Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rikard's avatar

Critical theory might not be totalitarian in its nature, but it is authoritarian in its rejection of facts before the voice of the interpreter of said facts. As an academic, how often have you heard yourself, colleagues or students argue that something is True based on it having been said by [Named Authority] in political/social science/humanities?

"As [insert name here] proved in his/hers [name of text], ..."

Because what has happened from 1990 to today is that "argued" has been replaced with "proved" in sentences such as the preceding one. If Adorno or Foucault or Habermas or Schmidt says that (made-up quote) "The economic structure of society mimics the structure of the family in that the one possessoing the most capacity for violence, the Father; thus it follows that in order to establish greater economic equlity and fair distribution of goods, the Father must be toppled from his pedestal as the definer of things.", well that doesn't make it true. A logical argument is logical, not true, unless all the premises can be proven true (which they can't in my made-up example).

But now, an argument is either true or false depending on which authority voices it and if the authority does so according to dogma.

Which is authoritarianism is in its purest form.

Expand full comment
Witzbold's avatar

An uncomfortable sense of foreboding 😞

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts