What's the thing with postmodernism?

tittltattl · 2022-02-11T00:31:41+00:00

Critical theory: "Critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Honestly, this sounds pretty decent to me. A lot of the issues that men are trying to overcome originate from cultural norms that men are supposed to follow (like being a provider or going to war to be killed). Our problems do not extend from individual people who put those expectations on us.

Postmodernism: "Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse which challenges worldviews associated with Enlightenment rationality dating back to the 17th century. Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a focus on ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power. Postmodernists are "skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the perspective of each person". It considers "reality" to be a mental construct. Postmodernism rejects the possibility of unmediated reality or objectively-rational knowledge, asserting that all interpretations are contingent on the perspective from which they are made; claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

This seems to take elements of critical theory too far. While I generally agree with relativism and I also agree that we should be skeptical of any universal claims (especially if there have not been studies done that can be generalized universally), the rejection of objective fact and the focus on individual experiences over trends is problematic to me, and seems to undermine the idea of the scientific process.

a-man-from-earth · 2022-02-10T23:47:17+00:00

While this isn't directly related to male issues as such, it does influence many of the discussions on male issues, so I'm allowing this.

LacklustreFriend · 2022-02-11T05:31:34+00:00

Okay, I'm going to give a highly simplified, abridged explanation because I don't want to spend too long on this, but also because I think a lot of alleged depth and complexity that critical theory and postmodernism has is incredibly superficial and are simply using jargon and obtuse language to obfuscate what is really quite simple and often bad philosophy.

Critical Theory

The "original" Critical Theory refers to a philosophy closely associated with the Frankfurt School (1970s), which were a group of Neo-Marxist philosophers. To simplify, Neo-Marxists are Marxists who recognised the failure of Marxism-Leninism and the focus on material conditions to generate "liberation" or a utopian global revolution. Instead they pivoted to new "social" forms of oppression/oppressive power structures, adapting the general proletariat/bourgeoise oppressor structure to social issues. For this reason Neo-Marxists are sometimes referred to as 'Cultural Marxists' but that term has a tainted history. According to the Frankfurt School, critical theory was originally intended to be paired with a 'traditional theory'. Critical theory was mean to basically identify, criticise and 'liberate' the apparent oppressive structures within out society, while traditional theory was meant to explain (basically a regular rational/scientific approach). Turns out criticism is easy and with no real objective criteria it is easy to find oppressive power structures to liberate people from, hence the popularity as it became prominent over time in feminist theory and maybe most prominently Critical Race Theory (CRT) among others. These newer generations of 'Critical Theories' (sometimes called Critical Social Justice, or I like to call 'woke' for the pop culture version) often incorporate other philosophies into their framework, including postmodernism.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a philosophy most closely associated with philosophers like Foucault, Derrida, and more recently and relevant, Butler. It has been defined in various ways, but the most common one is typically the "rejection of meta-narratives". Meta-narratives is a bit of a nebulous term, but basically refers to great, grand explanations of how things work and why the way they are. Commonly used examples of meta-narratives include Christianity, Marxism, and even scientific rationalism. Postmodernism rejects them all as essentially subjective social constructs. Postmodernism asserts that there is no objective reality, or if there is one it is unknowable because our minds are only capable of subjective thought. Some tenets of postmodernism include: All knowledge is socially constructed, there are different kinds of knowledge or systems of knowledge, asserting a certain knowledge the 'truth' is simply to assert power (objective truth doesn't exist), those with knowledge/power inevitably oppress those without or who don't conform to the ordained knowledge.

Post-structuralism is mostly just a synonym of postmodernism. They're not exactly the same, post-structuralism has a narrower focus on language, but for our purposes you can just think of post-structuralism as postmodernism applied to language.

Postmodernism, Critical Theory and Deconstruction

What may or may not be obvious is an inherent conflict between critical theory (Neo-Marxism) and postmodernism. Critical theories says there are oppressive power structures (to be liberated from). This is a meta-narrative. Postmodernism says meta-narratives are meaningless, they're purely subjective. How can you even say who is being oppressed and why? That's a meta-narrative.

