Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity - And Why This Harms Everybody
- Downloads：9430
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-13 09:53:45
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Helen Pluckrose
- ISBN：1800750048
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
'Exposes the surprisingly shallow intellectual roots of the movements that appear to be engulfing our culture' Steven Pinker Have you heard that language is violence and that science is sexist？ Or been told that being obese is healthy， that there is no such thing as biological sex， or that only white people can be racist？ Are you confused by these ideas， and do you wonder how they have managed so quickly to challenge the very logic of Western society？ Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay document the evolution of the dogma behind these ideas， from its origins in French postmodernism to its refinement within activist academic fields。 Today this dogma is recognisable as much by its effects， such as cancel culture and social-media pile-ons， as by its assertions， which are all too often taken as read in mainstream media: knowledge is a social construct; science and reason are tools of oppression; all human interactions are sites of oppressive power play; and language is dangerous。 As they warn， the unchecked proliferation of these beliefs present a threat not only to liberal democracy but also to the fruits of the Enlightenment itself。 While acknowledging the need to challenge the complacency of those who think a just society has been fully achieved， Pluckrose and Lindsay break down how often-radical activist scholarship does far more harm than good， not least to those marginalized communities it claims to champion。 Only through a proper understanding of the evolution of these ideas， they conclude， can those who value science， reason and consistently liberal ethics successfully challenge this harmful and authoritarian orthodoxy。
Reviews
Emil O。 W。 Kirkegaard
，
Provides a history and criticism。 But this is another losers book。 It advocates no serious analysis of what to do to prevent creeping communism。 It remains stuck in the "though communism has taken over all of the institutions， the REAL threat is far right extremism which we define as everything people believed in the west before 1967"。 Provides a history and criticism。 But this is another losers book。 It advocates no serious analysis of what to do to prevent creeping communism。 It remains stuck in the "though communism has taken over all of the institutions， the REAL threat is far right extremism which we define as everything people believed in the west before 1967"。 。。。more
George Lewis
，
I didn’t know much about post modernism before reading this book。 Maybe I didn’t learn much as I was reliant on the author teaching me。 But I do think I can understand the root of some of the information that is out there。 The book made me think quite a bit and I felt like even though I tend to naturally agree with things like that which was contained in the book， I could now see it through a different lens。 I hope books and writers like this can encourage positive discourse among those who can’ I didn’t know much about post modernism before reading this book。 Maybe I didn’t learn much as I was reliant on the author teaching me。 But I do think I can understand the root of some of the information that is out there。 The book made me think quite a bit and I felt like even though I tend to naturally agree with things like that which was contained in the book， I could now see it through a different lens。 I hope books and writers like this can encourage positive discourse among those who can’t see eye to eye at this time。 We all have much to learn from each other。 。。。more
Heath Salzman
，
The authors did a fantastic job explaining the development and relationship of post-modernism， critical race theory， and intersectionality。 They then provided a sustained critique of these theories and ultimately showed that they destroy what they set out to save。 Given the prominence of these theories in our culture， I believe this book is a must-read。 Interestingly， the authors write from a secular humanist liberal perspective。 I find that many secular humanists are not self-reflective and ass The authors did a fantastic job explaining the development and relationship of post-modernism， critical race theory， and intersectionality。 They then provided a sustained critique of these theories and ultimately showed that they destroy what they set out to save。 Given the prominence of these theories in our culture， I believe this book is a must-read。 Interestingly， the authors write from a secular humanist liberal perspective。 I find that many secular humanists are not self-reflective and assume their perspective is value-neutral。 To my mind， the position they critique in this work is actually the logical conclusion of liberalism， i。e。 the bowing of society to the needs of the individual。 Food for later thought。 。。。more
Michael Landsman
，
