How to Make a Critical Theory Out of Anything

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 45

Critical Theories are almost embarrassingly simple. There's almost nothing to them. A Critical Theory of anything can easily be made by one of two routes. One: Take an existing Critical Theory of something, substitute the domain-specific jargon of some other thing, and then publish. You're a genius revolutionizing (pun intended) your field! Two: Just understand the basic anatomy of a Critical Theory and do the same thing. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay walks you through the idea of a "Critical Car Theory" that challenges "carnormativity" to show you exactly how. It's simple. Choose something imperfect in the world that you'd like to complain about. Identify a politically actionable outcome you hope to achieve, probably a Leftist one. Blame everyone for incidences of the problem by thinking "systemically" and assign them moral complicity and responsibility for the problem you started with. Demand systemic change. Then close off all disagreement or questioning as an attempt to maintain the "status quo" of "the system," which only an evil person who wants those problems to continue would do. That's it. That's the anatomy of a Critical Theory. Join James in this episode to hear how ridiculously simple and absurd it is so you can protect yourself from Critical Theories in other lines of thought.

Support New Discourses:

Website:

Follow:

Podcast:

© 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.

[noone]

When I was 5 I had a critical theory about how I shouldn’t have to do chores but should still get dessert.

[DANALDTRAMP]

This lecture really explains why actors have taken to CRT so hard. All you need is to be able to memorize and spit back some big words, and you suddenly have inordinate power.

[Mitzoplick]

1 - create groups
2 - show how some system effects those created groups differently
3 - if one group has even a small advantage in said system, label it oppressive

I can not understand why we have not gotten a critical sports theory. Sports is very oppressive of un-athletic people and must be brought into equitable outcome.

[joeblogs]

My four year old son sometimes falls off his scooter into the concrete and will say... “why do people put concrete here when people are just going to hurt themselves on it”. He’s a sidewalk critical theorists haha.

Anyway, I tell him that the sidewalk exists because it creates a stable pathway between A and B, and instead, he will get better at riding his scooter from making his mistakes.

[TimPortantno]

Slowly, it is dawning on you. "Critical Critical Theory" is how you fight this.
Normal people are not responding to the "theory" but to the authority of sounding academic and compassionate. This is easy to apply to anything, including the criticism of critical theory.

[hotwax]

*Christine O'Donnell:* "I'm not a witch."
*Critical Theorists:* "That's what a witch would say."

[montycantsin]

We need to isolate the qualities and flaws in people who promote critical theory, and start putting out critical critical theories.
Critical Twitter Theory, Critical Academic Theory, Critical Vegan Theory, Critical Government Theory, Critical Laziness Theory, etc.
Maybe we can do some Accelerationism/obscurantism.

We know what they do, and we know their greatest weakness is to their own theories. We also know that people who might be tricked into their nonsense can be made wise by exposure to mockery of Critical Theory.

We could take it darker... Critical Eating Theory, Critical Sleeping Theory, Critical Breathing Theory.
Point out the evils of simply existing.

Communism falls because of inefficiency, bloat and paranoia, and people become weary of it. It thrives because it can leech off of the productive (china, cuba, etc).

This IS neomarxist content, but it's proponents are hypocritically capitalist, actually the worst kind of capitalist that they decry.

Let's accelerate the content and bloat the content. Maybe we can pop their bubble.

[LTzEzz]

It's the opposite of Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership, or JBP's make your room perfect before you fix the world.

[elizabethjennings]

"Internalized car normativity"--I laughed out loud. Anyone who actually felt this way would go and live as the Amish, who do not waste their time trying to overhaul systems, but simply live out alternatives. Critical theory is what happens when concepts such as collective guilt are extracted from the context of Christianity with its offer of grace and recognition that not all will be fulfilled in this world, and become immanentized and punitive.

[the-quintessenz]

It's my main deconstruction tool for BS is to take a statement and replace the central terms with their opposite. If it still makes sense, it's Critical BS Theory.

[derekketcher]

When you mentioned rubber I had a bit of a flash back to the Edison biography i am reading. Harvey Firestone and Henry Ford were pretty adamant about the US being rubber independent because the Brits had a nesr monopoly on it. Pretty interesting bit of history. Rubber was super important.

[nathanburgett]

I commented before, and just got back to finish this episode. i mentioned how calvinism does the same thing. Listening further i can see why these ideas are so linked. Calvinism also has its roots in gnostic philosophy. The foundational ideas of calvinism were invented by augustine, who was a gnostic for 10 years of his life. For most his life he taught what the church had always taught in most regards. However, in 412ad he began teaching "non-free freewill" as well as the idea of inhereted guilt that produces an inability to believe in all mankind. Both these ideas are christian and neo-plantonian and gnostic and stoic ideas, all mixed together.

The reason I think they both apply this systematic thinking shoehorning in their presupositions, is because of that gnostic connection.

Most people are not aware of this. I was a calvinist for 8 years, and had no idea. When the Spirit began to convict me to examine my beliefs, it led to an 18 month ordeal, and leaving calvinism.