How to reconcile this? I say you can't, and I think this one of the (many) reasons the modern Critical Theories are incoherent nonsense. Regardless, what I think they both have in common and why they can work together in practice despite their philosophical incoherence is that they both have a strong drive and ability to deconstruct, and deconstruct meta-narratives particularly. Deconstruction is perhaps best described as the destruction or radical scepticism towards definitions and categories. This is most commonly done in reference to binaries (fact/fiction, or maybe most relevant for us, man/woman). This can be done in various ways, but usually it's through just point out and highlighting (apparent) contradictions or issues with those categories.

To use a trivial example, we might try to deconstruct the definition/category of a chair. How do you define a chair? A flat surface with four legs? Is a table a chair? A three legged stool? A beanbag? What if I were to put my plate of food on the chair and eat off it, does that make it a table? Clearly, the idea of a chair is socially constructed! There are no actual "chairs", just things we happen to categorise (arbitrarily because the oppressive powers that be say so, i.e. socially construct) and call a chair! Thus, I have deconstructed (the concept/definition/category of) chairs!

I'll also just make an aside to say that deconstruction in critical theory and postmodern is superficially complex and deep. In some sense, this is just a more obtuse yet simpler reframing of the Problem of Universals, which is a philosophy problem as old as philosophy itself. And other philosophies usually have better answers. You know what they say, there's nothing new under the sun.

That's basically it for the broad explanation. To answer some of the other questions/definitions that might fall in the gaps:

Socially constructed/social constructivism

To say very briefly and simply - that something only existed by in the minds of a person or people. That is to say, it does not conform or refer to any objective or material reality. "It's all just made up!" is basically this.

Standpoint theory

Standpoint theory is a theory that asserts that access to knowledge depends on one's position (standpoint) in reference to group and oppressive structures. Assuming the idea that all knowledge is socially constructed, then how that knowledge is accessed is also determined socially. The knowledge of the oppressive/dominant group is accessible to all people by virtue of its dominance. However, knowledge of the oppressed or marginalised groups is only accessible to people of those groups. Thus only oppressed people have access to knowledge of the oppressed and oppressor. Probably explained through example. We live in a patriarchy so 'patriarchal knowledge' (including objective science and reason) is dominant and oppressive knowledge. Women are forced to live and be immersed in this system, so they understand patriarchal knowledge. But virtue of being women, they also have access to "the female/feminine knowledge/experience". Thus women can understand the 'male experience', but men cannot understand the 'female experience'. Naturally standpoint theory is popular in feminist theory ('standpoint feminism') as a way to dismiss all other theories and criticism as not having access to the "inner" knowledge that women/feminism has.

Simply put, the claim is that the oppressed have unique understanding/access to their own unique knowledge (about their oppression) by virtue of being oppressed. Neat circle!

I think that covers most of the bases. Let me know if you need clarification or had other questions and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Mirisme · 2022-02-11T03:07:49+00:00

I'll try to explain my understanding of the topics you mentioned that I'm a bit aware of.

Kant is the starting point of this whole discourse. His idea of critique is "discovering the process by which something becomes". So when the guy says "critique of pure reason" it means "under which conditions pure reason is possible". My understanding of his argument is as follow "you have knowledge in the mind that is absolute and you have a perception of reality that is bounded". The main issue he raise is that you cannot know the thing-in-itself.

It follows pretty logically that if one cannot know the thing-in-itself, whatever knowledge of the thing is bound by the methods by which it is produced. Science is a social endeavor that aims to use reproducible methods in an attempt to construct knowledge (that's the view of social constructivism). The main idea of social constructivism is saying that any knowledge is produced by humans. You could say that this run counter to Plato's idealism in which knowledge is attaining the idea of the object. In social constructivism, there's no such thing as "an ideal object". For example, an human under social constructivism refers to the object we as society have decide to name "human", whereas under idealism it would refer to the ideal notion of human (claiming that there is such a thing as a natural category of human and an ideal human).

Deconstruction is a particular method developed by Derrida that directly comes from Nietzsche. Nietzsche notes that there's a fundamental error of judgment that has been made by metaphysicians, it's the notion of opposites. He claims that there's no such things, only valuation made by humans. Any such valuation says more about the person making the valuation that the thing it evaluate. He goes on to dismiss any project of universal valuation as merely attempt by individuals to make their judgment absolute. To him, what matters in evaluation are their capacity to augment your capacity to act, not their truth value. For example he says that free will is merely an illusion but as it augments your capacity to act, you better cling to it. So Derrida deconstruction is the systematization of that Nietzschean enterprise in which, he proposes to negates Plato's idealism. To me the consequences are twofold: accepting the ambiguity of any knowledge (it's situated, not ideal), a shift from truth towards effectiveness (the aim isn't to know the ideal thing but to effectively interact with the world).

