This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wellllllll....it depends on how you do the intellectual history. If we're doing the 2015-move and blaming the Frankfurt School (Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer et. al.) for this, then the theorizing is at least as much Freud as Marx, and the Marx that's left in there is a pale shade of the original; a double-distillate by way of Gramsci and Lukacs.
In fact, Frankfurt school critical theory had to fight for acceptance on the left in the 60s because it notably did away with the basic analytical assumptions that lay at the heart of standard Marxian analysis: first, that economic relations are prior to cultural or ideational ones, and second, that market production must necessarily destroy political domination of the proletariat through overproduction and repeated, escalatory crisis, from which the proletariat would arise victorious.
Without those two things, what they had left from the Marxian analytical tradition was...an over-developed theory of "classes" trapped in dialectical conflict by some quasi-Hegelian "historical process," a taste for describing that conflict in overwrought terms (though that might just have been the German romanticism in the metaphorical air), and a general dislike for modern capitalism (even as they had lost their foundational mechanism for criticizing it).
As you can see, there's not much substantive there; what's left is a general framework which got filled in through some mish-mash of Freud (see, e.g. Marcuse's Eros and Civilization), and a bric-a-brac of pet theories about the rise of Nazism focusing on culture, psychology, sociology, and sex to the exclusion of the analysis of political, legal, or economic structures (e.g. Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychosis of Fascism; Adorno's Authoritarian Personality, Kirchheimer's Punishment and Social Structure, etc., but c.f. Neumann's Behemoth).
So yeah, there is a line between Marx and the intellectual movements that kickstarted modern wokism. But the Marxism is just part of the analytical framework, and not at all part of the substantive analysis. The vast majority of the problem lies in a lot of 20's and 30's-era anthropology and psychology work (and the weird, weird philosophical work that went along theorizing about the nature of social scientific research in the first place). Through all of this I'm mostly following Martin Jay's line in The Dialectical Imagination.
Of course, this sort of deep theory doesn't really shed much light on the actual current-day goals or practices of woke and woke-aligned movements and scholars. The whole question is kind of supercilious; when they're changing the APA guidelines to make anything other than immediate affirmation of any kid's self-proclaimed sex- and/or gender-changes tantamount to abuse, does it really matter whether they're doing it out of a Marxian view that capitalist production necessarily recapitulates itself in sexual domination, or a Freudian attempt to liberate pure Eros from the constraints of das Genitale? Either way, you still have to answer the question of what to do about it.
More options
Context Copy link