"Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do."
- Steven Brust
I spend a disproportionate amount of time in progressive circles and this does not (fully) correspond with my experiences. Do you have some surveys or something that also show this? In particular I don't think most progressives hold these beliefs:
• Complete moral relativism
• There are no true statements
• The powerful are always bad
• Power is always oppressive
• Success in hierarchical systems is always bad
• The powerful are always oppressors
• The oppressed can do no wrong
• The oppressors can do no right
• Minorities are always beyond reproach due to their oppressed status
• Ambiguity in speech is a virtue
• Logic is an oppressive imposition
• We can successfully categorize people into fixed group identities
• We shouldn't think in terms of trade-offs
• It's always bad to wield/use power
(Most, but not all, of the beliefs I do think they hold I wouldn't see as irrational e.g. regarding capitalism, imperialism etc)
Let me know if you want examples/reasons for why I think most progressives don't hold these. Or if you want to do a survey on SurveyMonkey or similar, I'd be willing to pitch in.
I also think that while most progressives will say they are at least partially informed by critical theory, most of them aren't in actuality and I bet most haven't read a single thing by the Frankfurt school or similar. As someone who has, let me tell you that this part:
>Taken together, these dogmas collapse into a simple moral rule: The powerful are always bad. This informal, unwritten surrogate moral theory likely stems from the implicit normative standards baked into critical theory, which seeks to critique, and dismantle power structures.
is not what critical theory endorses. Just because they want to critique and dismantle power structures doesn't mean they want to critique and dismantle *all* power structures. Or if you want progressives to use logic:
Premise 1: ∀x(x is a power structure → x is critiqued)
Premise 2: ∀x(x is critiqued → x is morally bad)
Conclusion: ∀x(x is a power structure → x is morally bad)
But premise 1 doesn't hold, they don't want to critique/dismantle all power structures e.g. democratically selected community leaders in oppressed groups. Or in other words:
∃x(x is a power structure ∧ x is not critiqued)
I also disagree with this part:
> the critical theory tradition, whose opaque writing style leaves passages ambiguous, frequently masking internal contradictions.
I think this is absolutely true of postmodernism, and postmodernism is part of critical theory. But not all critical theory is postmodernism. Or in formal logic:
Also, be careful with reporting bias. I do think progressives, on average, have worse mental health, but we need to keep in mind that since they have much less of a taboo on the topic they're more likely to seek it out/ report on it/ take it seriously.
Edit: formatting, because substack ignores my white-spaces
I admire the formatting of your post! You always provide sharp and thoughtful criticism.
I must say that I completely agree that this is my experience. I have no data, no study. In fact, I am trying to telegraph this to the reader. It's a slightly emotional autobiographical opinion piece —a generalization drawn from my own life experiences, not intended as serious evidence for the complex phenomena I’m describing.
Nevertheless, I hope it may help some readers who might find themselves in a similar situation as I was.
Interestingly, I would wager you are correct that, among the points you listed, few progressives would consciously subscribe to most of the statements.
But this is the dissonance in the cognitive dissonance. Many people don’t consciously reflect on their values or beliefs in this direct way, even as their actions may align with them. I write in such a direct manner because I believe it would have helped my past self identify that I might, unknowingly, have held some extreme beliefs.
The following critique, however, I found more difficult than the others:
> is not what critical theory endorses.
Of course, I understand this. I revised the wording to be more precise, but when I refer to the informal, unwritten, and absolutized distinction between oppressor and oppressed, I was hoping it was transparent that I am implying it’s a bastardization of critical theory. It’s obvious that critical theory itself does not endorse such an absurd moral framework. Even in my earlier writings, I specify this fact. I believe we’ve already discussed this in a similar exchange.
I also take issue with this critique:
> the critical theory tradition, whose opaque writing style leaves passages ambiguous, frequently masking internal contradictions.
If you consider the full quote of what I wrote—"This vagueness is compounded by certain progressive academics, often those associated with the critical theory tradition, whose opaque writing style leaves passages ambiguous, frequently masking internal contradictions"— I am not asserting every single critical theorist writes opaquely all the time. In fact, I wouldn’t even claim that every single postmodern author wrote opaquely all the time.
Lastly, regarding this point:
Also, be careful with reporting bias. I do think progressives, on average, have worse mental health, but we need to keep in mind that since they have much less of a taboo on the topic, they're more likely to seek help/report it/take it seriously.
It is well said.
In any case I can't but thank you for giving me your valuable thoughts, I do always appreciate them even when they are critical. They help me clarify my ideas, deepen my understanding, and avoid miscommunication.
Very few people hold a set of coherent and consistent set of beliefs in their mind because they don't explicitly think about such a thing. What can be more worthwhile is trying to find concrete examples that would reinforce or disprove a certain belief. For example, asking someone, has there ever been a case in history where the powerful was not an oppressor? Or, has the oppressor ever done good? In my experience, I've found that progressives almost always answer these questions in accordance with the core dogma Mon0 mentioned.