This book is like an interpreter， enabling people to perceive the insanity of the cultural moment that we all see but aren't always able to articulate。 Pluckrose and Lindsay immersed themselves in the academic literature of applied postmodernism， and critical theory， and act as a sort of Virgil guiding us- the readers -through the multi-layered realm of woke ideology， laying waste to its intellectual vacuity along the way。 While they acknowledge that there are some legitimate aspects related to This book is like an interpreter， enabling people to perceive the insanity of the cultural moment that we all see but aren't always able to articulate。 Pluckrose and Lindsay immersed themselves in the academic literature of applied postmodernism， and critical theory， and act as a sort of Virgil guiding us- the readers -through the multi-layered realm of woke ideology， laying waste to its intellectual vacuity along the way。 While they acknowledge that there are some legitimate aspects related to critical theory， they also acknowledge how it falls short in assessment and in prescription， as it tries to fix the very issues it has created。 。。。more
Kitty Kestrel
，
So comprehensive， but concise。 Highly recommend！ Information relayed with humor~！
Daniel1974nlgmail。com
，
A very good analysis on what is wrong with modern day society。 Some chapters were almost too painful to read but ends all well with 2 last chapters in which the necessary is summarised and some suggestions given for a more open and nuanced dialogue。 Their basic idea is that Post-Modernism is the great wrong doer here so a good understanding of the works of Lyotard， Said， Derrida， Foucault， Butler， Spivak， Fanon and Bhabha can be useful。 It is too bad that for the origins of Post-Modernism they o A very good analysis on what is wrong with modern day society。 Some chapters were almost too painful to read but ends all well with 2 last chapters in which the necessary is summarised and some suggestions given for a more open and nuanced dialogue。 Their basic idea is that Post-Modernism is the great wrong doer here so a good understanding of the works of Lyotard， Said， Derrida， Foucault， Butler， Spivak， Fanon and Bhabha can be useful。 It is too bad that for the origins of Post-Modernism they only went back to Structuralism and Post-Structuralism， but not to Saussure， the Linguistic Turn ~Rorty and Kuhn， where the real origins （in my option are rooted。 It's also a book that deserves to be read a second time。 First for the overal narrative and second to make notes of the countless ideas， suggestions and arguments that could be of service to you if you ever end up in a discussion about Race， Gender， Colonialism or whatever minority that claims they deserve to be heard （these days）。 There are also countless references to other books。 Some well known others where not known to me and might be worth checking out。 Especially in the last 2 chapters the book discusses some painful effects this all has on modern research and academia。 The only critique I had is that the book is sometimes a bit shallow and stays on the surface， but that is probably because it was written for a wide audience and it deserves to be read by just that。 。。。more
Sheela Clary
，
In clear， no-nonsense， humane prose， the authors lay out the background on the hopeless， highly-policed approach to common life I've been so alarmed by in my uber liberal enclaves this past decade。This book acknowledged much of the stress and strain in my volunteer life this past year， and thus made me feel less alone， like I am not， in fact， crazy。Thank you。 In clear， no-nonsense， humane prose， the authors lay out the background on the hopeless， highly-policed approach to common life I've been so alarmed by in my uber liberal enclaves this past decade。This book acknowledged much of the stress and strain in my volunteer life this past year， and thus made me feel less alone， like I am not， in fact， crazy。Thank you。 。。。more
Tim G
，
This was an insightful book however， this book was indicated to be on the same tier as 'The madness of Crowds' and 'The Parasitic Mind。' While the genere's and the viewpoints were the same， for me it didn't quite resonate as impactful as Douglas Murray's and Gad Saad's。I listened to this on Audible， and can I just say， it is dense。 I completely understand that an author has every entitelment to narrate their own book， heck that is what I myself would abolsutley do， but listening to Cynical Theor This was an insightful book however， this book was indicated to be on the same tier as 'The madness of Crowds' and 'The Parasitic Mind。' While the genere's and the viewpoints were the same， for me it didn't quite resonate as impactful as Douglas Murray's and Gad Saad's。I listened to this on Audible， and can I just say， it is dense。 I completely understand that an author has every entitelment to narrate their own book， heck that is what I myself would abolsutley do， but listening to Cynical Theories was tough， it was very easy to become distracted。 The author uses minimal inflection in her voice， so it makes it a tough listen。Personally， I found the last few chapter of the book in relation to social justice scholarship and social justice in action to be more engaging chapters， and these final chapters provide a substantial closing out of thoughts on the earlier chapters。 I was so compelled and mistyifed at the current state of affairs， particularly with post modernists and social justice。 Hence why I have read three books in this genre。The main theme for this book is to endorse and promote liberalism and to celebrate rigorous research。I will absolute get behind and endorse that endeavour but im going to leave this genre for a while， after this book， I realised there is a lot to digest and a myriad of new problems appear to be presenting themselves in the social justice era， liberalism will have a long journey ahead 。。。more