A great book I recommend about the gnostic roots of calvinism, is, "the foundation of agustinian calvinism" by Ken Wilson. Its a layman's version of his dissertation as the premier agustinian scholar. Its only like 10 dollars.

This probably also hints at why this SJW stuff has infiltrated the Presbyterian, baptist, and many calvinist churches.

[outofbluepills]

And whom should the pedestrian sue? Who owes him rep arat ions, that is? Not just the driver. The guy who worked at the steel mill that made the steel that was used in the car--HE is to blame. Also the guy who doesn't even own a car but started a business in the suburbs, which his employees sometimes drive to. That's part of "the system, " a society whose "defining feature" (according to critical car theorists) is its reliance on cars. And you! After all, you didn't campaign for a politician running on a ban all cars platform (and if you did, you didn't campaign hard enough). All of these people owe this pedestrian money, in the view of critical car theory.

And what if the pedestrian was really the one at fault? (And, no, pedestrians do not always have the legal right of way, even in crosswalks.) What if the accident happened at an intersection, and the pedestrian had the red light, and he even motioned to the driver who hit him, explicitly waiving the right of way to the driver, and at the last second, the pedestrian dove in front of the driver's moving car? Doesn't matter. The pedestrian is the injured party, the one who is worse off, the one who is "the victim of the system." This systemic thinking nonsense a priori eliminates even the POSSIBILITY of holding the pedestrian responsible. "That would be blaming the victim. You transportationist! I'm going to get you fired from your job and ostracized from society!" There is NO auto vs. pedestrian scenario where the pedestrian gets the blame, according to critical car theory. "Equity" demands that the pedestrian receive rep arat ions.

Finally, note how utterly worthless this critical car theory is. Its "solution" to the problem of pedestrians being hit by cars is to "destroy the system, " which would presumably mean scrapping all cars. But short of the total victory by the "very smart" critical car theorists, a virtual impossibility (and thank God for that, since the damage would FAR exceed the damage done by cars to pedestrians), the critical car theorists would make ZERO contribution to solving the actual problem of pedestrians being hit by cars. The "systemic thinker" won't try to get the speed limit lowered, or design AI to install in cars to make cars automatically brake when they detect pedestrians in their paths, or design better compounds to make tires from (to shorten stopping distances), or buy slightly higher performance tires for their own cars, or--God forbid--start an advertising campaign telling pedestrians to look both ways before crossing the street, etc. To work on stuff like that, stuff that would actually reduce the problem, would be to tacitly accept the existence of cars ("the system"). No, the "critical x theorist's" "solution" is ALWAYS just to get rid of x (at ANY cost), and the only way to accomplish that is, in practice, to burn down the entire society.

Great episode, James! Fantastic analogy!

[philipchambers]

Which 'system' isn't damaging at some point to someone? This is the essential difference between leftist, collectivist, thinking and 'conservative', individualist, thinking. Ultimately everyone is responsible for everything or individuals are responsible for what they do or don't do. The fatal dichotomy in understanding and belief about the nature of human beings.

[debblouin]

Thomas Sowell dealt with this in Vision of the Anointed

[dave]

Critical car theory doesn't sound haughty enough. It'd be critical automobile studies and they would try and play all kinds of cute word games with the "auto-" prefix

[urphakeandgey]

Critical Theory is like when you're shooting the shit with friends saying "what if" and "so technically" to everything until all logic breaks down.

Apparently, some of our friends thought we were completely serious.

[saltburner]

What about critical breath theory - all the problems of the word are due to people breathing.

[vinomatt]

Systems thinking is useful when it’s accurate. The problem with it is that analysts have a hard time shelving their biases, or in the case of critical theorists, gleefully applying negative intention to everything.

[rst]

As a high school English teacher, I have listened to many lectures that explain that teachers should not be the "sage on the stage." If teachers do that, they are then not taking into account the position of their students. On one level, of course, teachers should consider what knowledge and interests and experience the students bring with them into the classroom.
However that way of thinking as a teacher can lead to the students not really learning much. The "experts" say the knowledge needs to be cooperatively created in the class with the students. Again, sounds good. Yes. The students need to be actively engaged in their own learning. Yet one of my coworkers, a long time math teacher, is so frustrated because the students are not taking an active interest in their own learning or really any interest at all. They are waiting for what? To be adequately entertained? For their position in not wanting to learn about math, or science, or history, or English to be seriously considered before the teacher moves forward with the information and instruction? Well then the students who are not interested in learning are the ones driving the learning in the class.

Three summers ago, I convinced my very small school district to send me to a conference. That summer the keynote speaker was Ibram X Kendi himself.

Having attended that conference and experiencing what is going on in the world all while trying to meet the needs of my students has made me quite the student of Cynical Theories. Thus I am a subscriber to this Only Subs account and listen to almost everything James Lindsay creates.

I suspect that by now many teachers and school districts are teaching Critical Race Theory not because they actually believe in the principles but because the people creating the district adopted curriculum created curriculum based on CRT or at least on Critical Pedagogy. And now a whole generation of teachers have been brought up on it.

Sometimes I feel like I am swimming upstream. That said. I am fortunate to live and work in a small (rural) district with extraordinarily supportive administration.