Book Critique by Michael Finney
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity-and Why This Harms Everybody
by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
Introduction
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity-and Why This Harms Everybody, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, was published in 2020 by Pitchstone Publishing and has 351 pages. Pluckrose is a “liberal and cultural writer and speaker” and “the editor of Areo Magazine.”[1] Lindsay is a mathematician with a physics background, and he is the “founder of New Discourses (newdiscourese.com).”[2] They have written numerous essays, and Lindsay has written a couple of other books.[3]
Summary
The book, Cynical Theories, addresses the abandonment of a political philosophy referred to as liberalism in mainstream academia in favor of various theories that have embraced postmodernism. Since liberalism means different things to different people, it is essential to understand what the writers mean when they use this term:
The main tenets of liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion.[4]
The authors point out that postmodernism began in the “obscure corners of academia,” but “has spread to other parts of the academy, into activism, throughout bureaucracies, and to the heart of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education,” and deep into every area of modern life.[5] It has mushroomed into numerous interrelated postmodern theories, including Postcolonial Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Theory, Identity Theory, Feminist Theory, Social Justice Theory, and other related theories sometimes referred to simply as Theory.[6]
All of these theories have two principles and four themes in common. The two principles are related to “power and knowledge.”[7] First, they all reject either outright are intrinsically that “objective knowledge or truth is obtainable.”[8] Second, they believe that all of “society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies,” which decide what truth is by using the dominant culture's language.[9] The four themes of postmodernism are:
1. The blurring of boundaries
2. The power of language
3. Cultural relativism
4. The loss of the individual and the universal[10]
These two principles and four themes are traced throughout each of the theories, allowing the authors to identify all of them as postmodern theories and show how they operate. Some, like Queer Theory, are primarily concerned with “blurring” all “boundaries.”[11] If nothing is “considered normal,” then nothing is considered odd or queer.[12] Social Justice Theory focuses more on the “power of language,” while Critical Race Theory emphasizes the “dissolution of the individual in favor of groupidentities” (emphasis added).[13] However, as Pluckrose and Lindsay point out in chapter after chapter, all of these postmodern theories reject objective knowledge, hierarchies, boundaries, objective communication, individualism, capitalism, science, reason, logic, and all metanarratives.
Consequently, postmodern theories have no problem with contradictions within their own systems of thought.[14] Despite the rejection of metanarratives and truth-claims, each theory has created “a dominant metanarrative of its own,” and it argues emphatically for its own truth-claims (emphasis added).[15] Pluckrose and Lindsay consider it “no exaggeration” to call it “a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason.”[16] This religion is not based on empirical evidence and reason but on what the authors call “gnostic epistemologies” (1 Tim 6:20-21; Col 2:8; 1 John 4:2).
The solution, according to Pluckrose and Lindsay, is to return to liberalism. Liberalism, according to the authors, is not perfect, but it has led to more advancements and freedoms than any other system.[17] It may be slow, but it gets there; consequently, rather than destroying the master’s house (Western Civilization, Democracy, and Capitalism) with postmodernism, liberalism seeks to improve it.[18]
Critique
Cynical Theories is an outstanding book, and the authors are to be commended for taking on those within their own sphere of influence. One of the book's most important aspects is that it can reach people that a similar book from a conservative perspective could never reach. Nonetheless, it is an outstanding resource for anyone, left, right, or center, who wants a better understanding of Critical Theory, Postmodernism, and other related theories.
However, despite Pluckrose and Lindsay’s stated goal to reach “the layperson who has no background in this type of scholarship,” the book fails in this regard.[19] There are simply too many terms that need defining for a regular non-academic individual to follow without getting lost. For example, the average man or woman on the street has little or no comprehension of what is meant by words like metanarratives, deconstruction, modernity, hegemonic, epistemology, intersectionality, feminist empiricism, testimonial betrayal, and pedagogy, not to mention those within postmodernism that purposely “write incomprehensible, obfuscatory prose and deny that language can have meaning anyway.”[20] Nonetheless, Critical Theories is a valuable resource for anyone willing to expand their horizons or who already has an idea of what is meant by these terms.
Likewise, the division of the book has both advantages and disadvantages. For example, if someone wants an understanding of Queer Theory, they can go directly to that chapter.[21] On the other hand, when reading the book straight through, it sometimes becomes somewhat tedious to read some of the same stuff chapter after chapter. Still, this adds to its usefulness as a resource to pull off the shelf for specific theories.
