. Let me begin with a quote from Horkheimer; early in his essay, he wrote, “There is always on one hand, the conceptually formational knowledge and on the other hand, the facts to be subsumed under it. Such a subsumption or establishing a relation between the simple perception or verification of a fact and the conceptual structure of our knowing is called its theoretical explanation.” Here Horkheimer began to subtly push a shift in our knowing, pushing it into a realm that was almost that of ascendency where facts are now subsumed to our knowing, which is a distinctly Marxist tendency, but it was also very much an attack on current knowledge, albeit subtle. This is an important distinction to remember as we move forward.
Horkheimer unpacked the idea of theory early in his essay, starting with a statement regarding the essence of theory; he wrote, “What scientists in various fields regard as the essence of the theory thus corresponds, in fact, to the immediate tasks they set for themselves.” This one statement, in my opinion, supported his earlier assertion regarding our knowing; that it is powerful, dominant and impactful on theory. He goes on to use words like “manipulation” and “supplied” to reinforce his concept of theory over one that so many have held as the standard and the determiner of our knowing. He was asserting that it was nothing more than an intentional task of an individual, inside their own individual essence, which was the application of his new assertion. Because he believed knowing was rooted in our own ascendency, he also believed it was nothing more than an individual choice, which established the concept of theory as he needed it to be presented … as personal, individual and rooted in historical and social condition. He wrote of “the manipulation of the physical nature” in the context of the “amassing of a body of knowledge” such as was supplied in an ordered set of hypotheses to imply, again, that there was individual intentionality to the idea of a theory.
Horkheimer wrote of the influence of the subject matter on a theory and vice versa, calling the process “not only an intrascientific process but a social one as well.” It was important for him to defend his assertion of ascendency as his assertion was also an attack on the social dominant thinking of the day, which he identified earlier as theological in nature. The essay, at this point, reads as a scanning of the landscape, in some respects, of the theoretical in search of useful tools to develop and apply in ways that created and developed a distinctly Marxist ascendency at the expense of the current dominant theological one. We can identify the tools he found useful through the points of his deconstruction.
One such example was his references to the Positivists and to the Pragmatists. He brought attention to the fact that both had similar connections between the theoretical and the social, which he questioned as to whether either one was useful or even scientific. He pointed to the scientific task, and to the scientific community and to their own general call in such situations as a call that was a “sense of practical purpose” and a “belief in social value” when his assertion was that they were both nothing more than “a personal conviction”. This is a primary example of Horkheimer taking both concepts, deconstructing them to the point of doubt in their current states, with the purpose of reconstructing them later inside Critical Theory for beneficial purposes of enhancing and supporting Critical Theory.
The dominant idea of theory, to Horkheimer, was always under his attack. He took the current idea of theory found in science and employed his deconstruction/reconstruction dichotomy to develop the future one he intended to employ. He began by acknowledging that scientists in various fields regard their own tasks as the essence of theory, and the key word here was “essence,” which he already established as that which was rooted in man. This idea of essence destabilized general scientific theory, pushing it away from the theoretical and towards the practical, pragmatic and even personal; it was the personal that destabilized theory to the point of existence. Once theory is personal it is no longer theoretical but instead opinion or perception, which positions it to be developed into something completely different. This was the brilliance of Horkheimer on display in Critical Theory.
The conception of theory, for Horkheimer, was “grounded in the inner nature of knowledge” for the purpose of establishing it as historical, which, again, pushed it completely away from the theoretical, reducing it all the way down past the personal to an “ideological category.” Once it was categorical it become vulnerable to manipulation and in a state of readiness, for the purposes and intentions of the manipulator. Horkheimer wrote, “That new views in fact win out is due to concrete historical circumstances, even if the scientist himself may be determined to change his views only by immanent motives.” He goes on to note that concrete historical circumstances, while important, inside science tend to succumb to “genius and accident.” Here, again, is the brilliance of his deconstructive process on display as he casted doubt into the very essence of theory as it was currently known and employed.
