Why Critical Theory & Echo Chambers are a Dangerous Combination | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about why echo chambers, and particularly echo chambers steeped in postmodern critical theory thinking, are dangerous to the health of Western democratic systems. I will be explaining this in terms of what we know from cognitive science, the importance of the free flow of ideas in Western democratic systems, and how these two concepts interact with each other.

Let's start with this: the fundamental characteristic of Western democratic systems is that the voters elect the people who govern them, by approximately one person, one vote. As the saying goes, we get the government we deserve. And if you add up multiple elections, it can also be said that we get the society and the development trajectory we deserve. In other words, the conscience and the decision of the voter shapes literally everything. As you see, a lot rests on the almighty vote of each and every voter. This, as I previously said, is entirely consistent with the fundamentals of the Western moral code, which emphasizes individual moral responsibility. The important thing is, to exercise this important duty, every voter must know exactly what is going on. We must have adequate and unbiased information to understand all aspects of the important problems in front of us. This is why echo chambers are dangerous.

Echo chambers ultimately cause people to have a distorted view on issues, for several reasons. Firstly, there is often selective reporting, meaning that only stories that fit the dominant narrative of the echo chamber are given attention. This leads to what is called 'availability bias', which simply means that something which can be immediately remembered is perceived as important by human brains. Therefore, stories that reinforce the dominant narrative are perceived to be important, while incidents that don't fit the narrative, and are hence less reported, are perceived as less important. This can lead to a cascade, ultimately resulting in rare occurances being treated like national emergencies, but more common problems are ignored. Remember, this can equally happen in any echo chamber, so it is something that both the Left and the Right are equally vulnerable to.

Moreover, echo chambers, through their reinforcement of shared narratives, can also contribute to the development of other cognitive biases, like attentional bias, where someone is preoccupied with an existing train of thought and ignores all other possibilities, confirmation bias, i.e. the tendency to interpret information to reinforce previously developed beliefs, even when this is not objectively reasonable, and the bandwagon effect, where people adopt certain beliefs simply because they see other people doing so. There can even be an 'illusory truth effect' sometimes, where people come to believe in false statements simply because of repeated exposure.

Of particular concern is the recent rise of postmodern critical theories, like critical race theory, critical gender theory and so on, and how these can exacerbate the echo chamber cognitive bias problem exponentially. Postmodern criticalism rejects the requirement of objectivity outright, and encourages the dangerous idea that each person can have 'their own truth'. I'm concerned that people who have this worldview would be even less likely to keep their cognitive biases in check. Furthermore, such theories often come with fundamental assumptions, like how everything is defined by power relations, or how racism or the patriarchy is everywhere. This could lead to what is essentially confirmation bias on steroids. My point is, while cognitive biases are something that everyone naturally suffers from, and is basically inevitable in any type of echo chamber, postmodern criticalism is particularly prone to exacerbating them. This is why I'm so concerned about the effect postmodern criticalism is having on the health of Western democracies.

Revisiting the Anti SJW Movement | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about a rather controversial topic: the so-called anti-SJW movement that existed between approximately 2012 to 2018. The anti-SJW movement has been credited, or blamed, depending on your angle, for some of the important political events during that time, most notably the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump. According to some analyses, it could also have slowed down or confused certain social justice movements. Therefore, it was indeed an important part of recent Western politics. While that movement is certainly over by now, I think it is important to revisit it to learn some lessons, to see how things can be done better in the future.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about that movement, as it had both more reasonable people as well as outrightly reactionary people in it. The first group were mainly liberals or moderates who expressed skepticism about certain things social justice activists were pushing for at the time, and the second group were basically the kind of people who were against any and all change. My focus is on the first group, why they had the reaction they had, and what lessons it can teach us about social change.

Let's face it. The Anti-SJW movement was basically a backlash to the demands and tactics of the social justice activists at that time. Given that the backlash to certain social justice movements is still on the increase, there is real worry that there could be a much bigger backlash wave against all demands for progressive reform, in the not too distant future. Many people, including even moderate conservatives, are now truly worried that the pendulum would swing too hard the other way, leading to a period of severe reactionarism the likes we haven't seen in the West for many decades. To prevent this outcome, I think we must study what has caused the backlash, and what needs to be done in order to calm it down.

