2020 non-fiction book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity?and Why This Harms Everybody
is a nonfiction book by
Helen Pluckrose
and
James Lindsay
, published in August 2020. The book was listed on the bestsellers lists of
Publishers Weekly
,
[1]
USA Today
,
[2]
and the
Calgary Herald
.
[3]
The book was released in Australia as
Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity ? and Why This Harms Everybody
.
[4]
[5]
Summary
[
edit
]
Cynical Theories
contrasts the academic approaches of
liberalism
and
postmodernism
, then argues that "
applied postmodernism
" (which focuses on
ought
rather than
is
) has displaced other approaches to activism and scholarship. The authors present several academic fields and
schools
?
postcolonial theory
,
queer theory
,
critical race theory
,
intersectionality
,
fourth-wave feminism
,
gender studies
,
fat studies
, and
ableism
?and describe how the "applied postmodernism" approach has developed in each field. The authors use
capitalization
to distinguish between the liberal concept of "
social justice
" and the ideological movement of "Social Justice" that they state has
reified
postmodernism.
Sales and rankings
[
edit
]
Shortly after its release the book became a
Wall Street Journal
,
USA Today
,
[6]
[7]
and
Publishers Weekly
bestseller and a number-one bestseller in philosophy on
Amazon
.
[
citation needed
]
Cynical Theories
was named in the
Financial Times
'
Best Books of the Year 2020
[8]
and in
The Times
'
Best Political and Current Affairs Books of the Year 2020.
[9]
Critical reception
[
edit
]
Positive
[
edit
]
Harvard University
's
Steven Pinker
, a psychologist and public intellectual, praised the book, saying that it "exposes the surprisingly shallow intellectual roots of the movements that appear to be engulfing our culture".
[10]
Douglas Murray
wrote an admiring review of
Cynical Theories
for
The Times
, saying "I have rarely read such a good summary of how postmodernism evolved from the 1960s onwards." Murray concluded, "Yet as I put down the book and turned on the news I couldn't help thinking that this deconstruction of the deconstructionists may have arrived just a moment too late."
[11]
Joanna Williams
, writing from her post as a commentator on
Spiked
, said that the authors provide "a huge service in translating the language of today’s activists and explaining to readers not steeped in
critical theory
or postmodernism how the world looks from the perspective of those who are," and that it "successfully draws out how, over the course of six decades, the burgeoning popularity of critical theory within university humanities and social-science faculties shifted postmodernism from a minority academic pursuit to an all-encompassing political framework." But Williams also noted that "[w]hile
Cynical Theories
offers an excellent account of how postmodern scholarship morphed into social-justice activism, it is less persuasive when it comes to why this happened." Williams stated, "What's largely missing from
Cynical Theories
is a broader political contextualisation of social-justice activism."
[12]
Ryan Whittaker wrote on
The Manchester Review
that "Despite its flaws,
Cynical Theories
is an important, interesting, accessible, and extensively cited work of non-fiction. It avoids the pitfalls of texts caught up in 'culture war' subjects; it intentionally avoids screeds of left- and right-wing punditry and the reader is likely to come away feeling that it has been academic and fair towards its opponents.
[13]
Peter Gregory Boghossian
who had also published bogus articles in the
Grievance studies affair
with Lindsay and Pluckrose stated that the book "is a tactical nuclear strike on the heart of the moral architecture that is sustaining
Culture war
2.0" and "will take the culture war to the next level".
[14]
[
additional citation(s) needed
]
Writing in
The Times Literary Supplement
,
Simon Jenkins
wrote that within half an hour of starting he thought he had "had enough of this book. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay seemed obsessed by a
straw man
, a fake foe. Their opponents, I felt, were surely well-intentioned and did not really believe what they were accused of believing." He went on, however, "I read on and now think differently." He cited the conclusion "refreshing" in that they offered no "counter-revolutionary strategy" or "demand that Theory be suppressed," but rather only call for the support of "reason, debate,
tolerance
, democracy and the
rule of law
." He wrote that the book illuminates "one of those sidetracks in Western ideology that led to both
Salem
and
Weimar
."
[15]
Mixed
[
edit
]
Nigel Warburton
, writing for
The Spectator
, praises the early chapters on postmodernism and calls the first part of the book "a plausible and interesting story about the origins of the phenomena they describe. Like
Roger Scruton
in his book
Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands
, they have done their homework, and can't fairly be accused of a superficial understanding of the thinkers they engage with, though they probably underestimate the seriousness and depth of
Foucault
's analysis of power." He says "the book then becomes a gloves-off
polemic
against specific manifestations of Theory in areas such as postcolonialism, queer theory, critical race theory, gender, and
disability studies
. Here they are far less charitable to their targets, and they take cheap shots in passing, a strategy likely to prevent anyone who has caught Theory from being cured by reading this."