As Horkheimer explained why social conditions are not considered as much as other factors, he made an interesting reference. He wrote, “The theoreticians of knowledge usually rely here on a concept of theology which only in appearance is immanent to their science.” That one statement was followed by a reference to new definitions and how they are drawn, depending on directions and goals of research. This was the process of Critical Theory and the beginning of the end of general scientific theory. It would never again be as dominant despite the efforts of many. It took many years and consistent and continuous pounding away at the foundations by generations of Critical Theorists, but here we sit in the place that Horkheimer imagined many years ago. Critical Theory has become that which is imposing its will on all other theories.
As we read Horkheimer, we are experiencing his deconstruction/reconstruction process, as it was used on the concept of theory inside science. It was this deconstruction of theory that was the crack in the door, so to speak, that opened for Critical Theory to come barging into culture. It is through Critical Theory that so many other different theories entered our culture and pushed their way into battling the norms of culture, but each would have never been granted access under the old concept of theory. The idea of the theoretical had to be destroyed for Critical Theory to take hold due to its subjective nature and its Marxist tendencies.
This concludes this post. Stay tune as I unpack more of Horkheimer’s essay with the hope that it will help us understand more about our world and the impact of Critical Theory on it. Until then …
In the next several posts, we will look at Critical Theory through Max Horkheimer’s 1937 essay “Traditional and Critical Theory,” in which he first defines Critical Theory through the contrast of it with other traditional theories. It was Horkheimer who presented the agenda for the Frankfurt School in his 1931 lecture given upon receiving the directorship of the Institute of Social Research. In that lecture, Horkheimer proposed merging philosophy and social theory with psychology, political economy and cultural analysis in ways that developed a social philosophy capable of truly interpreting social reality, which, was and still is an important concept of Marxism, but there was more. He also implied that this process of interpretation of social reality would also create opportunities to change social reality. Why was that important?
Social reality through a Marxist lens is always perceived to be bias (unless it is Marxist) and rooted in a class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie (or capitalists). Marx saw capitalism like he saw all societies of the past, rooted in slave labor. To him, they were the same; their class struggles were similar with one smaller group exploiting everyone else for their own benefit, which is why he advocated, as a true Marxist, for the common ownership of the means of production. He believed common ownership would eliminate the profit motive, which he saw as one of the main causes of class struggle. He advocated replacing it with a motive for human flourishing, but time has not been kind to Marxism. Common ownership of the means of production has been used, not to produce human flourishing, but, instead, to oppress and crush human flourishing through the vehicle of communism. It is in communism where we find much of the tyranny and the oppression in our world today, and it is also in communism where we find more suffering than flourishing. Critical Theory is not Marxism, at least it is not supposed to be. How is it different?
Horkheimer used social sciences as the standard for Critical Theory because he found that the social sciences modeled themselves after the natural sciences, which root themselves in empirical social research. This was important for him, but there was also the issue of a distinctly positivist orientation, which he had to address (Positivism is the idea that every assertion can be scientifically or mathematically verified which justifies the rejection of metaphysics and theism.). This positivist view of the world is still how we tend to see knowledge production today; it is true if proven by quantitative research (that which roots itself in the mathematical and the scientific), which make most of us positivist-bias, trusting only science and math as the means to truth. Truth is found by both objective and subjective means. Critical Theory not only does not embrace positivist theory, but it is slowly trying to replace it with itself, which was Horkheimer’s solution to this issues.
When we examine Critical Theory, we find that it reflects only on its own origins, which are subjective and murky at best. This is one reason why Critical Theory moves away from a positivist view of the world … Critical Theory is primarily subjective; it depends on intentionality and seeks to leave space for newly created theories and philosophies with a distinctly Critical Theory orientation. It also embraces “an interdisciplinary methodology,” as I have highlighted, that seeks to bridge the gap between research that is empirical and research that is rooted in what one author called, “the philosophical thinking needed in the correlation of history and empiricism.” That bridge between, that which is static, in the past, (history) and, that which is experienced, in the present (empirical) is one that must be traveled. For a Marxist, it is an easy journey across, but for all others, it is one full of potholes and difficulties, which is seen as opportunity by the Marxist. One theorist put it this way, “Critical theory aims not merely to describe social reality, but to generate insights into the forces of domination operating within society in a way that can inform practical action and stimulate change.” Again, we cannot forget the Marxist view of social reality and the struggle they see in it. Critical Theory seeks to determine the best ways to undermine current social reality—because they see it as oppression—to prepare it for its own Marxist reality.
