Contra Critical Theory

The intellectual underpinning of critical theory is much discussed by its adherents and not fully known by its opponents. The social and emotional underpinnings of Theory are intuited and even articulated by its critics but are often opaque to its adherents. This is a common issue in all social competition - we want to see our better reasons and evade looking at our worse ones. I liked Dan Williams's Contra Critical Theory explanation of the interplay in Critical Theory over at Conspicuous Cognition, which I have linked to previously. 

Of course, this raises the question of why the humanities are a left-wing monoculture. The reasons are likely complex, contingent, and path-dependent, although I suspect one big reason is intra-elite status competition. Scholars are a prestigious segment of society in competition for status with other high-status groups like businesspeople, the wealthy, and politicians. Narratives that are highly critical of Western society can be partly understood in this context: they demonise status rivals, discredit the economic and political system in which they have achieved success, and implicitly depict the scholars spreading such narratives as uniquely enlightened and noble. 

Those who have been here a long time may remember that I made my own divisions of American (and probably Western) society into Tribes: Arts & Humanities, Science and Technology, Government and Unions, God and Country, Diversity, Military, Business, Criminal Underclass.  I mostly discussed this in terms of A&H, which I grew up in and have an uneasy relationship with now, versus all the others. There are clearly multiple loyalties and overlapping of these categories. I stole ideas from many places, including CP Snow's Two Cultures (now three).  This is one brief summary post among dozens from the early years of the blog.  At the time this was not a common idea, and I was an early adopter.  If you want a deeper dive into our discussions 15-20 years ago, you can regard this longer series as a refresher or an introduction. I think it is a somewhat common framework now. 

Conservative sites have put a lot of energy into dismantling the Arts & Humanities elites, and that has been largely my focus.  However it is worth noting that all of the tribes are not merely putting their own ideas forward but trying to undermine the others. Anti-elitism is often only advocating for the preeminence of a different elite. Tavistock Weekends used to bring in groups and divide them randomly into 2-4 tribes, both to study their behavior and teach the participants how much of their own behavior was just Rooting For Laundry. By the end of the weekend, some groups would hate each other and say the most terrible things.

That's us.  I should be noble and focus on that.  But at the moment I am much taken with the idea that That's them, those bastards.