Jim Jones
，
Yes， we live in a society where increasingly people see themselves as victims。 However， these author's attempt to put the blame on post-modern critical theory falls flat with me。 They offer a fascinating synopsis of various critical thinkers' work including that of Derrida， Foucault， Said， and Baudrillard， but I think looking at the world through a feminist/queer/Marxist/post-colonial critical perspective helps us better understand why we are where we are， rather than fracture the culture。 The a Yes， we live in a society where increasingly people see themselves as victims。 However， these author's attempt to put the blame on post-modern critical theory falls flat with me。 They offer a fascinating synopsis of various critical thinkers' work including that of Derrida， Foucault， Said， and Baudrillard， but I think looking at the world through a feminist/queer/Marxist/post-colonial critical perspective helps us better understand why we are where we are， rather than fracture the culture。 The authors seem to long for a earlier era's Western liberal consensus that seems both myopic and naïve。 。。。more
John Reis
，
The authors see postmodernism as consisting of two principles and four major themes。 The two principles are the postmodern knowledge principle which states that radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge or truth is attainable and a commitment to cultural constructivism。 The second principle is the postmodern political principle which is a belief that society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies which decide what can be known and how。 The four themes of postmodernism are the b The authors see postmodernism as consisting of two principles and four major themes。 The two principles are the postmodern knowledge principle which states that radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge or truth is attainable and a commitment to cultural constructivism。 The second principle is the postmodern political principle which is a belief that society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies which decide what can be known and how。 The four themes of postmodernism are the blurring of boundaries， the power of language， cultural relativism and the loss of the individual and the universal。They point out in chapter 2 that postmodernism had died out by the late 80s but that a new version of it grew from there。 They call this version applied postmodernism。 It is action oriented。 Its skepticism is limited as it argues that some identities are privileged over others and that of course， injustice as they saw it， was true。Their history of postmodernism reminds me of all the material that I read 30 years ago but， nevertheless， I am a little bit skeptical of it。 They really do not talk about structuralism and hermeneutics and other influences that went to help birth postmodernism。 Nor do they look at postmoderns who come from other traditions: Richard Rorty or Wittgenstein。The authors point to a new phenomenon within the movement。 “If what we except as true is only accepted as such because the discourses of straight， white， wealthy， western men have been privileged， applied theory indicates this can be challenged by empowering marginalized identity groups and insisting their voices take precedence。 This belief increased the aggressiveness of identity politics to such an extent that it even lead to concepts like “research justice“。 This alarming proposal demands that scholars preferentially cite women and minorities and minimize citations of white western men because they do empirical research that values knowledge production rooted in evidence and reasoned argument is an unfairly privileged cultural construct of white Westerners。“ “It is therefore in this view， a moral obligation to share the prestige of rigorous research with “other forms of research“， including superstition， spiritual beliefs， cultural traditions and beliefs， identity based experiences， and emotional responses。“Chapter 3 concerns postcolonial theory。 The authors do not question the complaints that the postcolonials make nor do they question the history the postcolonial’s tell。 Aren’t whites being essentialized these days？“The postmodern knowledge principle and the postmodern political principle were used primarily for deconstructive purposes in the first phase roughly between 1965 and 1990 and made applicable for reconstruction during the second phase in the form of applied postmodernism roughly 1990 to 2010， yet they were confined principally to specific academic fields and activist circles。 In this second phase of postmodernism， these principles are treated as fundamental truths both within these two settings and beyond。“It seems to me that now that social justice is a metanarrative that the entire history of its origins is merely a strategy for gaining power on the part of those who implemented and practiced it。Chapter 9 is called “Social Justice in Action” and it is kind of a summary of what they have learned about social justice。 They conclude “social justice cannot succeed because it does not correspond with reality or with core human intuitions of fairness and reciprocity and because it is an idealistic metanarrative。 