One of the first and most fundamental goals of Critical Theory is to unite theory and practice, not to discover that which is true, but to form a “dynamic unity with the oppressed class.” This unity of theory and practice in Critical Theory is not a unity as much as it is takeover. Both theory and practice must submit to the subjectivity of Critical Theory in ways that transform, allowing for the formation of a dynamic unity with the oppressed class. When this transformation takes place, research, whether quantitative or qualitative, takes a hit and becomes something it was not supposed to be … tainted with intentionality and the subjectivity of Critical Theory. For Critical Theory to be itself, it required an intentionality, rooted in its subjectivity, forcing both theory and practice to surrender to the subjectivity of Critical Theory. It is the subjectivity of Critical Theory that is king in all its encounters, and this is by design.
Horkheimer, in the opening paragraph of his essay stated, “The real validity of the theory depends on the derived propositions being consonant with the actual facts. If experience and theory contradict each other, one of the two must be reexamined.” This reexamination was the change Critical Theory brought to theory, but it could only happen if theory had already surrendered its past. In the past, if experience and theory contradicted each other the hypothesis was incorrect. For example, if my theory is that the sun will not come up tomorrow and I wake up and run to the window and see the sun then my hypothesis is not correct, forcing me to change my hypothesis. In Critical Theory, it is the hypothesis that has taken the place of practice and theory. It is no longer the hypothesis that determines the truth of a theory; Critical Theory is the truth and all other factors, including a hypothesis, are to be its subjects.
If experience and theory contradict each other something is wrong, but what? A theory that needs adjustment to align with experience is not really a theory but merely an assembly line of options that can be adjusted to produce the desired product. The idea of experience and theory in Critical Theory is not theoretical in any sense of the word; it is instead pragmatic, practical and interchangeable. Adjustments are sought to determine how to align experience with theory to create a social philosophy capable of changing theory first, but ultimately changing society. Horkheimer’s response to the contradiction of theory and experience was that either the scientist failed to observe correctly, or the principles of the theory were wrong, but we have to ask this question: are we talking about allowing the research to speak or using the research to speak for us?
Horkheimer quotes Husserl’s definition of a theory: “an enclosed system of propositions for science as a whole.” The basic requirement of any theoretical system ultimately is harmony, but that harmony comes at the expense of the friction before it, and yet, there are indications that Critical Theory sought to keep and maybe even use the friction of other systems to destabilize them so that Critical Theory could be the harmony that these systems sought. Horkheimer references that the basic requirement of a theoretical system is “that all parts should intermesh thoroughly and without friction,” but then, he seems to lament that this traditional conception expresses a tendency towards “a purely mathematical system of symbols.” He goes on to reference that in large areas of natural science theory the formation has become a matter of mathematical construction. Horkheimer is implying that traditional theory is stuck in the rut of describing social institutions and situations as they are. Their analyses do not incorporate the Marxist view of social reality rooted in class struggle and oppression and therefore they have little to no effect on repression and class struggle. Horkheimer sought to build Critical Theory as the opposite of traditional theories, as that with a direct effect on social reality to answer the repression and struggle he saw in society.
As I close this post, let me encourage you to come back for Part III as I attempt to add more clarity to the confusing world of Critical Theory. Until then …
This post begins a series on Critical Theory as I attempt to bring a little clarity to that which is obscure, or at least seems obscure. It is always difficult to bring clarity to something that seeks to remain obscure (please note this reference). Is this the nature of Critical Theory or does it just appear this way to those of us unfamiliar with it? The conjectural nature of Critical Theory does position it to be distorted but is that distortion just part of its fabric or is it intentional? Good questions that demand answers, which is the purpose of this series. It will be a bit like nailing Jello to the wall … you will soon see what I mean.