[5]
Nick Fouriezos of
OZY
magazine described
Cynical Theories
as
the first cohesive attempt to tie together the intellectual strands of the
intellectual dark web
. He notes that
[w]hile crediting liberalism for leading to the gains of the modern feminist movement,
LGBT rights
and the
civil rights movement
, [the book] suggests almost total victory was reached in those fields by the end of the 1980s
while ignoring significant issues that have persisted since then.
[14]
Reviewing the book for
Philosophy Now
, Stephen Anderson noted a "major weakness" in the book yet recommended a reading.
[note 1]
[16]
La Trobe University
ethicist
Janna Thompson
wrote on
The Conversation
that the book's authors are
right to point out
the
unjustified harm to individuals who are called out and “cancelled” for minor misdemeanours, or for stating a view that identity activists deem unacceptable
but noted that one does not have to
be a
relativist
to think the opinions [...] of [...] minority groups ought to be respected
or be "
anti-science
" to
think scientific research sometimes ignores [...] perspectives of women and minorities.
She wrote that
[l]iberals ? as advocates of critical engagement ? should be open to the possibility that Theory, despite faults, has detected forms of
prejudice
our society tends to overlook.
Drawing on political scientist
Glyn Davis
's arguments, Thompson noted that the
most problematic aspect
of the book is
the blame it heaps on humanities departments of universities for stirring up a
cancel culture
and the
culture wars
. Thompson stated that Lindsay and Pluckrose, by
overstating their case and aiming their weapons at humanities and universities
,
cannot pass themselves off as objective contributors to a search for truth
, and betrayed that they
themselves
were
combatants in the culture wars
.
[17]
Brian Russell Graham of
Aalborg University
[18]
and contributor for
Quillette
[18]
[19]
[note 2]
and
Areo Magazine
[18]
[19]
[note 3]
wrote that
Cynical Theories
"deserves all the plaudits it is getting, but it could perhaps have been an even better book." He cited the "1960s homegrown American political activism, which burgeoned partly independently of European developments" as "the most salient" omission in the book. He wrote that "In the United States,
identity politics
began to assert itself before and without the influence of Foucault and, more generally, the postmodernist" role in "the so-called '
cultural turn
'".
[20]
Writing for the American conservative
James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
, Sumantra Maitra stated that
Cynical Theories
provides "example upon example as evidence" that "academic institutions [...] changed over time" and "how everything, from media to research, seems like ideological propaganda". Maitra asserts that "Postmodernism is also, at the end of the day, a vicious power play. The entire “decolonizing” movement is, likewise, essentially a way to “bolster their ranks” in the academy". However, after noting that Lindsay and Pluckrose were "bafflingly opposed to funding cuts" because of their avowed resistance to the temptation to "fight illiberalism with illiberalism or counter threats to
freedom of speech
by banning the speech of the censorious", Maitra concedes that the book "offers vague utopian wishes" to counter the "problem", because
If [...] post-modernism is dangerously subversive[...] then that threat would not be won in “the
marketplace of ideas
,” given that the levers of such ideas are controlled by the same people with whom one is battling (as Lindsay correctly points out himself)[...]
Power
is tackled with power, not just ideas and values. For all their faults, the post-modernists, like the
Marxists
, understand the question of power far better than liberals, and are willing to use it for political ends.
[21]
Roland Rich in the
Population Council
's
Population and Development Review
wrote that the authors "have done their research" yet "did not begin their enquiry with an open mind". Reading amidst the
"dispute over the 2020 [American presidential] election results"
, Rich shifted away from his "initial instinct" to "pile on" the "social justice perspective". Yet he credited the book for its unintended remedy to the "conservative media" tactic of derogatorily lumping together liberal "progressive thinking" and "critical theory" since the book disentangled the two by preferring the former to the latter. Rich concluded that "Pluckrose and Lindsay have taken sides in this debate, but it is almost impossible not to do so."
[note 4]
[22]
Negative
[
edit
]
| This section
needs expansion
. You can help by
adding to it
.
