Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity - And Why This Harms Everybody
- Downloads：6474
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-19 09:51:15
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Helen Pluckrose
- ISBN：1800750323
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
BOOK OF THE YEAR in The Times， the Sunday Times and the Financial Times 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: 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 to liberal democracy。 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 marginalised communities it claims to champion。
Reviews
David Sager
，
This book provides a history of CRT/CSJ。 I thoroughly recommend it to anyone concerned about critical social justice theory。 As a Christian though I don't agree with completely with the solution but still a good worth reading This book provides a history of CRT/CSJ。 I thoroughly recommend it to anyone concerned about critical social justice theory。 As a Christian though I don't agree with completely with the solution but still a good worth reading 。。。more
Corporate Clone
，
If I posted videos of myself wielding hatchets in my driveway like a moron on twitter， I probably wouldn't publish a neoliberal wet dream fantasy of how I think society should look against the university bad guys If I posted videos of myself wielding hatchets in my driveway like a moron on twitter， I probably wouldn't publish a neoliberal wet dream fantasy of how I think society should look against the university bad guys 。。。more
E Stanton
，
This is such a relevant and important book。 Helen Pluckrose and James Lyndsey， （both people of very "liberal" political views in the 1970-80's sense。 Both very anti-Trump） give a breakdown of several Progressive Theories and how they directly grew out of Post modern theory， Particularly Michel Foucault and Jaques Derrida。 （read my Review of Stephen Hicks' book a few years ago。 They cite it frequently） They break down Post colonialism， Critical Race Theory， Queer theory， new feminism and intersec This is such a relevant and important book。 Helen Pluckrose and James Lyndsey， （both people of very "liberal" political views in the 1970-80's sense。 Both very anti-Trump） give a breakdown of several Progressive Theories and how they directly grew out of Post modern theory， Particularly Michel Foucault and Jaques Derrida。 （read my Review of Stephen Hicks' book a few years ago。 They cite it frequently） They break down Post colonialism， Critical Race Theory， Queer theory， new feminism and intersectionality and Fat Theory， showing the postmodernists roots of each movement。The scholarship of Pluckrose and Lyndsey in the research they've done is amazing。The book then points out the tendencies of all these theories to damage human society and interrelations is dangerous and damaging。 This is a must read for any "liberal" who is toying with some of the progressive ideology as some how， "anti-racist" and therefore "good"。 Its actually a group of almost religious tenets that ultimately result in hard core "right wing" sorts of outcomes。A great book and a must read for anyone interested in modern politics or culture。 。。。more
Lance
，
Edit: Be sure you follow up your read with a counter article: https://www。liberalcurrents。com/the-c。。。 - Before or after reading chapter 8 for context。Despite the occasional off-handed mention of extreme or isolated cases at the end of chapters， I found this to be be a far more comprehensive and thorough primer on philosophy and argument of Social Justice than the introduction text by Richard Delgado。 It presents reasoned chains of inheritance and incremental understandings of how the ideas evol Edit: Be sure you follow up your read with a counter article: https://www。liberalcurrents。com/the-c。。。 - Before or after reading chapter 8 for context。Despite the occasional off-handed mention of extreme or isolated cases at the end of chapters， I found this to be be a far more comprehensive and thorough primer on philosophy and argument of Social Justice than the introduction text by Richard Delgado。 It presents reasoned chains of inheritance and incremental understandings of how the ideas evolved along with more concrete use cases。 It is a book against the Social Justice （movement）， but for social justice （goals）。 That stance leads them to more clearly define and explain a host assumptions made within Delgado's work。 。。。more
Evan Micheals
，
I had want to read this for sometime and followed the Grievance Studies Affair when James Lindsay， Peter Boghossian， and Helen Pluckrose submitting a number of bogus academic papers to peer-reviewed journals in cultural， gender， queer and race studies， to see if they would get published。 The authors stated their goal as highlighting poor scholarship and eroding criteria in some academic fields， particularly those influenced by Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory。 This was published as a cr I had want to read this for sometime and followed the Grievance Studies Affair when James Lindsay， Peter Boghossian， and Helen Pluckrose submitting a number of bogus academic papers to peer-reviewed journals in cultural， gender， queer and race studies， to see if they would get published。 The authors stated their goal as highlighting poor scholarship and eroding criteria in some academic fields， particularly those influenced by Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory。 This was published as a critique of Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory。 My friend Marco was able to pass on a copy to me。I found this hard to comprehend， but as Lindsay and Pluckrose point out that by design Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory are opaque。 It covers the development of Postcolonial Theory， Queer Theory， Critical Race Theory， Feminism and Gender Studies， Disability and Fat Studies， and Social Justice Scholarship。 A feature of the above is that any criticism is seen as further evidence of oppression of the already oppressed。 The Theory is an exercise in sophism， rather than science。 I found most useful everything after page 220。 It acknowledges what post modernism gets right as a catalyst for showing where it goes too far。 Just because you find something that is wrong and unjust， does not qualify you with knowledge to remedy it。 The world is full of hypocrisy and injustice， which should be rightfully addressed。 Lindsay and Pluckrose contend that by design Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory attempt to amplify people’s trauma and sense of injustice and claim it for their own means。 It is ideology， not scholarship。 There are more ways to see the world than one and suggests secular liberalism as a response。I acknowledge I am still confused about Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory， but acknowledge I can see what it gets right。 The ideas around social constructs and the form of knowledge are useful to contemplate。 I can see Postmodern Philosophy and Critical Theory in a mythological sense but would agree with Lindsay and Pluckrose that they are not useful in progressing society。 The ideas should be listened too， but not believed like an object of faith。 The ideas need to be discussed and criticised and the utility found。 No knowledge should be accepted on blind faith， and criticism is not violence and oppression。 Let the best ideas survive。 。。。more
Paul Adcock
，
An excellent overview of critical theoryA helpful overview of critical theory and its problems。 Balanced and fair minded， it reminds us that the answer to the far right and left is not applied post modernism but a rediscovery and renewed confidence in liberal democracy。
Robin
，
I’d always thought I was on the far right of politics but， from reading this， I’ve discovered that my views are most closely aligned with post-colonial intersectional feminism。 Thorough and enlightening。 5 stars
Megan
，
Could not finish。 The authors set up lazy straw man arguments that fail to address the heart of the aim of critical analysis。 The authors purport that they， as “scholars”， value the freedom for everyone to hold their own beliefs， and then dismiss， without much attempt at understanding it， a whole area of academic study。
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
，