Let’s begin with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which describes Critical Theory as a phrase that “does not refer to one theory but, instead, to a family of theories” which are designed to critique society through the assimilation of chosen normative perceptions through the empirical analysis of current societal norms. I know what you are thinking … what does all of that mean? Hidden behind this loquacious description is an agenda that is intent on many things but do not miss that changing the world is one of those intents.
Let’s begin by dissecting this murky explanation of Critical Theory provided to us. What it says to us is that Critical Theory was intentionally created to be integrated in manners that disrupt the dominant norms of society through an intentionally-created analysis to deconstruct dominant norms into fragments that can then generate a praxis of sorts which can be applied to current culture, produce norms with Marxist tendencies. Whew! I am not sure that I provide much clarity, but in short, the idea is to provide Marxism an opportunity to become a worldview that can be applied in all situations throughs ways in which it can become the dominant worldview. Again, the goal is to gain a dominant foothold in mainstream society. All references to Critical Theory (and it is always capitalized as a proper noun) are references to the work of several generations of philosophers and theorists, all with foundations in the Marxist tradition. It is truly not just one theory but many theories working together for one common goal. Clear as mud, right. Let me provide a little historical context with the hope that it adds some lucidity.
The whole idea started with the son of Herman Weil. Herman Weil was an exporter of grain. He made a fortune exporting grain from Argentina to Europe. Felix Weil inherited his father’s fortune, but instead of using it to broaden the family business, he used it to found an institute devoted to the study of German society through a distinctly Marxist approach. Not long after the initial inception, the Institute of Social Research, as it was to be known, was formed and formally recognized by the Ministry of Education as part of the Goethe University Frankfurt. The first appointed director was Carl Grunberg (1923-29), a Marxist professor from the University of Vienna. The institute was known for its work which combined philosophy and social science, two distinct and separate fields of study at the time, in ways that were informed by Marxism. As for the term, Max Horkheimer first defined it in his essay, “Traditional and Critical Theory,” in 1937. I will be referencing and quoting from this essay in this series.
Today, Critical Theory, is composed of many different strands of emerging forms of engagement in all areas of culture, all coming together to destabilize current dominant norms into positions of weakness. In these positions of weakness, the intent is to introduce forms of Critical Theory that eventually erode the dominant ideas and replace them with ideas rooted in and composed of Marxism. The entire process was an attempt to normalize Marxism and package it in a way that allowed it to be transformed into the norms of society. This became known as the “Frankfurt School” of critical theory, and as we will find out, they were very successful.
This school is not really a “school” in any sense of the word but a loosely held (critical) tradition or belief system that is bonded by critiques on how to best define and develop the (critical) tradition in ways that will push it into mainstream society. Marxism’s largest deficit was thought to be its absence in mainstream society; it was thought that if it could just be applied and lived out by more people it would be embraced and change culture. The movement was meant to correct this perceived deficit through a more expansive means that would extend its roots deep into culture and provide more people the means to embrace it. The initial efforts of the (critical) tradition attempted to combine philosophy and social science into an applicable theory that would serve as a door into mainstream culture; it was created with “liberating intent” (with a goal of freeing society from the current dominant norms), but here is an important part of the application of this theory. These philosophers were patient; they understood that what they wanted to accomplish would take time. It would actually take generations of philosophers pursuing the same theories in the same manners to claim any ground in mainstream society. The first generation of these philosophers were, what has been called, “methodologically innovative” in their approach to developing this (critical) tradition. Marxism was their vehicle of change; it was also their product, which they hoped would become dominant part of society. They integrated it with the work of Sigmund Freud, Max Weber and Fredrich Nietzsche, each had made their own inroads in society, using their work in secondary ways to develop a model of critique anchored in, what is known today as, Critical Theory.
