Critical Theory: Academic Tumblrinas

[autisticdragonkin]

They are perhaps the least seriously taken academic discipline in existence. Critical theory (and related disciplines, there is a massive overlap) is a mess of opaque terminology and politicized research. A paper was once submitted to and published by one of their journals criticizing gravity as a social construct. It is the source of many tumblrisms and is more akin to a political movement than an area of study.

 

[Meowthkip]

Critical theory is actually why Tumblr is such a cesspit. People who studied it spread it like AIDS and its infected a lot of the site and injected their theories into a community filled with people too young and immature to actually analyze what they're saying.

 

[DuskEngine]

A paper was once submitted to and published by one of their journals criticizing gravity as a social construct.

The Sokal affair was actually an exercise in postmodernism, which is technically just one school of critical theory. A lot of other stuff that could be considered critical theory is a lot closer to traditional Marxism.

is more akin to a political movement than an area of study.

This is very true, but it's not an undercurrent so much as it is explicitly the point of critical theory - which aims to study of the ways in which other means of inquiry are themselves politicized.

It has no real place in the hard sciences (which is what all that bullshit with Sokal was about). But I think critical theory is useful where it's useful, which becomes a lot clearer when you remember that human zoos that displayed the 'primitives' were first introduced to Westerners under the guise of scientific 'ethnological exhibits' and stuff.

And yeah, most of tumblr has no real idea what they're talking about. Hell, I doubt if most of the people on tumblr who use crit theory terms even understand the intellectual genealogy behind the terms they use. This is my major problem with it, as you pointed out - that there's no real line between theory and rhetoric.

 

[Dr. Boe Jangles Esq.]

I recall having a prof tell me that critical thinking is the sort of thing a person turns to for lack of any data. It's a sort of lazy science that requires no proof, peer review, academic rigor, or those other pesky practices that prevent you from making shit up.
Don't like the fact that men and women are physiologically different? Criticize the very concept of sexual dimorphism.

 

[DuskEngine]

Probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my life would be GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL: Capitalism, the War Machine, and the Pokemon Trainer

Spoiler: what the actual fuck am i reading

The trainer-pokémon relationship in Pokémon is characterized by a number of interesting linguistic features. In this imaginary world, flows of power are reflected by different linguistic capabilities of trainers and their creatures. The most notable instance of this power relationship is the invocation of the pokémon by its trainer. The invocation of pokémon is formed of two parts. The trainer selects a pokeball and hurls it at the opponent while reciting the words, “I choose you,” followed by the pokémon’s name (or vice versa). The physical act of selecting the pokémon is accompanied by a verbal command on the part of the trainer, linking the physical power of release to a verbal authorization. The return to the pokeball is also conducted through command and action. The result is a linking of language to action, an authoritarian demonstration of power in which, “Language is made not to be believed but to be obeyed, and to compel obedience

The “child” which Deleuze and Guattari refer to is the same “child” towards whom Pokémon is directed. Rather than think in terms of years lived, although this childishness certainly demonstrates generational features, the new child is born of the coupling of technology and biology which is alluded to in both Pokémon’s form and content. The atrophy that follows the trainer-pokeball-pokémon assemblage, in which the pokémon are biotechnical extensions of the body’s own capabilities, produce an infantilization that sees its greatest fulfillment in what Virilio describes as: “No future – the eternal childhood of the Japanese ‘otakus’ of the eighties – refusing to wake up to a life by leaving the world of the digital imagination, by exiting from manga land”

Mewtwo’s dual citizenship (human/pokémon) is the product of the technological/industrial relationship between first and third worlds. Following the logic of what has prompted some scholars to prefer the term “developing world” for the third world, Mewtwo is a pokémon in development, the product of an exploitative technical advancement. The vaguely identified scientists (emblems of a militarized technoscience) involved in Mewtwo’s creation churn Mew’s DNA (seized from the tropics) through their machine in order to create a westernized version of the original. But rather than produce a useful subject, they create something else entirely. This Frankenstein’s monster story is described by Deleuze and Guattari: “On the contrary, central capitalism needs the periphery constituted by the Third World, where it locates a large part of its most modern industries; it does not just invest capital in these industries, but is also furnished capital by them”

 

[Vitriol]

I think a brief (very brief) definition of critical theory might be useful:

Critical theory grew out of a school of german marxists in frankfurt in the 1930's. Initially they were trying to define 'real democracy' ie a utopia and trying to reconcile what they thought should be happening with what was- the rise of facism. The movement initially took a great deal of influence from the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant placed extremely high value on philosophy over other disciplines and did amazing work on his theory of the mind. He is also barely understandable to most people and frequently coopted words into his own jargon.