(
October 2022
)
|
Tim Smith-Laing wrote in conservative newspaper
The Daily Telegraph
that the authors "leap from history to hysteria". Describing the hoaxes cited in the book, Smith-Laing
asserted
that it was "not quite logical to assert that your hoax shows a widespread disregard for empirical proof when the papers published contained quantities of carefully fabricated empirical proof". Additionally, he wrote that "restricted claims that writers such as Jacques Derrida or
Richard Rorty
make...do not add up to anything like Pluckrose and Lindsay’s apocalyptic characterisations". He said that though he believed the book presents an acceptable sketch of the history of several of the intellectual strains it highlights, it nevertheless
fails on its own terms: not because the values of rational, evidence-based argument that Pluckrose and Lindsay claim to stand for are poor values, but because the book itself so transparently does not fulfil them. You could be forgiven for wondering who the real cynics are here.
[23]
Park MacDougald, writing from his post as
Life & Arts
editor of the conservative
Washington Examiner
, commented that "the specific form of “reified postmodernism” now promoted by our elites has very little to do with, say, Derrida’s interest in the
aporias
of language". MacDougald wrote that Lindsay and Pluckrose, with their "cursory attempt to “prove” that rights-based liberalism is somehow more objectively true than other political theories", fail to understand that
most social and political “truths” are not established by proof or equation. They are
narratives
, and it is impossible to understand which ones get accepted... without thinking about “systems of power and hierarchies.”
[note 5]
MacDougald concluded, "I sympathize with Pluckrose and Lindsay’s frustration at how the woke Left uses a bastardized version of postmodernism to justify petty intellectual tyranny... But it is a mistake simply to dismiss the postmodernists for deviating from the true faith of evidence-based liberalism."
[24]
Dion Kagan on
The Monthly
noted the book's "well-worn approach" in its dismissal of certain academic fields, along with its "omissions, misattributions and cherrypicking". Kagan also conceded that "
Cynical Theories
isn't quite Jordan Peterson?level caricature of postmodernism".
[4]
See also
[
edit
]
Notes
[
edit
]
- ^
He cites how the key development at the turn of the 21st century which led the authors to write their critique "was that ordinary people, not just academics, began to take to heart the assumptions of postmodern academics." Anderson, however, notes a "major weakness" in the book: "Lindsay and Pluckrose seem to imply that secular
rationalism
, the
scientific method
, and the idea of
human rights
, leapt into existence
ex nihilo
[...] as a pure gift of the
Enlightenment
, without social conditions or progenitors [...] [W]hile it is quite fair for Lindsay and Pluckrose to criticise postmodernism for arbitrarily exempting its own
metanarrative
from being critically deconstructed, the very same charge of ‘historical denial’ could be leveled against [Lindsay and Pluckrose] in return".
Anderson continued that "If, as [Pluckrose and Lindsay] insist,
modernism
itself gave rise to the conditions that produced postmodernism and Critical Theory, then it’s hard to see how reversion to those same modernist values would be likely to fix anything."
Nevertheless, Anderson concludes that the book
isn’t a hard book to read
and
should be read by anyone with a serious interest in the origins of today’s events in regard to the ideology of Social Justice. Every politician should have a copy. And it would do a lot of good in the Humanities courses of the (post)modern university if this book were required reading along with the various social justice texts they already make mandatory ? not just to provide ideological balance, but because it contains a thorough and fair history of the whole movement, from a helicopter-view perspective.
- ^
Quillette
articles
have reportedly raised concerns about political correctness, freedom of speech in educational institutions, "postmodernism", and "critical theory"
.
- ^
Areo Magazine
states that it supports "universal liberal humanism". Pluckrose herself was the editor-in-chief from June 2018?May 2021 of
Areo
.
"About Areo"
. Archived from
the original
on November 16, 2022.
- ^
Rich acknowledged applied-postmodernist approaches' "policy utility" as "corrective device[s]" and "test[s] of policy ideas", which could demonstrate "critical theory to be other than cynical theory". But Rich simultaneously remarked that "[t]he woke"
themselves
may dismiss such a defence as a mere "trick of the oppressors" which render the woke mere "commentators on policy choices", preferring instead "to dominate the debate in academia, and to empower activists on the ground". Rich inferred that applied postmodernism and applied postmodernism's opponents lacked any "shared foundational premises". He therefore noted the impossibility of "compromise" or "middle ground" between applied-postmodernist "activists" and their opponents since
both
seek to "capture the entire scholarly discourse".
- ^
MacDougald argued that "[...] Anyone critical of the U.S. establishment, whether on the conservative Right or the socialist Left, understands this point instinctively" (emphasis in original), citing the media's viewing of "Trump’s collusion with Russia as real news" and "
Hunter Biden
’s misdeeds as
fake news
", and that "the expert consensus...tend to reflect whatever... upper-middle-class liberals believe".
References
[
edit
]
- ^
"Publishers Weekly Best-Sellers"
.