Really? You must have the most unbelievably bad luck then, because practically every progressive I've talked to will praise the policies of e.g. trust buster teddy roosevelt, or franklin d. roosevelt, or lincoln, or various powerful people, and will fully acknowledge the aquaducts and roads and other public projects of julius ceasar, or augustus, or various other oppressors.
All good examples, and I agree that I think progressives would certainly acknowledge such things. I was thinking more of nations though, for example Britain in the 19th century, and the good they did with their role in abolition. This is the kind of thing I see progressives often unable to acknowledge, but perhaps this is not the norm.
"In many circles, identity is considered fluid, personal, and subjective. Yet, in the same circles, people are understood and categorized through fixed group identities such as race, gender, and class."
this apparent contradiction isn't one I think most progressives actually grapple with. the simple response is "enforcing catagories on others is oppressive, identity is fluid, but finding a catagory you like is comforting and good"
I've evaluated how classical liberals (and the progressives among them) think. I note that classical liberals were originally, and still are, scientific thinkers. They are experimental and democratic in their methods. Their way to human flourishing is to be found by a merging of practice with theory which allows doctrine to be crafted, amended, and replaced. The scientific thinking used by classical liberals and progressives reminds me of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
I've evaluated the thinking style apparent in CRT and the woke. Because I find it absolutist and anti-science, I characterize it as illiberal. As Its theory and practice are distinct (as its theory dictates practice), I characterize the thinking style as ideological and totalitarian. The style reminds me of Marxism-Leninism.
Two sources: Timothy Ferris' "The Science of Liberty" and Ryan Chapman’s YouTube video “A Guide to Critical Race Theory.” Please let me know of problems with my characterizations.
I think there definitely are elements of what you are saying. I will consult the sources you link. I would just add that I think people can be brought out of their absolutist tendencies like I was.
I am of the culture you describe, and I think most people in that bucket would self-identity as radicals or leftists, and very much not as progressives. Progressive is egalitarian liberalism, whereas what you're describing disavows liberalism
"Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do."
- Steven Brust
I spend a disproportionate amount of time in progressive circles and this does not (fully) correspond with my experiences. Do you have some surveys or something that also show this? In particular I don't think most progressives hold these beliefs:
• Complete moral relativism
• There are no true statements
• The powerful are always bad
• Power is always oppressive
• Success in hierarchical systems is always bad
• The powerful are always oppressors
• The oppressed can do no wrong
• The oppressors can do no right
• Minorities are always beyond reproach due to their oppressed status
• Ambiguity in speech is a virtue
• Logic is an oppressive imposition
• We can successfully categorize people into fixed group identities
• We shouldn't think in terms of trade-offs
• It's always bad to wield/use power
(Most, but not all, of the beliefs I do think they hold I wouldn't see as irrational e.g. regarding capitalism, imperialism etc)
Let me know if you want examples/reasons for why I think most progressives don't hold these. Or if you want to do a survey on SurveyMonkey or similar, I'd be willing to pitch in.
I also think that while most progressives will say they are at least partially informed by critical theory, most of them aren't in actuality and I bet most haven't read a single thing by the Frankfurt school or similar. As someone who has, let me tell you that this part:
>Taken together, these dogmas collapse into a simple moral rule: The powerful are always bad. This informal, unwritten surrogate moral theory likely stems from the implicit normative standards baked into critical theory, which seeks to critique, and dismantle power structures.
is not what critical theory endorses. Just because they want to critique and dismantle power structures doesn't mean they want to critique and dismantle *all* power structures. Or if you want progressives to use logic:
Premise 1: ∀x(x is a power structure → x is critiqued)
Premise 2: ∀x(x is critiqued → x is morally bad)
Conclusion: ∀x(x is a power structure → x is morally bad)
But premise 1 doesn't hold, they don't want to critique/dismantle all power structures e.g. democratically selected community leaders in oppressed groups. Or in other words:
∃x(x is a power structure ∧ x is not critiqued)
I also disagree with this part:
> the critical theory tradition, whose opaque writing style leaves passages ambiguous, frequently masking internal contradictions.
I think this is absolutely true of postmodernism, and postmodernism is part of critical theory. But not all critical theory is postmodernism. Or in formal logic:
Postmodern Critical Theorist ⊂ Critical Theorist ∩ Opaque Writing
From which we *can't* conclude that:
Critical Theorist ⊆ Opaque Writing
Also, be careful with reporting bias. I do think progressives, on average, have worse mental health, but we need to keep in mind that since they have much less of a taboo on the topic they're more likely to seek it out/ report on it/ take it seriously.
Edit: formatting, because substack ignores my white-spaces
I admire the formatting of your post! You always provide sharp and thoughtful criticism.