Right from the beginning then the movement was political, valued subjective opinions that fitted with their philosophy and was in the habit of redefining words to fit their agenda-see 'real democracy' mentioned above.

Since the 30s it exploded through western marxism to become this vast hydra we see today with countless splits and subfactions looking at all sorts of issues. There is always an emphasis on philosophical argueing and words are often redefined to fit agendas.

The emphasis on philosophy is why they argue so hard that, for example, gender is a social construct- if they have an issue with a gender role they need gender to be something social so they can criticize it and the society it comes from. This is perhaps easier to illustrate than explain.

Problem/point of interest :women are less common in the millitary than men.

Critical theorist: this is the work of the patriarchy enforcing gender roles. It is to be dealt with by altering our society so equal numbers of men and women are represented.

Realist: this is the result of sexual dimorphism leading to men being stronger than women and historically making better soldiers. With the increasing mechanisation of warfare this is not necessarily still the case. Though there are some roles which still are better performed by men than women due to a reliance on physical strength.

Notice how the critcal theorist uses philosophy - the concept of patriarchy. To justify a political change to fit an ideology- equal numbers of men and women in everything. Empirical reasons for the statuts quo are ignored as the philosophy is given primacy as per Kant
.

There is a certain dishonesty about the way what are essentially philosphical musings are presented as absolute fact that really irks me.

But I think critical theory is useful where it's useful, which becomes a lot clearer when you remember that human zoos that displayed the 'primitives' were first introduced to Westerners under the guise of scientific 'ethnological exhibits' and stuff.

Critical theory came in far too late to stop these though. When i was first being introduced to the social sciences we were given a course on the importance of ethics, objectivity and the scientific method. It was excellent but it wouldn't have been acceptable to mainstream critical theorists as it criticized using unnecessary jargon, avoiding personal bias and declaring them and using purely subjective rhetoric based arguements.

I like your pokemon article, there is a thomas the tank engine one floating about somewhere.

EDIT: Found a copy, its also been in the guardian and several other news and blog sites:http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/thomas_the_imperialist_tank_engine.html

 

[Aural Offramp]

Got a couple more for people:
http://cannibalmemer.tumblr.com/essays

This is my pet academic, trans, cow: Her work focuses on eating people and trans-ness. Unfortunately she has been actually getting attention for this irl and that really concerns me.

 

[Andy27]

Problem/point of interest :women are less common in the millitary than men.

Critical theorist: this is the work of the patriarchy enforcing gender roles. It is to be dealt with by altering our society so equal numbers of men and women are represented.

Realist: this is the result of sexual dimorphism leading to men being stronger than women and historically making better soldiers. With the increasing mechanisation of warfare this is not necessarily still the case. Though there are some roles which still are better performed by men than women due to a reliance on physical strength.

Notice how the critcal theorist uses philosophy - the concept of patriarchy. To justify a political change to fit an ideology- equal numbers of men and women in everything. Empirical reasons for the statuts quo are ignored as the philosophy is given primacy as per Kant
.
There is a certain dishonesty about the way what are essentially philosphical musings are presented as absolute fact that really irks me.

I think the critical theorist position can be true to some (small) extent without being mutually exclusive with the realist position. For example:

Sexual dimorphism lead to men being stronger and historically made them better soldiers, something which is still true to an extent today as well. However, the previously stated fact lead to society attributing different roles to each gender (I'm not calling that "patriarchy" because that's just a feminist made-up boogeyman) which in turn may result into some prejudices against men and women. So while the fact that women are less common than men is mostly caused directly by sexual dimorphism, it can also be attributed partially - provided that there are evidence for that - to gender norms in a society.

But yeah it's funny how feminists pretend as if their theories are God-given facts, when they only work when dozens of words and definitions change meaning to fit feminist narrative. 99% of them don't even realize it though, since those who teach it don't bother making that fact explicit. Their goal is to further their ideology by converting more people rather than making people understand their ideology and judge it by themselves.

As for academia, I once read a journal article where a female feminist called a male researcher who agreed with her a "white knight". I don't have the reference atm though.

 

[AnOminous]

The Sokal affair was actually an exercise in postmodernism, which is technically just one school of critical theory. A lot of other stuff that could be considered critical theory is a lot closer to traditional Marxism.

I would argue postmodernism predates critical theory. So does, say, the post-structuralism of Foucault, which can arguably be blamed for the rash of idiotic imitators.