Nevertheless， metanarratives can sound convincing and obtain sufficient support to significantly influence society and the way it thinks about knowledge， power and language。 Per the authors， what they got disastrously wrong is mistaking effective and adaptive systems for metanarratives。 Liberalism and science are not metanarratives。 They are systems that are self skeptical rather than self certain by design。 This is a solid point。 There must be something other than narratives， else we would have never invented the word in the first place。 In the concluding chapter the authors make a go at a defense of liberalism。 It is a liberalism of moderate Liberals。 They quote liberally from Jonathan Rauch， Stephen Pinker and Adam Gopnik。 Arthur Schlesinger comes to my mind， too。 They make critical remarks about capitalism mostly based on Marxist criticisms。 They don’t understand the free market。The authors argue that nearly every single social justice component has a kernel of truth to it。 It is just that social justice methods cannot solve the issues at hand。 We must never forget “the value of reason and evidence-based approaches to knowledge acquisition。”“There is nothing that postmodern theory can do that liberalism cannot do better， and it’s high time we regain the confidence to argue for this…“ They suggest that we start this process by acknowledging what social justice theory gets right in order to reject its wayward approach to the problems of highlights。In order to confirm their liberal bona fides they repeatedly point out that the far right is more dangerous than the social justice left。 And that social justice tactics are playing into the hands of the far right。 This of course is ridiculous。 At least in America。 I can’t speak for Europe。From Alan Bloom and Dinesh D’Sousa and Roger Kimball to Alan Sokol all the way forward to Pluckrose and Lindsay people have complained about postmodernism and its offshoots for nearly 40 years and have not made a dent in this tidal wave。 Most of the people who have complained about postmodernism in the last forty years were liberals themselves。 The authors offer two approaches to the problem of reified postmodernism。 “First， we must oppose the institutionalization of its beliefs system。” “Second， we must do fair battle with the ideas of social justice。” I agree， but that does not seem to be enough。 I would have liked to see a discussion of objectivity on the part of the axtivists in their research and in the narratives they tell。 。。。more
José Calvo
，
Až na záver， vynikajúco！
Ooitzoo
，
Well written and logically argued。 It can get tedious at times when describing the relevant theory in question。 Otherwise， very good。
Mark
，
I agree with the basic thesis of this book but the writing is terrible。 Not as bad as postmodernist writing， nothing could be that bad。 I watched an interview with Helen Pluckrose and she was lively， dynamic and incisive。 I was really looking forward to this book。 Unfortunately it is turgid， somewhat abstruse and extremeely repetitive。 It is sorely lacking in the life giving blood of examples （not totally devoid of them but almost）。 It is also limited in it's analysis。 It never addresses the his I agree with the basic thesis of this book but the writing is terrible。 Not as bad as postmodernist writing， nothing could be that bad。 I watched an interview with Helen Pluckrose and she was lively， dynamic and incisive。 I was really looking forward to this book。 Unfortunately it is turgid， somewhat abstruse and extremeely repetitive。 It is sorely lacking in the life giving blood of examples （not totally devoid of them but almost）。 It is also limited in it's analysis。 It never addresses the historical concomitants of this movement， or just barely， faintly？， in the last two chapters。 In other words， no context is given。 What motivates the purveyors of postmodernism and more importantly identity politics goes almost totally unaddressed。 Similarly， the authors repeatedly point out that the concerns that Critical Theories address are valid but it has the flavor of throwing the dogs a bone， over and over and over。 。。。more
Riley Rabuck
，
A book that is really insightful on many different topics that I must admit that I don't know enough about。 I would like to find a book that takes on the opposing stance of at least one of these topics to understand the viewpoint better from each sides， becasue many of the arguments made in this book seem self evident and I want to make sure that the expert argument skills of our authors are not the only culprit。 All together a book that I really enjoyed。 It is a book I would recommend with the A book that is really insightful on many different topics that I must admit that I don't know enough about。 I would like to find a book that takes on the opposing stance of at least one of these topics to understand the viewpoint better from each sides， becasue many of the arguments made in this book seem self evident and I want to make sure that the expert argument skills of our authors are not the only culprit。 All together a book that I really enjoyed。 It is a book I would recommend with the note that not every topic draws a conclusion that I would agree with， but every topic is summerized well and every argument is backed up adequately。 。。。more
Dustin Cubit
，