Identity politics is just rooting political demands in identity. The principle underlying action is the common identity of the individuals participating in the movement. It's mostly about enfranchising people.

I've little understanding of standpoint theory/strong objectivism but I can say that it's the only thing directly related to the scientific method as it proposes a critique and a solution that I'd summarize as such: the production of knowledge is situated in some specific context that do not have an inherent claim to better apprehend truth that other contexts, therefore the tools of science should be used by those other contexts to produce knowledge from those overlooked perspectives. Whether it's successful or has any effective result, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say.

However, on the question of rationality, I'd say, yes it's rooted in it, moreso than idealism that to me is a form of mysticism. However, I'd say most of those approaches are not scientific but epistemic and philosophical.

problem_redditor · 2022-02-11T00:40:17+00:00

Okay, while I haven't delved deeply into the entire thing I think I can answer some of it. This is a quick and dirty and somewhat simplified rundown of some of the concepts you asked for elaboration on.

Critical consciousness and critical theory is basically a focus on the power-structures that run through society and thinking they are uniquely important to understanding everything (but shouldn't be). These power structures are conceived as being the result of a battle between groups, and they believe this structure then acts through people to protect itself and justify itself to the people “living in it”. Critical theory seems to “conclude” (this apparently can’t be questioned) that the current structures are unjustifiable, and it sees itself as a tool/method of subversion devised to “give power to the oppressed”.

A related concept which inherently underpins critical theorists' views is conflict theory and the master-slave dialectic, where they conceptualise groups as fundamentally being in conflict and where one group comes out on top and "enslaves" the other. They thus see the world as consisting of monolithic "oppressor" and "oppressed" classes. And the specific application of critical consciousness we have currently (colloquially referred to as "wokeness") has certain fixed views around which groups are the oppressor and the oppressed. Of course, the idea that the world is best understood in terms of conflict between groups is a fundamentally flawed and simplistic idea at best. There are many situations where this clearly does not apply, but they still impose the master-slave dialectic onto it regardless. As James Lindsay notes, critical theories nearly always begin with their conclusion - their own assumptions about power dynamics in society, how those are problematic, and the need for their disruption or dismantling. Often, very few actual attempts are made to test and falsify their hypotheses.

Their blank-slate assumptions also follow this line of reasoning (since anything "biological" is suspect as a social construct of domination). Ideas of biological differences and attempts to categorise the world are considered as being rooted in the domination and oppression of a certain group - they believe it was created as a result of the social construct of domination in the master-slave dialectic. And they still rely on these categories to suit their purposes ("righting wrongs" on a group level). But they don't believe the initial categorisation and distinction has any merit, fundamentally. This is the underlying basis for the near-complete rejection of meaningful biological differences between groups among those who subscribe to this worldview.

They think that the resulting "oppression", however, has caused the manner in which the groups view the world to differ. Things like standpoint methodology are kind of like a version of polylogism: the belief that different groups of people reason in fundamentally different ways. Standpoint theory and its related concept of strong objectivity is centred around the idea that the "oppressed" group has some superior knowledge and thus occupy a position of epistemic advantage to dictate to everyone about what the social conditions are. According to this ideology, they are better able to "know" the experiences, motivations and intentions of both themselves and their oppressors than the oppressors are.

This is a clearly stupid idea which has little to no basis in reality. It ends up basically being a way for anyone who claims that they're part of an oppressed group to state that everyone should accept their claims because they have knowledge that no one does. And it leads to the following horror: "I'm oppressed and you're privileged, thus I have a superior knowledge which allows me to tell you that I'm oppressed and you're privileged and you have no such standing. How can I be sure that I'm oppressed and you're privileged? Because I'm oppressed and you're privileged".

You can see how this entire framework of looking at things is fundamental to feminism, as well as other such "woke" ideologies such as critical race theory.

Is any of this rooted in rationality and uses the scientific method?

No.

EDIT: added more

thatbruh123 · 2022-02-11T02:14:16+00:00

If you’re looking for resources on philosophy, then here’s the two I mainly use:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The SEP is generally better quality and more professional, however the IEP has more info on specific topics. Search for postmodernism on both and see if anything interests you.