I don't deny that some people involved in the Anti-SJW movement, and the broader backlash to social justice recently, are truly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted. However, many anti-SJWs clearly didn't fit this description. Instead, they appeared to be worried that important parts of the long standing social contract of Western society were being eroded. These included things like free speech, freedom of conscience, and most importantly, individual moral responsibility. The Western moral code is based on an individualistic view of moral responsibility, and any moral collectivism, for example labelling an entire race or gender as oppressors, is inherently incompatible with this. It only makes sense that people would staunchly defend our individualistic morality, because a culture's moral code is a long term development that cannot be easily replaced. Once a civilization's long standing moral code has been compromised, it could lead to a complete collapse in morality itself. Real social justice can only be achieved by respecting the fundamentals of our moral code, and this excludes oppressor vs oppressed theories based on collective responsibility.

Another problem with some recent social justice demands is that they are antagonistic to long-standing social norms, even where they don't need to be. There is sometimes a deliberate attempt to challenge, invalidate, or otherwise subvert many social norms, even where it doesn't clearly lead to more social justice. I think this is due to the heavy influence from radical academic theories like social constructionism, deconstructionism, and postmodernism more generally. I believe this approach is fundamentally misguided. It is based too much on abstract philosophy, and not on real world practicality. In the real world, social norms are an important part of social life. Using a functionalist sociological lens, we can often see that they fulfill important social functions, particularly around integration and pattern maintenance. Without these norms, social cohesion could fall apart. Hence, most people value social norms, and will defend them from unjustified attacks. I'm not saying that social norms don't need to be changed or updated from time to time. What I'm saying is that, this must be a careful and well justified process. The mass deconstruction of social norms leads to potential instability, and would naturally be met with backlash. Instead, I suggest a much less invasive approach: only the social norms that actually adversely affect minorities should be changed, and they should be changed to the least extent needed to resolve the problem.

In conclusion, while the anti-SJW movement did have some bad people in it, there was also a genuine concern from many good people, about the way social justice activists were operating. This was because social justice activism became heavily influenced by academic theories based on abstract philosophy, that disrespects the fundamentals of the Western moral code, as well as the many social norms that keep our society functional. This risks creating massive backlash, and is clearly not the way to pursue social justice. Instead, we should aim to build a broad consensus for any necessary social change, and this consensus can only come about if we respect the foundations of the society we live in.

Is Critical Race Theory Related to 'Postmodern Neo-Marxism'? | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about a question I have seen some people asking: is there a relationship between critical race theory, and the idea of 'postmodern neo-Marxism' that was at the center of a big controversy a few years ago. Basically, the two things are highly related. They are all part of what I think should be classified under 'postmodern neo-criticalism', or just 'criticalism' for short. Let me explain.

First popularized by Jordan Peterson a few years ago, the term 'postmodern neo-Marxism' was used to denote a new ideology arising in the Western political landscape in the early 21st century, that was clearly attempting to challenge and supplant liberalism. When someone says they are concerned about postmodern neo-Marxism, they're usually talking about the kind of divisive, us-vs-them identity politics, that divides people into oppressor vs oppressed groups based on immutable characteristics like race, gender and sexual orientation. There's also the skepticism towards free speech and radical cultural demands that are undertaken in the name of justice for the oppressed group. Now, I think the root of all this can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse, specifically his idea that the excluded groups of society be made the new focus of a possible revolution in the Western world, first articulated in his 1964 book One Dimensional Man. Given the context of 1960s America, many have interpreted this to include the racially oppressed, and the idea was also taken up by some radical feminists later on.