However, the book's central problem is its ideological bias. Yes, it is written by someone from the left who can reach others within that culture, but it is still written from a liberal, progressive viewpoint. Pluckrose and Lindsay do not hide the fact that they view those on the right as “an even greater potential threat” than postmodern progressives.[22] If the authors were only referring to white supremacists and KKK members as representatives of the extreme right, this comparison could be glossed over since both are similarly bad. However, the far-right includes those who believe in natural law and natural theology and have a Christian worldview.[23] They believe the “Natural Law” of the founding fathers is a “meaningless” term that yields no more truth than postmodernism's subjective truth.[24] Consequently, despite the authors’ goal of being open-minded and encouraging “disagreement and debate,” several points are made or ignored that are either incorrect or missing from the book.[25]
For example, Pluckrose and Lindsay equate all the humanitarian progress of the “last five hundred years” to liberalism.[26] However, it was not liberalism that led to Lincoln’s most powerful argument against slavery. Lincoln realized that “opposition to slavery” did not make “sense on purely liberal grounds” (emphasis added).[27] Instead, he appealed to “the morality of natural law, even of natural theology.” Lincoln argued that “Almost every man has a sense of certain things being wrong.”[28] He added that “if anything can be proved by natural theology, it is that slavery is morally wrong.”[29]
However, Pluckrose and Lindsay not only reject natural law and ignore its part in ending slavery in the US, but they also embrace humanism and ignore its blame for slavery. When discussing racism's origin, the authors point fingers at nationalism, colonialism, and white supremacy, but they miss one of the greatest culprits.[30] “The secular humanist version of racism was evolutionism, which became famous as a result of Charles Darwin and others.”[31] Darwin made racism a part of the so-called science of the Enlightenment that the authors champion.[32] Darwinism, embraced by liberal humanists like Pluckrose and Lindsay, is a false religion based on a “consensus of scientists.”[33]
The writers also argue for the “consensus” view “that homosexuality is innate, value-free, and perfectly healthy.”[34] That is another example of consensus science. However, actual science “requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world (emphasis added).”[35] Frank Turek offers not one but multiple verifiable proofs that “[h]omosexual behavior is inherently destructive” and that it “results in numerous health problems” and “shortens the life span.”[36]
Additionally, Pluckrose and Lindsay consider causes like women’s reproductive rights (the right to murder unborn children), gay marriage rights (including the rights of gay men to adopt), and trans rights (the right of a biological male to use women’s restrooms and girls’ showers) as progressive liberal achievements. However, none of these so-called rights were achieved through the democratic process or by an open dialogue that Pluckrose and Lindsay champion. They were forced down America’s throat by activist judges even though most Americans were against them and voted against them time after time when allowed to do so. Furthermore, each of these alleged rights went beyond constitutional jurisprudence limits and were only achieved when nine judges in black robes essentially redefined life, marriage, and gender to create these so-called constitutional rights.
Conclusion
Nonetheless, Critical Theories is an excellent resource for understanding postmodern theories. None of us, including conservatives and Christians, are without biases. As the authors suggest, liberals and conservatives should be open to dialogue and tolerant of different opinions without being forced to agree with one another. However, postmodern theories reject dissent of any kind and believe disagreement and different viewpoints to be acts of “literal violence.”[37] Let us hope that more liberals and progressives realize that destroying the master’s house (Western Civilization) will not end well for anyone.
Bibliography
Dembski, William A. Sean McDowell, and Josh McDowell. Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Guelzo, Allen C. Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.
Lindsay, Dennis Gordon. The ABC’s of Evolutionism: Ape-Man, Batman, Catwoman, and Other Evolutionary Fantasies (the Rest of the Stories), Creation Science Series. Dallas, TX: Christ for the Nations, 1995.
Pluckrose, Helen, and James Lindsay. “A Manifesto Against the Enemies of Modernity.” Areo Magazine. August 22, 2017. Accessed March 12, 2021, at areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/.
Pluckrose, Helen, and James Lindsay. Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity-and Why This Harms Everybody. Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2020.
Turek, Frank. Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-sex Marriage Hurts Everyone. Charlotte, NC: CrossExamined.org., 2017.
[1] Helen, Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity-and Why This Harms Everybody (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2020), cover jacket. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid., 11. [5] Ibid., 13, 215-216. [6] Ibid., 16. [7] Ibid., 35. [8] Ibid., 31. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid., 90. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid., 117, 201. [14] Ibid., 85. [15] Ibid., 65. [16] Ibid., 210. [17] Ibid., 243, 246. [18] Ibid., 20, 209. [19] Ibid., 19. [20] Ibid., 54. [21] Ibid., 89. [22] Ibid., 259. [23] Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, “A Manifesto Against the Enemies of Modernity,” Areo Magazine, August 22, 2017, paragraphs 8-9, accessed March 12, 2021, at www.areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/. [24] Ibid. [25] Pluckrose and Lindsay, Cynical Theories, 237. [26] Ibid., 243. [27] Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 188. [28] Ibid. [29] Ibid. [30] Ibid., 113. [31] Dennis Gordon Lindsay, The ABC’s of Evolutionism: Ape-Man, Batman, Catwoman, and Other Evolutionary Fantasies (the Rest of the Stories), Creation Science Series (Dallas, TX: Christ for the Nations, 1995), section, “Darwin Gets into the Act,” paragraph 1. [32] Pluckrose and Lindsay, Cynical Theories, 51. [33] William A. Dembski, Sean McDowell, and Josh McDowell, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), section, “Is Darwinism the Scientific Consensus,” paragraph 9. [34]Pluckrose and Lindsay, Cynical Theories, 179. [35] Dembski, et. al., Understanding Intelligent Design, section, “Is Darwinism the Scientific Consensus,” paragraph 10. [36] Frank Turek, Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Charlotte, NC: CrossExamined.org., 2017), 31-32. [37] Pluckrose and Lindsay, Cynical Theories, 183.
Comments