I’ll first start out by saying this。 I am aware of the seemingly ridiculous fields of study that plague humanities departments in a small cabal of elite universities， and I don’t promote any of them。 I however do take Umbrage with Pluckroses’ to call these modern incarnations of Frankfurt school ideas Postmodernism。 She calls the use of postmodern philosophical tools as “Applied Postmodernism？” while trying to link woke studies to Foucault and Derrida， by using false dichotomies。 If Carpentry wa I’ll first start out by saying this。 I am aware of the seemingly ridiculous fields of study that plague humanities departments in a small cabal of elite universities， and I don’t promote any of them。 I however do take Umbrage with Pluckroses’ to call these modern incarnations of Frankfurt school ideas Postmodernism。 She calls the use of postmodern philosophical tools as “Applied Postmodernism？” while trying to link woke studies to Foucault and Derrida， by using false dichotomies。 If Carpentry was defined by the tools used within the field， let’s take the hammer for example。 In carpentry a hammer can be used to fasten and remove nails from wood。 Take the same device and It could be used to hammer out dents from a car fender。 Would we call this Applied Carpentry？ How about if someone decides to use the hammer to smack a TV to help with a broadcast signal。 This is how tenuous the link is between the two。 Postmodenism tries to find the “is。” These college activists try to use these tools to push an “ought。” Based on postmodern views of power leftists look to equalize this， Jordan Peterson uses similar evaluations of power dynamics and he believes that Hierarchies are stable and natural power structures。 You see， it can go either way。In the end this becomes just another culture war critique that ends with praising science and reason as the end all and be all of human conflict resolution。 I found Jon Haidt’s work a more nuanced and useful way to combat these ideas。 I recommend you check out The Coddling of The American Mind。 I would also highly recommend checking out the Author's appearance on Thaddeus Russell's podcasthttps://www。youtube。com/watch？v=9sUkm。。。 。。。more
Captain Pants
，
Good companion piece to Sokal and Bricmont， or Scrutons Fools， Frauds， and Firebrands and like those books suffers from the same basic problem， spending even an hour or two in the company of such airless， miserabilist， paranoid ideas makes you long to fling the book aside and go swimming in the nude。 As somebody with an MA in this stuff， I'd had my fill by 1998。 As such this book is like that bad dream I sometimes have where I have to resit my final exams in my pants。 Still， they are attempting Good companion piece to Sokal and Bricmont， or Scrutons Fools， Frauds， and Firebrands and like those books suffers from the same basic problem， spending even an hour or two in the company of such airless， miserabilist， paranoid ideas makes you long to fling the book aside and go swimming in the nude。 As somebody with an MA in this stuff， I'd had my fill by 1998。 As such this book is like that bad dream I sometimes have where I have to resit my final exams in my pants。 Still， they are attempting to do a valuable public service by exposing this stuff to a wider audience。 I suspect that the people who most need to read this would be bored rigid though - nice liberal people who aren't super woke but naively assume that Critical Race Theory etc are a sincere attempt to combat racism， for example。 The question is how do you get those people to realise they're being taken advantage of？ Exposing critical theory as 'cynical' is one way of course， but pomo BS's best defence is its technical nature - they can always claim that the reason you're not on board is that you just don't understand （as many of the one star reviews here do）。 The problem this book faces is that to anyone not incentivised to think otherwise， this whole area is as transparently fraudulent as scientology， hence one doesn't feel very motivated to study it in depth。 At which point its defenders will say "well how can you dismiss what you haven't read"。 Such a trick is due a name like "the Streisand effect" or whatever。 Create a body of self referential 'knowledge' whose very complexity is the only defence it has against criticism， as there really is no clear rational material in it to engage with。 I would add that the final chapters could do a better job of explaining why this stuff is important - the familiar litany of damore， evergreen etc will elecit no more than an eye roll from the woke。 This will feed into the narrative that it's just a few crazy students， ginned up by the right wing media。 。。。more
Terence Tan
，