Peterson's use of 'postmodern neo-Marxism' was considered controversial. Nowadays, people are more likely to call it 'critical theory' or 'critical social justice', which has attracted much less controversy, in part because 'critical theory' is indeed the correct academic term to describe the kind of ideas Marcuse and his ideological successors promoted. 'Postmodern critical theory' is the umbrella term for the more recent work that incorporates postmodern ideas from thinkers like Michel Foucault. If you read widely enough, however, you would very likely come across books and other academic sources that call critical theory 'neo-Marxism'. For example, there is a section in the 8th edition of the Giddens and Sutton Sociology textbook about the Frankfurt School, that calls their critical theory work 'neo-Marxism'. Hence, at least in some contexts, neo-Marxism simply means critical theory, and following from that, 'postmodern neo-Marxism' would simply refer to 'postmodern critical theory', which is indeed at the root of a lot of controversial new social movements in the Western world right now. Hence, Peterson's usage is neither a new invention, nor entirely incorrect.

However, just because a term is being used, doesn't mean it's the best or most correct term. I have actually long been frustrated about the term 'postmodern neo-Marxism' being a confusing one, although I did use it on several occasions, because I didn't know of better terms yet. However, it is clear that critical theory driven identity politics isn't actually Marxism, and I think it wouldn't be helpful to anyone to perpetuate this confusion. The confusion arises because of the roots of critical theory. Critical theory was first invented by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School, who believed they were using the 'method of Marx' to examine culture, although this point remains very controversial. However, it was also inspired heavily by the psychoanalysis of Freud, perhaps more so than Marx. Anyway, even though critical theory was inspired partially by Marxism, it's not Marxism. Hence it's a new ideology. Perhaps we should call it criticalism.

The next thing is, contemporary Western identity politics is not rooted in the whole of critical theory either. You can't draw a line leading from Adorno's work to the radical movements on college campuses today, for example. In fact, many of the 68 generation, the direct ideological predecessors of today's identity Left, actually hated Adorno. The 'critical theory' we are concered about today is rooted in Marcuse, rather than Horkheimer and Adorno. Marcuse was part of the Frankfurt School, but he had a unique take on critical theory, and it is his take that is influencing our politics right now, probably because he was in America and also very politically active. It's a point I think that more people should emphasize. Hence, we should technically call it neo-criticalism. The root of all radical identity politics on the Left we see today is, hence, neo-criticalism.

Marcuse's ideas were enthusiastically taken up by the radical young people of the late 1960s and the 1970s, the so-called 68 generation. But Marcuse was only the starting point. The radicals of this generation later also took in other radical ideas that fit in with the oppressor vs oppressed worldview, particularly from French postmodernism. Critical theory that dealt with identity groups also developed into specific branches, like critical race theory, gender critical theory and queer theory, all with their own key thinkers, influences, worldviews, and jargon. Hence, what we have now is not the original Marcusean neo-criticalism either, but rather, postmodernized neo-criticalism. Or 'postmodern neo-criticalism'.

In conclusion, while Jordan Peterson may have not been technically wrong to call radical identity politics 'postmodern neo-Marxism', this still creates the problem of confusing it for a form of Marxism, which it isn't. However, changing just one word, to call it 'postmodern neo-criticalism', would solve the problem, and make it entirely technically correct. On the other hand, given that the phrase is pretty long, I think we can just call it 'criticalism', and there is no risk of confusion because this is essentially the only form of critical theory that has been widely practiced as political activism. The other thing is, practitioners of critical race theory sometimes call themselves 'crits', and it is very logical that the ideology the 'crits' practice is called 'criticalism'.

On 'Liberal' & 'Moral' | Moral Libertarian Talk / TaraElla In-Depth

Today, I want to explore my idea that liberalism is the 'most moral ideology' in the context of Western democracy, the basis upon which I argue strongly for the continued application of liberal values in Western democracies, and the rejection of ideas which are incompatible with such liberal values, like critical theory and postmodernism.