I must say that I completely agree that this is my experience. I have no data, no study. In fact, I am trying to telegraph this to the reader. It's a slightly emotional autobiographical opinion piece —a generalization drawn from my own life experiences, not intended as serious evidence for the complex phenomena I’m describing.
Nevertheless, I hope it may help some readers who might find themselves in a similar situation as I was.
Interestingly, I would wager you are correct that, among the points you listed, few progressives would consciously subscribe to most of the statements.
But this is the dissonance in the cognitive dissonance. Many people don’t consciously reflect on their values or beliefs in this direct way, even as their actions may align with them. I write in such a direct manner because I believe it would have helped my past self identify that I might, unknowingly, have held some extreme beliefs.
The following critique, however, I found more difficult than the others:
> is not what critical theory endorses.
Of course, I understand this. I revised the wording to be more precise, but when I refer to the informal, unwritten, and absolutized distinction between oppressor and oppressed, I was hoping it was transparent that I am implying it’s a bastardization of critical theory. It’s obvious that critical theory itself does not endorse such an absurd moral framework. Even in my earlier writings, I specify this fact. I believe we’ve already discussed this in a similar exchange.
I also take issue with this critique:
> the critical theory tradition, whose opaque writing style leaves passages ambiguous, frequently masking internal contradictions.
If you consider the full quote of what I wrote—"This vagueness is compounded by certain progressive academics, often those associated with the critical theory tradition, whose opaque writing style leaves passages ambiguous, frequently masking internal contradictions"— I am not asserting every single critical theorist writes opaquely all the time. In fact, I wouldn’t even claim that every single postmodern author wrote opaquely all the time.
Lastly, regarding this point:
Also, be careful with reporting bias. I do think progressives, on average, have worse mental health, but we need to keep in mind that since they have much less of a taboo on the topic, they're more likely to seek help/report it/take it seriously.
It is well said.
In any case I can't but thank you for giving me your valuable thoughts, I do always appreciate them even when they are critical. They help me clarify my ideas, deepen my understanding, and avoid miscommunication.
Yeah that's fair, and thank you. Let me know if my critiques ever stray into becoming too emotionally taxing and what I can do to avoid that.
You are great and you help me be better. If only everyone could give good and honest criticism like you.
Very few people hold a set of coherent and consistent set of beliefs in their mind because they don't explicitly think about such a thing. What can be more worthwhile is trying to find concrete examples that would reinforce or disprove a certain belief. For example, asking someone, has there ever been a case in history where the powerful was not an oppressor? Or, has the oppressor ever done good? In my experience, I've found that progressives almost always answer these questions in accordance with the core dogma Mon0 mentioned.
Really? You must have the most unbelievably bad luck then, because practically every progressive I've talked to will praise the policies of e.g. trust buster teddy roosevelt, or franklin d. roosevelt, or lincoln, or various powerful people, and will fully acknowledge the aquaducts and roads and other public projects of julius ceasar, or augustus, or various other oppressors.
All good examples, and I agree that I think progressives would certainly acknowledge such things. I was thinking more of nations though, for example Britain in the 19th century, and the good they did with their role in abolition. This is the kind of thing I see progressives often unable to acknowledge, but perhaps this is not the norm.
"In many circles, identity is considered fluid, personal, and subjective. Yet, in the same circles, people are understood and categorized through fixed group identities such as race, gender, and class."
this apparent contradiction isn't one I think most progressives actually grapple with. the simple response is "enforcing catagories on others is oppressive, identity is fluid, but finding a catagory you like is comforting and good"
Thank you
I've evaluated how classical liberals (and the progressives among them) think. I note that classical liberals were originally, and still are, scientific thinkers. They are experimental and democratic in their methods. Their way to human flourishing is to be found by a merging of practice with theory which allows doctrine to be crafted, amended, and replaced. The scientific thinking used by classical liberals and progressives reminds me of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
I've evaluated the thinking style apparent in CRT and the woke. Because I find it absolutist and anti-science, I characterize it as illiberal. As Its theory and practice are distinct (as its theory dictates practice), I characterize the thinking style as ideological and totalitarian. The style reminds me of Marxism-Leninism.
Two sources: Timothy Ferris' "The Science of Liberty" and Ryan Chapman’s YouTube video “A Guide to Critical Race Theory.” Please let me know of problems with my characterizations.
I think there definitely are elements of what you are saying. I will consult the sources you link. I would just add that I think people can be brought out of their absolutist tendencies like I was.
I must note that Ferris' summary explanations are flawed by his generalizing and a dismissive stance regarding anti-science critiques.
I am of the culture you describe, and I think most people in that bucket would self-identity as radicals or leftists, and very much not as progressives. Progressive is egalitarian liberalism, whereas what you're describing disavows liberalism