Cynical Theories tells the story of how the mind-virus that "there is no truth" and "everything we know is something the powers that be told us to be true" leaped the "species gap from academics to activists to everyday people"。 Written for a popular audience， there are times the book is confusing to follow。 No fault of the writers though！ They did， what I think is an admirable job。 The problem， as evidenced by the quotations from Critical Theorists， is Critical Theory itself is a mess。 In some Cynical Theories tells the story of how the mind-virus that "there is no truth" and "everything we know is something the powers that be told us to be true" leaped the "species gap from academics to activists to everyday people"。 Written for a popular audience， there are times the book is confusing to follow。 No fault of the writers though！ They did， what I think is an admirable job。 The problem， as evidenced by the quotations from Critical Theorists， is Critical Theory itself is a mess。 In some cases， refuses to be defined and is happy to be a mess。 Thus， it sometimes feels like the writers are guiding us through a surreal dimension where there is no up or down。 （Because there is no truth！ Up or Down are concepts you were told to believe was true。） I found the book helpful to interpret the basic tenets of this new religion called Critical Theory。 Although I do not subscribe to the writers championing Liberalism as the saviour of society， I affirm free speech， universal rights for individuals and objective truth。I did a side-by-side review of Fault Lines， Cynical Theories and Ministers of Reconciliation。 The full review here: https://readingandreaders。com/podcast。。。 。。。more
Ashley Hart
，
This gave an interesting insight into the idea of the movements that have been occurring for several generations and the ways that they manifest throughout society。 I enjoy books that critically analyze different notions of social justice and social movements， so I enjoyed the book that left me with more questions and answers。
Nimishg
，
I think Critical Theory and many of its derivatives are pretty cool， because they give some great overviews of society's power structures and a great lens for understanding why a supposed meritocratic society always seems to push certain people away from power。I was looking forward to reading this book because I'd love to hear the holes in Critical Theory。。。 what is it getting wrong？ What could be improved？Unfortunately， that's not what this book provides。 I'd say it provides a very detailed and I think Critical Theory and many of its derivatives are pretty cool， because they give some great overviews of society's power structures and a great lens for understanding why a supposed meritocratic society always seems to push certain people away from power。I was looking forward to reading this book because I'd love to hear the holes in Critical Theory。。。 what is it getting wrong？ What could be improved？Unfortunately， that's not what this book provides。 I'd say it provides a very detailed and willful misunderstanding at best。。。 if someone told the authors "we should feed the starving children of the world"， I feel the authors would interpret this to mean "we should deny food to everyone else who is currently well-fed" and would go on to list all the charities that feed children and point out the charities' silence around the well-fed， presenting it as evidence of their malicious intent。Actually， yeah。 Pretty much every chapter is the above， only about a specific marginalized group。 The other recurring theme is this idea that somehow， Critical Theory has clear and unified suggestions on what to do about social problems， and that's to control thought。 I'm not sure there's anyone who suggests this， but the authors argue as though that were the case。 There's a HUGE difference between a queer person saying "huh， I feel this way because society has prescribed gender roles that I don't conform to。。。 cool， that helps me understand myself， the world， and my place in it a bit better" vs "thinking the concept of gender is a thoughtcrime"。 It's strange and fascinating to me that the authors so consistently take the former and mentally twist it into the latter。All that having been said， the authors do give an attempt to explain some of the subject matter evenhandedly once in a while， which I did appreciate， but by-and-large this book is a critique of something that's not real -- it critiques a version of Critical Theory that doesn't exist。 It's fascinating and telling to see the mental hoops the authors needed to jump through to so thoroughly twist the messages， but that's probably the most valuable part of the book。 。。。more
Sam Beal
，
This book was informative， but repetitive and boring。 I would recommend it if you want to know more about postmodernism/intersectionality and new aged activism。
D'Anna
，
Excellent explanation of the seemingly contradictory and ultimately confusing ideas that are being forced on our culture。 It was a difficult read because Theory itself is intentionally confusing。I think I have a stance and some answers。A must-read。
Alex Gruenenfelder
，
I came to this book as a social justice activist， but I nonetheless came with an open mind。 I try to read conservative books enough to stay well-versed in their arguments。 Of those that I've read， this is one of the better ones。 Its authors claim to be in support of social justice， but with their premise essentially summarized in one sentence: "The master's house is a good one， and the problem has been limited access to it。""Cynical Theories" is about horseshoe theory: the idea that going too fa I came to this book as a social justice activist， but I nonetheless came with an open mind。 I try to read conservative books enough to stay well-versed in their arguments。 Of those that I've read， this is one of the better ones。 Its authors claim to be in support of social justice， but with their premise essentially summarized in one sentence: "The master's house is a good one， and the problem has been limited access to it。""