This is very true, but it's not an undercurrent so much as it is explicitly the point of critical theory - which aims to study of the ways in which other means of inquiry are themselves politicized.

It is ironic that it has, itself, turned into pure politics and itself needs to be dismantled.

I know a couple academics who would literally spit on the ground at the mere mention of postmodernism (at least when outside). I thought they were overreacting, but while I still think the origins of this stuff in the works of Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, etc. have some merit, the stuff currently going on is more or less an excuse for talentless hacks to spew meaningless nonsense and get, somehow, taken seriously for it.

Not that Foucault et al. didn't, themselves, perpetrate nonsense, sometimes on purpose, but it wasn't really the core of what they were doing.

 

[Vitriol]

Sexual dimorphism lead to men being stronger and historically made them better soldiers, something which is still true to an extent today as well. However, the previously stated fact lead to society attributing different roles to each gender (I'm not calling that "patriarchy" because that's just a feminist made-up boogeyman) which in turn may result into some prejudices against men and women. So while the fact that women are less common than men is mostly caused directly by sexual dimorphism, it can also be attributed partially - provided that there are evidence for that - to gender norms in a society.

I absolutely agree- I was simplifing both points for the sake of illustrating the difference in approaches rather than commenting accurately on the issue itself.

you've very succinctly summed up the link between sex and gender roles while maintaining the distinction between the two. If wider academia was as capable the point AnOminous is raising

the stuff currently going on is more or less an excuse for talentless hacks to spew meaningless nonsense and get, somehow, taken seriously for it.

wouldn't be an issue!

I do wonder how this ends- the rigidity of Victorian methods of thinking led to the initial backlash that started the early postmodern movement. Now that that style of thinking has in turn changed into something unpalatable what are we going to see coming in to challenge it? I suspect some form of neorationality- probably placing emphasis on needing direct empirical facts to inform theory. This doesn't necessarily give the whole picture and is not without its own flaws but i think it is the most likely response.

"What are you doing James? You're a big pink steamie," says Diesel, the bad-boy engine. (For the record, all the "villains" on Thomas and Friends are the dirty diesel engines. I'd like to think there was a good environmental message in there, but when the good engines pump out white smoke and the bad engines pump out black smoke – and they are all pumping out smoke – it's not hard to make the leap into the race territory.)

from the guardian version of the thomas article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

Personally i find it very difficult to make the leap from childrens show about steam trains to racism but im a little problematic like that.

 

[DuskEngine]

I do wonder how this ends- the rigidity of Victorian methods of thinking led to the initial backlash that started the early postmodern movement. Now that that style of thinking has in turn changed into something unpalatable what are we going to see coming in to challenge it? I suspect some form of neorationality- probably placing emphasis on needing direct empirical facts to inform theory. This doesn't necessarily give the whole picture and is not without its own flaws but i think it is the most likely response.

My main problem with critical theory is that it is necessarily normative as it exists today - like you said, it requires reality to conform to the philosophical/psychoanalytical reading, evidence be damned. The main reason I like critical theory is as a tool to question empirical methods - I feel like if we can use it to supplement, rather than supersede, positivist thought, that would be best.

 

[Big Nasty]

The guy who wrote Thomas the Tank Engine was a reactionary bastard who wanted railroads to remain steam-engine only.

 

[DuskEngine]

The guy who wrote Thomas the Tank Engine was a reactionary bastard who wanted railroads to remain steam-engine only.

The rail engine is colonial oppression that controls the subaltern's land to link it to its network of technoscientific transnational capitalism in a process of pernicious deterritorialization, just as the colonizing white man must control the body of the subaltern through a similar process of deterritorialization by shipping his market commodities on those very trains into the subaltern's body.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The first time I was exposed to postmodernism was via a professor who claimed that the scientific method and peer review were tools of anthropocentric oppression and that by extension it was wrong to give organ transplants because it was only due to imperialistic reasoning that we don't believe that people will be subject to haunting by the donors souls

 

[AnOminous]

My main problem with critical theory is that it is necessarily normative as it exists today - like you said, it requires reality to conform to the philosophical/psychoanalytical reading, evidence be damned.

This is actually a good point. Turning it into a school of thought is almost like founding a University of Dada where you teach dada art according to a fixed curriculum. It's now become exactly as hegemonic and controlling as what it criticized. It's the sort of thinking that makes sense as an insurgency, because as an insurgency you can afford to be full of shit from time to time.

Now, it actually has its own canonical authors, philosophical positions, methodologies, and other baggage.

