Deconstructivism, another theory critically aimed at the norms of culture, is a theory that has impacted all of us and yet, most of us have never heard of it. To understand it is, at best, to attempt to understand it because, be warned, it is ambiguous and vague. It is like nailing Jello to the wall; once you think you understand it, it interacts with something else and changes. Deconstructivism is change and difference and criticism and tension all rolled up into what I see as varied disparity. It first appeared in a 1967 book entitled, On Grammatology, and has grown in reference and documentation ever since.
Let’s begin with a quote. Jacques Derrida, in his article, Letter to a Japanese Friend, explained deconstructivism to his friend by insisting that it is “an event that does not await the deliberation, consciousness or organization of a subject or even modernity” (Derrida, 1985, p.2). If this seems a rather odd way to describe an event, you are right, but it is not an event that he is describing; it is deconstructivism. Inside that seemingly innocuous description is affirmation to deconstructivism’s metaphysical reality. Derrida stated to his friend (Professor Izutsu) that to define it or even translate the word “deconstruction” would take away from it, which is a suggestion to its nature and to its protection. How does one disagree with that which cannot be defined or translated? The answer is simple: one does not because one cannot.
Derrida, in my opinion, was stating that deconstruction was a notion of a reality rooted in situational agency. It was designed to avoid the confined corner; to avoid the proverbial box or the closed door and to assert its own agency in interaction with individualism (or context) as a means of truth. According to Derrida, it was and is a critical methodology that analyzes how meaning is organically constructed and deconstructed within language, which we all understand to be the primary means of communication between human beings, and yet it is not language that seems to be under attack. Instead, language seems, to me, to be the vehicle of delivery for deconstructionism.
Let’s be clear; deconstructivism is not a form of Marxism nor of Critical Theory, but it is related to both, although indirectly. The process itself claims to reveal the instability of language, which it presents as language’s true and natural state. Is language unstable or is language, as my cynical mind suspects, being pushed to instability by deconstructionism? I would like to posit a question: if instability were not language’s true and natural state, could deconstructivism determine language’s state or would it, instead, change its state? I am not sure, but I look forward to exploring that possibility and others. I do know this; its existence depends on instability of language and meaning.
Back to this question, is language unstable? Yes and no! I think language is like anything else; it works from instability to stability. I know I seek clarity in my communication and one of the ways I do that is to ensure that meaning is consistent with those with which I am communicating. How is language unstable? I believe language is unstable if meaning inside language is unstable. How does that instability remain and not work towards stability? One of the methods of maintaining instability is through addition. When other meanings are added to true meaning, clarity is not produced but instead, instability is maintained. Addition, for me, creates instability, especially when it comes to language. If we have found instability as a state of language and this discovery was the direct result of deconstructivism’s interaction with language, then, there is another more difficult question to consider. Is the instability of language its true and natural state or is it a direct result of deconstructivism’s interaction with language?
Deconstructivism claims that one of its goals is to push meaning to its “natural” limits and expose its “true” nature which, according to Derrida, is instability heavily dependent on difference (addition). I am not a big fan of coincidences and see them as problematic. Here is my issue. If language is considered unstable in its natural state and deconstruction is instability in its interaction with language, is this a coincidence? Again, I don’t really buy into coincidences. I do know that when instability interacts with stability the results will generally be less stability. We know this through the study of physical systems, biological systems and even social systems. We also know instability manifests in three ways: gradual change, sudden transitions and oscillations, and there is nothing to indicate that when instability is introduced to a stable system, that stable system stays the same or even stays stable. It always changes; at times, stability may eventually be achieved again but not before the system goes through a period of instability. My point is that I am not convinced that the natural state of language is instability. There is a solid case that the instability of language is due, in part, to its interaction with that which is unstable. Are you confused yet? Buckle up because this roller coaster ride is just beginning. This post is the start of a deep dive into the world of deconstructivism. Stay tuned for my next post in this series. Until then …
Derrida, Jacques. (1988). “Derrida and difference.” (David Wood & Robert Bernaconi, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1982).
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 …
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!
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 …
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.
As the results of this election settle into the collective minds of the country, the responses we are seeing are interesting. One of the words lobbied about in reference to the Trump voter is the word, “uneducated.” The Washington Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine and even Sunny Hostin of The View, a Notre Dame graduate, have all labeled Trump voters as uneducated. A professor at the University of South Carolina has gone as far as calling the Trump voters stupid and “holding the rest of us hostage,” which prompts the question, what do all these people mean by the term, “uneducated?”