Some of the prominent first-generation philosophers were Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin and Jurgen Habermas, who is still a important figure of second-generation philosophers in Critical Theory. In what is sometimes known as the third sense of Critical Theory, the work of Michel Foucault and Jacque Derrida was referenced and used to advance the tradition due to their associations with psychoanalysis and post-structuralism, with particular interest in Derrida’s theories of deconstruction. Once a workable tradition (theory) was created, it was used as a means of analysis of a wide range of phenomena—from authoritarianism to capitalism to democracy. Each analysis drew Critical Theory closer to the pillars of society —the family, the church and the school—and to the replacement of a moral paideia with one with Marxism foundations. Today, we see evidence of its presence in a wide range of cultural norms, including in how we live, think and act. Its influence is wide and deep and extends into many areas of current culture in such a complete way that there are elements of Critical Theory in our lives that we don’t even consider Critical Theory.
As I close this post, my goal was to give you a macro-picture of Critical Theory. I hope you are now a little closer to understanding it than you were before you read this. In my ensuing posts, I will begin to unpack the tradition so that we not only understand it, but we can also identify it and the areas of our own lives it is impacting. This is why thinking matters to all of us.
This is a new feature for this blog. I call it, “My Two Cents.” In this section, I will give my take on events that have taken place in our world. As is so often the case, most things are not what they seem to be at first. We live in a world that pushes us to react in our thinking and in our doing; we should avoid both. In this section, I hope to slow things down a bit and ask a few questions that force us to look at issues from a few different perspectives. Please keep in mind that this feature is only about my take on things, whether right or wrong, and nothing more. So, let’s jump right into this first post.
What just happened? I am sure many of you are shaking you head and asking yourself the same question. I think it is safe to say what did take place was not what anyone expected. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but here is my two cents on the election, which I am not even sure is worth that much.
This election cycle presented two flawed candidates with various issues, that much we know. The media and the Democrats (This election made it clear that they are on the same side.) did all that they could to ensure that this election was a referendum on the character of one of those candidates, Donald Trump. They used past tactics in some of the same ways. They called Mr. Trump names; they brought criminal charges against him; they dug up his past, spread vile fifth (some true and some not), slandered him, insulted his supporters, all with the goal always being the same … to destroy his reputation. For whatever reason, it did not work, but something else happened. The more they did, the more resolve he developed and the more people came to his side. It was quite astounding, if you ask me.
The other candidate entered the election with 107 days left in the election … not ideal. She was put into a difficult situation by her own party, which demanded some things from her that, in my opinion, she just did not have. She never campaigned in the primaries which meant that she never presented her platform. Campaigning in the primaries generally does two things for a candidate: it puts you in front of voters and it provides you valuable experience talking about your platform. She benefited from neither of those, and to make matters worse, she did not give one official press conference as the Democratic presidential candidate, which, in my opinion, was a huge mistake. By not holding a press conference, she never presented herself as presidential in any official capacity. Overcoming one of these issues would have been daunting; overcoming all of them in 107 days was almost impossible. She adopted an old campaign strategy, which I am sure was a party decision, mudslinging, thinking it would do the job. The media was glad to assist her, but the strategy failed and I think it actually made her situation worse.
So, what happened on election day? Why were so many so wrong?
I think it started four years ago with the election of President Biden; many were suspicious, right or wrong, of the results. This suspicion carried over to the policies he put into place (At least we think it was Biden who put them into place.). When these policies did not work, and they did not, the suspicion grew. Four years later, as Americans voted, they did so while experiencing inflation with record high prices. They voted while watching a world that was growing increasingly more hostile, and they voted not really knowing who was running the country. The last four years have been very hard on most Americans, and anybody who says it has not is delusional. There is a growing sense that neither Republican nor Democrat appeared aware of how hard it has been. Most Americans view both parties in a negative light and that only grew in the last four years. Senators and Representatives alike were seen as power mongers, corrupt and out of touch with the struggles of most Americans. To his credit, Donald Trump, for some reason, did not miss this; instead, he used it. He listened and connect with the struggles of Americans and his remarks always seem to resonate with a majority of Americans, especially those struggling. He did not cater to the celebrities and elites and they despised him, and this did nothing but make him more popular with most Americans. Unfortunately, for Vice President Harris and the Democratic Party, this was a big miss for them.