As for my own opinion - I’m sympathetic to the idea of verificationism (also called logical positivism or logical empiricism), which in effect states that statements about the world must make some kind of testable and empirical hypotheses in order for those statements to be meaningful at all. Under this, much of the ideas in postmodern theories become pseudo-statements that say nothing about the world in the first place, or - if diluted so that they become testable - make assertions that are trivial or blatantly false.

With that being said, many philosophers claim to have reasons to reject verificationism in its strongest form, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But the idea that postmodern thought is mostly meaningless nonsense that doesn’t say anything in the first place appears very true to me.

BloomingBrains · 2022-02-11T05:59:20+00:00

I honestly have no idea about any of those things.

I did take a "critical theory" class in my final year of college but I barely remember it because it was so dull and infuriating. No idea how I passed considering that I skipped class half the time. The goal was to basically read different pseudo intellectuals and then regurgitate essays that matched how they'd respond to the topic rather than give your own thoughts. One of them was called Derida or something. I think he drew circles and said that things outside circles aren't inside them. Which is the problem with so-academics, generally: they just say super obvious stuff in pretentious ways. The fact that I was able to somehow pass while barely touching the material is all the indictment one needs.

Structuralism and post structuralism sound more familiar. I did have one class where the goal was to write about a play that we read. Finally I teased out of the professor that I would be allowed to do an analysis of the plot itself which apparently counted as "structuralist" somehow. I don't think anyone in the class really understood what any of those terms mean. I certainly didn't and I had the highest grade. I would have made an effort to actually understand but the assigned material was a wall of indecipherable babble.

UnHope20 · 2022-02-12T04:25:33+00:00

LOVE Lindsay and Pluckrose. Don't agree with everything they do, but you gotta love the critical thinking and writing (Which I'm sure was mostly Pluckrose lol)

SexEleven · 2022-02-11T13:06:44+00:00

I think that in principle, all of them could use rationality and the scientific method, but very often do not. I don’t have time to define them now, but I’ll say that I believe the philosophy of pragmatism is the only way forward. It is the one philosophy that can take the benefits of your list along with the benefits of the scientific method while jettisoning the useless and counter productive aspects.

BTC-maxi · 2022-02-11T05:15:18+00:00

Marxism was a way of looking at the world in which you take absolutely anything: culture, religion, economics law, art, history.. And view it through the lens of proletariat Vs bourgeoise. That is, all these things are the bourgeoisie using their power to force their way onto the oppressed proletariat.

Every issue you could every think of, if you want to understand it "correctly" you should apparently view it through this lens.

In the 20th century the proletariat vs bourgeoisie outlook lost fashion for various reasons. But the desire to view the world in this simplistic way, as a power struggle between some group that has power over those that don't, people still had a hunger for that.

All these things you listed are just variations of this. Critical theory views every issue through the lens of power. CRT through race. Feminism through sex.

A pure Marxist might say religion was a tool made by the bourgeoise to keep the proletariat content. To them, this is how we should understand religion. Whereas a feminist might say religion was a tool invented by men to control women. It's difficult to say which is more stupid.

All these things are linked in that they are obsessed with power, it's the only way they see the world. They just differ slightly in what they think the most key power distinctions are. Is that power dynamic between white and black the most important or is it man Vs woman? Or straight vs gay? Or cis Vs trans?

All these things are obsessed with "power". It speaks more to their own character that this is what they think governs the world. Merit, responsibility, duty, love, care, nurturing, sacrifice... No ... Power is what governs our world.

XGC75 · 2022-02-11T03:44:44+00:00

I'm tired and not up to the debate but it seems you're curious so I wanted to drop some of my favorite postmodern topics: simulacra and the hyperreality. A couple of topics to mull on and help us all through the transition into the information age. C'est ne pas un pipe

Title	What's the thing with postmodernism?
Author	griii2
Upvotes	20
Comments	52
Date	February 10, 2022 10:06 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/spieeo/whats_the_thing_with_postmodernism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/whats-the-thing-with-postmodernism.1211088 https://theredarchive.com/post/1211088

Comments

Critical Theory

Postmodernism

Postmodernism, Critical Theory and Deconstruction

Socially constructed/social constructivism

Standpoint theory