Well, let’s start by examining what it means to be educated. In a keynote address in 2011, J. Casey Hurley, spoke on this very issue. In his address, he gave, what many consider a solid definition of educated, he presented a six virtue definition, stating that we “know that understanding imagination, strong character, courage, humility and generosity are the six virtues of the educated person.” There are many other definitions out there and most have to do with high test scores, content, course work and degrees, but do those really define who is educated and who is not or who is intelligent and who is not?
Back to Hurley, he acknowledged that many of today’s schools “are driven by a definition that says educated people are those who score high on standardized tests.” He deems this not useful and missing the mark. Why? He goes back to the six virtue definition and acknowledges that educated people should have virtues, the question is, which ones? He proposes these six virtues for multiple reasons. They produce other virtues; they are a recipe for improving every learning situation; they provide an answer for how to teach, and finally, they are inspiring. There are many others who endorse this definition, or something like it, but the question is, are Sunny Hostin and others right in labelling Trump voters as uneducated or stupid?
Sunny Hostin was blessed to attend Notre Dame where she earned a law degree. Many of the pundits we listen to each day attended Ivy League institutions or other prestigious universities. Does attending a prestigious insitution quantify as educated? Or, does attending a prestigious institution equate to club membership? That is now a more difficult question than it used to be. In the past, the answer was clearly the affirmative due to admission and entrance requirements. These institutions were looking for the best and the brightest, but today they are merely looking for a specific ideology. Is a Harvard-educated hedge fund manager better educated than an electrician? Probably, but what about intelligence?
The question, in my opinion, is one of equity more than intelligence. If the electrician was afforded the same opportunities as the hedge fund manager would the electrician achieve the same results? I would actually put money on the electrician to outperform the hedge fund manager. Why? Chances are the hedge fund manager was born in privilege (which is almost a prerequisite for club membership) and educated in privilege (in the club) which suggests a life with little to no struggle. How do we learn? Well, there is a good bit of evidence supporting the fact that dissonance is necessary to learning. My bet is the electrician had lots of struggle to get to the point of being an electrician, which equates to real learning, which is why I would put my money on the electrician. So, back to our issue, is it an educated thought to label all Trump voters as uneducated? Probably not; actually, the term all of these people should be using is “schooled.” Trump voters are, in general, not as schooled as Harris voters. That much is true, but that has more to do with equity than it does with intelligence.
Now there is something interesting about most of those connecting Trump voters to the term, “uneducated;” many of them are doing it in vile and hateful ways, which begs the question, are hateful people more intelligent than kind people. According to Psychological Science, there is research to support that those with lower cognitive abilities feel more prejudice and more bias towards others, especially those who are different, than those with higher cognitive abilities. The article summed it up with the following quote, “Hateful people are typically simple people.” Those assuming that the thoughts and motivations of those people who voted for Trump are uneducated and stupid are, in essence, exerting a prejudice and bias towards those who are different than they are … those who did not vote the same way they did. There are many idioms and metaphors to describe this but let’s just say it is hypocritical and leave it at that.
Are Trump voters really uneducated? Maybe, but that has nothing to do with whether they are intelligent or not. All it means is that they tend to not be educated in Ivy League institutions or prestigious institutions, which is logical considering most of these institutions hold to liberal positions and seek a liberal ideology when it comes to admissions. Sure, there may be some conservative intelligent people who attend these places, but most go elsewhere for various reasons, which brings us back to the term “schooled.” Most Trump voters probably were not schooled in Ivy League institutions or prestigious universities, but that has nothing to do with whether they are intelligent or not, which is the implication of most of those spewing these thoughts.
On matters of intelligence, when you vote for one party all the time as if that party has all the answers … well, that is a sign of something other than intelligence, and that applies to both parties. One party, one person, one ideology and even one philosophy is never right all the time. That is statistically impossible and logically improbable no matter your belief system. Pretending the dichotomy of right and wrong or true and false does not exist is not intelligent; it is actually delusional. So, to answer the original question once and for all, the answer is no, due to a confusion of terms. The better word is schooled and the answer to that questions is yes, they are most likely not as schooled as Harris supporters, but as far as intelligence, they are as intelligent as anyone else. They may not be part of the club or afforded the opportunities of the elites, but neither issue has anything to do with their intelligence. Again, this why it is important to not let others do your thinking for you. Think your own thoughts and do your own research and you will find that your efforts will be rewarded. Thinking still matters!
Bridge Roe: Where Thinking Matters 