Another important issue that impacted this election, in my opinion, was how out of touch the Democrats’ responses were. I believe both parties are out of touch with average Americans, but it was the Democrats who continued to look out of touch. For whatever reason, they did not respond to the struggles of Americans with real answers; the insulted, lectured and blamed others. It was always someone else’s fault. Instead of looking within, they looked out, made excuses and insulted those who supported and then voted for Mr. Trump. They compounded their issue by labeled Trump supporters and voters as uneducated (see the post on this topic) and ignorant. Even after the election, they continue to scold and call Trump voters names, but here is the problem with all of that. I believe there were many who voted for Mr. Trump this time around who voted with Democrats in the last election. So, while the Democratic Party was insulting all of these voters, they were actually insulting many who had been loyal to them in the past.
The Democratic Party is another issue all its own. For many years, the party has been moving to extreme positions in agenda, message and belief. In this election, for the first time, there are clear indications that the Democratic Party has moved beyond the comfort level of many Americans, and even some Democrats. I was shocked to see prominent Democrats, some professional athletes and even some celebrities come out in support of Mr. Trump. This should scare the Democratic Party. These last four years, while many Americans have been struggling to make ends meet, the Democratic Party has continued to push extreme positions, asking struggling Americans to sacrifice yet again for a position or a policy that would seem to bring more hardship than help. Many Americans questioned these causes and expressed their frustration, but the Democratic Party’s response was to double down on them. That was a losing proposition that came to fruition on the 5th of November, but there were signs earlier of this growing unrest. The Democratic Party placed blame every where but where it belonged, with them. It was Biden; it was age; it was racism, but in the end, the people did what the party should have done and placed the blame squarely where it belongs … on them.
A third issue is one that I have already referenced, extremism. The Democratic party has been embracing extreme positions for years, but in this election, there were signs that it pushed itself so far left that it was now out of touch with most Americans. In my opinion, there were only three groups of people voting for the Democratic Party candidate this time around. The Democratic Party base, which are those who always vote Democrat no matter what, extreme liberals, as many of the agenda items and positions of the Democratic party are now extreme liberal positions and those who depended heavily on the government and need the government. Most of the Americans not falling into these three groups, in my opinion, voted for Donald Trump, despite the vilification of him. In Mr. Trump, they saw real answers to their needs and they also saw someone who would and could fight for their rights. I believe most Americans would rather a job than a handout, but all indications are that the Democratic Party believes the opposite.
One final issue is what I call the celebrity factor. I really feel this did the Democrats no favors. Many of the most vocal supporters of the Democratic party were celebrities, professional athletes and wealthy liberals. Some of the antics of these supporters in the last weeks and days were offensive and so out of touch with what most Americans had been dealing with on a daily basis that it offended many, even those who have voted for Democratic candidates in the past. Wealthy celebrities, professional athletes and liberals were seen through the very lens that the liberal left worked so hard to build for the right; they were seen as privileged, spoiled and out and of touch. I feel that their support actually hurt the party and hurt Vice President Harris. Her SNL appearance, in my opinion, was a huge factor in this race as It confirmed what many Americans had been thinking already and cemented the link between her and those living lives of luxury and privilege.
In the end, people voted practically and pragmatically. They voted with their pocket books and for their future. It is clear: the Democrats have some work to do if they are going to fix this. The Democrats lost this election not because most Americans are misogynistic or are racist, as some Democratic pundits are already saying. They did not lose this election because of uneducated, stupid or ignorant voters. They lost this election because they ran a lazy bad campaign. They lost this election because they are the now the party of the extreme left, embracing positions and policies that most Americans question. What is their next step? Well, I don’t think calling the millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump racist bigots is a good first step, especially when they will have to win some of those voters back for the next election. This election was very personally to many and a message was sent. Did the Democrats, and for that matter, the Republicans, get the message? Time will tell.
I believe there needs to be two viable parties to keep a balance of power in this country. The Democratic Party is needed, but they need to find their way out of this malaise in order to be viable again. If they don’t, then in two years, they will fail again. The Republican Party has a mandate. Do they know what it is? If they fail to get some things done for the people then, in two years, they will fail as well. We live in interesting times.
Bridge Roe: Where Thinking Matters 