Cynical Theories" is about horseshoe theory: the idea that going too far left brings you to the far right。 It does this somewhat accurately。 If one decides traditional spiritual practices are as valid as science and the medical system is irrevocably evil， one would be at home with some on both sides。 The book is right therefore in its support of attempted objectivity and science。 Science and the scientific method are important。The biggest issue with this book is its use of sunk premises （the concept of referring to a statement as though it is a given fact）。 There are moments when one is effectively nodding alone， but then suddenly realizes that the arguments in question often don't believe in the very systemic issues that trigger a need for it。 It is deeply critical of Diversity， Equity， and Inclusion， and the changing of the professional and academic worlds to support social justice。 They object to the requirement existing in any form， comparing it to requiring religion。 This is an argument that is， to use the authors' words， "ethically incoherent"。Once this book got into cancel culture， I started rolling my eyes。 It no longer felt academic in these moments， but more like a tirade of the so-called "intellectual dark web"。 Its criticisms of woke capitalism hold the same effect， and they degrade the quality of the work。 The authors openly admit that only a very small portion of the population likely holds the few problematic views discussed， and this is exactly my largest issue with the book。 The authors are critical of the entire thesis of postmodernism， and use the typical arguments of the right to argue in favor of their philosophical tenets。Many of the critiques of problematic notions in social justice scholarship are well-detailed。 However， as a social justice advocate， I side with many of the necessary reforms in society which the authors dismiss as ridiculous。 The authors state are the very end that they deny the existence of systemic racism and sexism。 It is statements like this that reveal the true intentions of the authors， and overrule their lip service to the simple concept of social justice。 I welcome the debate the authors propose， and I hope true justice wins out。 。。。more
Elizabeth McDowell
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 I picked this book up after reading about Pluckrose and Lindsay's hoax in 2017-18 where they submitted bogus academic papers to critical theory journals。 Their book is part historical analysis of postmodernism and part deconstruction of the inconsistencies in critical theory （what the authors call reified postmodernism）。 The authors argue that two postmodern principles underlie critical theory: the knowledge principle， which contends that all knowledge is constructed， and the political principle I picked this book up after reading about Pluckrose and Lindsay's hoax in 2017-18 where they submitted bogus academic papers to critical theory journals。 Their book is part historical analysis of postmodernism and part deconstruction of the inconsistencies in critical theory （what the authors call reified postmodernism）。 The authors argue that two postmodern principles underlie critical theory: the knowledge principle， which contends that all knowledge is constructed， and the political principle， which contends that society is comprised of unequal power relationships。 I thought they did a good job illuminating the stages of postmodern evolution and especially pointing out where Social Justice based in critical theory deviates from social justice founded in liberalism。Overall， though， I expected a more measured， scholarly analysis from the authors。 They were guilty of defaulting to strawman arguments at points。 For example， calling Judith Butler's writing "incomprehensible" seemed like a failure to honestly engage at the strongest points of her argument。 The book overall suffered from lazy editing and repeated material throughout （Judith Butler herself was reintroduced several times throughout the chapters， as were the principles and the summary of postmodern evolution）。My hope was that the book could serve as a useful point of departure for conversation with my friends who are strong believers in critical theory。 The book failed in this purpose because the authors simultaneously assumed too little familiarity with popular concepts （intersectionality， privilege， structural racism） on the part of the reader， and too much of the readers' sympathy with their position。 It might have been better as a longform article。 。。。more
Adam
，
Eh。。。 it's drivel。 I， too， am interested in the problems within the concept of identity politics。 I was hoping for some well-researched insight。 The authors set up postmodernism and critical theory as such an incomprehensible straw man that it is hard to take them seriously。 Like any school of thought， postmodernism and critical theory are subject to real and serious critique。 This ain't it。 Eh。。。 it's drivel。 I， too， am interested in the problems within the concept of identity politics。 I was hoping for some well-researched insight。 The authors set up postmodernism and critical theory as such an incomprehensible straw man that it is hard to take them seriously。 Like any school of thought， postmodernism and critical theory are subject to real and serious critique。 This ain't it。 。。。more
Jyotin Singh
，