 

[Ravenor]

You know I would like to introduce something using @vitriol Soldier = Man scenario for discussion, More Women are nurses than Men, in a modern age is it right that it continues like this? When introduced to this Tumblr community?

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

The Sokal affair was actually an exercise in postmodernism, which is technically just one school of critical theory. A lot of other stuff that could be considered critical theory is a lot closer to traditional Marxism.



This is very true, but it's not an undercurrent so much as it is explicitly the point of critical theory - which aims to study of the ways in which other means of inquiry are themselves politicized.

It has no real place in the hard sciences (which is what all that bullshit with Sokal was about). But I think critical theory is useful where it's useful, which becomes a lot clearer when you remember that human zoos that displayed the 'primitives' were first introduced to Westerners under the guise of scientific 'ethnological exhibits' and stuff.

And yeah, most of tumblr has no real idea what they're talking about. Hell, I doubt if most of the people on tumblr who use crit theory terms even understand the intellectual genealogy behind the terms they use. This is my major problem with it, as you pointed out - that there's no real line between theory and rhetoric.

I couldn't agree with the bolded any more. This is my major beef with the common application of critical theory is that it itself has become the almost canonical and authoritative system of thought that it initially claimed to resist. They can give a slight nod to Foucault or Judith Butler, more often than not just knowing they existed and wrote a lot, rather than analyze them in well, a critical matter, and in such a way that reflects their position in the history of thought. Foucault in particular is best understood in light of his precedents, like Nietzsche and Kant, in order to understand what he really is trying to say and how he says it as opposed to the more polemical results. My admitted bias towards classical philosophy no doubt colors this, but the little regard that these practitioners of critical theory (including the professors that teach it) have for a strong grounding in the works of the past is not unlike the positivists' idea of knowledge as self-correcting and inherently progressive.

 

[DuskEngine]

My admitted bias towards classical philosophy no doubt colors this, but the little regard that these practitioners of critical theory (including the professors that teach it) have for a strong grounding in the works of the past is not unlike the positivists' idea of knowledge as self-correcting and inherently progressive.

Which is especially amusing because post-structuralists like Foucault were explicitly historical, so not knowing the history of the thought you're expounding would be considered somewhat dangerous by them.

I think this is the sort of thing Frederic Jameson talked about when he said that postmodern culture and narrative is dangerously ahistorical. I should read more of his work, I think.

I kind of feel like this is turning into a Deep Thoughts thread, heh.

 

[Positron]

The studies of invasive animal and plant species has been denounced as xenophobic "pseudoscience". From the book
Invasion biology. Critique of a pseudoscience by D. I. Theodoropoulos:

"... the foundational concepts and logical structure of invasion biology are identical to those of the discredited ideologies of xenophobia, racism, nationalism, and fascism is self‐evident."

Now, [critical theory] actually has its own canonical authors, philosophical positions, methodologies, and other baggage.

All these baggage still would not prevent it producing tree-killing garbage. Granted, even with the scientific method, hard science can still churn out garbage, but as least there is a mechanism to verify and identify what is true.

The first time I was exposed to postmodernism was via a professor who claimed that the scientific method and peer review were tools of anthropocentric oppression and that by extension it was wrong to give organ transplants because it was only due to imperialistic reasoning that we don't believe that people will be subject to haunting by the donors souls

Your professor was a phasmophobic shitl@rd who attributed malice to all donor souls! What if the soul thanks the recipient for keeping a piece of him or her alive?

 

[UndeadSpergatory]

And yeah, most of tumblr has no real idea what they're talking about. Hell, I doubt if most of the people on tumblr who use crit theory terms even understand the intellectual genealogy behind the terms they use. This is my major problem with it, as you pointed out - that there's no real line between theory and rhetoric.

You hear a lot of terms like 'fetishization' and 'cultural appropriation' being bandied around Tumblr, hell I think half of the words in the tumblr dictionary thread have their roots in critical theory, but the fact that these words have a specific academic meaning never occurs to most SJWs. Most tumblrites are ridicuously ignorant about politics, especially global politics and have an ironically americentric world view.

Think about the bindi dot cultural appropriation thing that's going around. Most people on tumblr assume that Indian people are some generic, brown and oppressed group of people that have a dot only they can wear. In contrast, the Indian subcontient is far from homogenous and has a comparable cultural and lingustic diversity to that of Europe, with some groups even hating each other and engaging in violent warfare towards one another. The bindi originated in the Indo-Aryan north of the country, so those living in the south might need to check their Dravidian privilege and stop culturally appropriating.