OANow.com
. Archived from
the original
on September 6, 2020
. Retrieved
September 3,
2020
.
- ^
"US-Best-Sellers-Books-USAToday"
.
Martinsville Bulletin
. Retrieved
September 3,
2020
.
[
permanent dead link
]
- ^
"Calgary bestsellers".
Calgary Herald
. August 29, 2020. p. B.7.
- ^
a
b
Kagan, Dion (November 10, 2020).
"Cancel the woke: 'Cynical Theories'
"
.
The Monthly
. Retrieved
April 25,
2023
.
The less philosophy-minded may find
Cynical Theories
wanting in terms of a broader political, economic and historical contextualisation of social-justice activism. For this, something like
Jeff Sparrow's book
Trigger Warnings
, an account of the emergence of identity politics alongside the transition from direct to delegated politics, is more enlightening. As is
Waleed Aly
's recent analysis of cancel culture ? and other moralistic, orthodox tendencies in woke politics ? which is viewed in light of the difficulty liberalism has grappling with power and oppression, and disillusionment with the current practice of liberal democracy.
- ^
a
b
Warburton, Nigel.
"Universities are supposed to encourage debate, not strangle it"
.
The Spectator
. No. November 14, 2020
. Retrieved
November 12,
2020
.
- ^
"Bestselling Books Week Ended August 29"
.
The Wall Street Journal
. September 3, 2020.
ISSN
0099-9660
. Retrieved
October 1,
2020
.
- ^
"US-Best-Sellers-Books-USAToday"
.
The Washington Post
. Associated Press.
ISSN
0190-8286
. Retrieved
October 1,
2020
.
- ^
Rachman, Gideon
(November 18, 2020).
"Best books of 2020: Politics"
.
Financial Times
.
Archived
from the original on November 18, 2020
. Retrieved
November 22,
2020
.
- ^
Millen, Roland White | Robbie.
"Best political and current affairs books of the year 2020"
.
The Times
.
ISSN
0140-0460
. Retrieved
December 1,
2020
.
- ^
Paul Kelly
(September 12, 2020).
"Tracing the dangerous rise and rise of woke warriors"
.
The Australian
. Retrieved
October 1,
2020
.
- ^
Murray, Douglas
(September 4, 2020).
"Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay review ? woke warriors are conquering academia"
.
The Times
.
- ^
Williams, Joanna (August 28, 2020).
"How wokeness conquered the academy"
.
Spiked
. Retrieved
August 28,
2020
.
- ^
Whittaker, Ryan (October 18, 2020).
"Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay | Cynical Theories"
.
The Manchester Review
. Retrieved
November 22,
2020
.
- ^
a
b
Fouriezos, Nick (August 10, 2020).
"American Fringes: The Intellectual Dark Web Declares Its Independence"
.
OZY
. Archived from
the original
on September 19, 2020
. Retrieved
September 5,
2020
.
- ^
Jenkins, Simon.
"The new intolerance"
.
Times Literary Supplement
. No. 2 October 2020. News UK
. Retrieved
October 5,
2020
.
- ^
Anderson, Stephen (2021).
"Cynical Theories by James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose"
.
Philosophy Now
. Retrieved
December 13,
2022
.
- ^
Thompson, Janna
(November 5, 2020).
"Friday essay: a new front in the culture wars, Cynical Theories takes unfair aim at the humanities"
.
The Conversation
. Archived from
the original
on January 11, 2023
. Retrieved
January 11,
2023
.
- ^
a
b
c
"Brian Russell Graham, Author at Areo"
.
- ^
a
b
"Brian Russell Graham"
.
John Hunt Publishing
.
- ^
Brian Russell Graham (February 4, 2021).
"Review: Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay's "Cynical Theories"
"
.
Merion West
. Archived from
the original
on January 11, 2023
. Retrieved
January 11,
2023
.
- ^
Maitra, Sumantra (May 29, 2020).
"A War Against 'Normal'
"
.
The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
. Archived from
the original
on December 3, 2022
. Retrieved
January 13,
2023
.
- ^
Rich, Roland (March 16, 2021).
"Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity-and Why This Harms EverybodyPitchstone Publishing, 2020. 352 p. $27.95"
.
Population and Development Review
.
47
(1): 264?267.
doi
:
10.1111/padr.12393
.
S2CID
233831239
.
- ^
Smith-Laing, Tim (September 19, 2020).
"
'Postmodernism gone mad': is academia to blame for cancel culture?"
.
The Telegraph
.
- ^
"Is postmodernism really worthless? | Review of Cynical Theories"
.
Washington Examiner
. December 18, 2020.
External links
[
edit
]