"Have you heard that language is violence and that science is sexist？ Have you read that certain people shouldn’t practice yoga or cook Chinese food？ Or been told that being obese is healthy， that there is no such thing as biological sex， or that only white people can be racist？ Are you confused by these ideas， and do you wonder how they have managed so quickly to challenge the very logic of Western society？" - blurb of cynical theories。 This book is a scholarship by itself; an imperative one。 I "Have you heard that language is violence and that science is sexist？ Have you read that certain people shouldn’t practice yoga or cook Chinese food？ Or been told that being obese is healthy， that there is no such thing as biological sex， or that only white people can be racist？ Are you confused by these ideas， and do you wonder how they have managed so quickly to challenge the very logic of Western society？" - blurb of cynical theories。 This book is a scholarship by itself; an imperative one。 It's been a tough read， but it most certainly helped me identify the roots of the chaos that has pervaded our daily lives。 Personally， I did not feel that this book propagated a dogma。 Instead， the authors actually speak for the freedom of speech and exchange of opposing views。 This book helps understand why certain ideas are the way they are， why in a marketplace of ideas， they perhaps are not the best ones for a truly progressive society， and how can we make attempts to rationalize the discourse。 It makes a strong case and appeals for reason， science， liberalism， and social justice。 However， it clearly establishes the demarcation between 'liberal social justice' and the unavailing 'applied postmodernistic Social Justice'。 It's been a history lesson， this book。 I found myself digging in the past， exploring the different eras of civilization， and the various schools of thought that have formed the modern world we live in。 This book is a call for logical liberalism。 It is an acknowledgment of the unique individual and collective universal metanarratives， which help us progress as a society and move away from identity politics。It's a must-read for everyone， before formulating any impressions of it。 5/5 stars！ 。。。more
Lois
，
Having heard and read a lot of the arguments and theories of the modern "left" I thought I would give the opposing （kind of） side。I went into this book with curiosity to hear their point of view and justification， while myself being subscribed to the opinion of most of our modern left culture （though maybe not as far left as some）。 I can see how people of this mindset would be triggered by this book， as it strongly opposes some of those ideas。However， I was not triggered。 I actually found a lot Having heard and read a lot of the arguments and theories of the modern "left" I thought I would give the opposing （kind of） side。I went into this book with curiosity to hear their point of view and justification， while myself being subscribed to the opinion of most of our modern left culture （though maybe not as far left as some）。 I can see how people of this mindset would be triggered by this book， as it strongly opposes some of those ideas。However， I was not triggered。 I actually found a lot in this book that I agreed with。 The arguments are well thought out and well explained。 They are rational and logical。I don't agree with everything said and still hold strong some of my previous beliefs， but appreciate having another perspective to think about。I might not agree with all points made， but that doesn not mean they shouldnt be allowed to explain their point of view。 And I actually finished this book not only understanding their point of view， but with a different perspective and view on things。 It was very theory-heavy， and having no prior experience with these theories made some of it a little hard to follow， but that may be due to me listening to the audiobook。 So I plan to re-read this book in written form after reading the recomended follow up "The Madness of Crowds" by Douglas Murray。 And I hold great value on books that can challenge main stream （or not） beliefs with logic and respect。 Especially if I walk away feeling like I have a deeper perspective on my own beliefs， or a change of beliefs。 That is what life is about， learning from each other and trying to understand different points of view。 。。。more
Jennifer Chisholm
，
Very informative， although I had to resist the urge to skip over the very detailed descriptions of the theories I was most familiar with。 I listened to the audiobook version which is narrated by Helen Pluckrose。 She has an engaging reading voice and I found her （probably subconscious） sighing when discussing critical feminist theory very amusing。
Brandi Breezee
，
This book addresses the ideologies grown from postmodernism， through fields like postcolonial studies， queer theory， critical race theory， and fat studies， to its current manifestation in the Social Justice movement。 This book flat out states they’re problematic at best。 However， this is not a Christian book， so there are ideas that must be rejected。 But this book comes from academics and liberals making the case that these theories are damaging; therefore， I argue that it’s worth the read。
Tyson Brown
，
This made me change。 I like changing。 Also the authors say they are writing for the people， but it’s still dense。 I would have liked more examples and less references to academics。
Tim
，