In our moral system, the post-Enlightenment Western moral system, it is generally held that people should be entirely responsible for their own actions. Indeed, I would argue that, if this principle does not hold, our whole moral system would collapse. Hence, to be moral, in the context of our code of morality, is to be fully responsible for our own choices, our own decisions, and our own actions, and to make sure that these don't result in negative outcomes, especially on other people. Our moral system places a particular emphasis on individual accountability and responsibility, and for our moral system to work, our culture and politics must support these notions clearly, and to the fullest extent possible. Furthermore, the individualistic nature of Western morality means that, whenever power is concentrated in a few hands, those few people will exercise their power solely according to their own sense of morality, not because it's their fault, not because it's the system's fault, but because it's what Western morality actually expects people to do. In this situation, there will inevitably be a lack of moral accountability, which means a lack of moral responsibility.

The Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual is a principle derived from the individual accountability requirements of the Western moral system, and seeks to prevent the aforementioned lack of moral accountability. It ensures, as much as possible, that nobody has moral agency over another person's actions, and that every person can act according to their own moral agency. This is where I believe the true heart of liberalism lies, and it is why I say that liberalism is the best expression of morality, as it is commonly agreed upon in our shared moral system. Given our individualistic moral code, I believe this is the only way to ensure morality is upheld. Anything else would violate the basic assumptions of our moral code, which would lead to deep confusion about what constitutes morality, as interwar Europe under fascism had shown, in a very disastrous way.

Some revolutionary minded people may say that the current Western political system, as well as its underlying moral code, is faulty, and must be completely deconstructed and replaced. This is really the core motivation of criticalism, I think. However, this not only won't work, it could lead to dangerously immoral outcomes, as we saw in interwar Europe under fascism. Fascists thought they could turn their countries into collectivist cultures by decree, but their regimes turned really ugly, as we all know. I think the lesson here is that, when you destroy the moral code of a civilization, you can't expect even ordinary morals to continue to be upheld. A culture's moral code takes a long time to develop and evolve, and you can't just replace it with something entirely different and expect it to work. So far, I have described the Western moral code as being based on individual responsibility ever since the Enlightenment. But if you look at it from a broader historical context, the Enlightenment was only a refinement of ideas that came before it. Western moral individualism clearly had earlier roots, as seen in historical events like the Magna Carta. While I won't deny that some cultures may be able to maintain a very moral society with a more collectivist system, I am certain that the West cannot do that. For the West, rejecting moral individualism will inevitably lead to the rejection of morality itself.

Now, when I say that liberalism is the most moral, I always mean it in the aforementioned sense. It doesn't mean that anyone who calls themselves 'liberal' are therefore automatically moral. After all, people who call themselves liberal may not even be deserving of that label. For example, it is certainly not moral to wage wars on other countries in the name of 'spreading freedom', whatever you call it.

The REAL Antidote to Critical Theory: Consensus Theory and Empiricism | TPWR by TaraElla S9

Today, I want to talk about the conflict problem critical theory is creating, and the natural antidote to that problem. As you would probably have heard of by now, various social justice movements that draw heavily on various critical theories, including most famously critical race theory and gender critical theory, have caused a heightened sense of conflict across Western society in recent years, leading to an increase in zero-sum us vs them thinking. Many of us believe this is a negative development, and are trying to counter it. However, as I have described in the past, many people are essentially taking a 'fight negativity with negativity' approach, criticizing criticalism without offering much of an alternative positive solution, and that doesn't appear to be working.

To see what works, I think we should look at, what could be the opposite of criticalism. The various critical theories are grouped under the umbrella of 'conflict theory' in Western academic sociology. The opposite of 'conflict theory' is called 'consensus theory'. So there you have it: consensus theory is literally the opposite of criticalism. While conflict theory has dominated Western academic sociology in the past few decades, consensus theory was in fact the more dominant force before the 1960s. I think it's time we revived the practice of consensus theory. I don't mean to say that conflict theory has nothing to offer us. But what we have in Western sociology right now is a heavy imbalance, a very heavy tilt towards conflict theory, and this is making society sick. To cure society, we need to restore the balance. Conflict theory criticizes the current state of society, while consensus theory examines why things work when they work well, and what makes them work well. Conflict theory is good at finding fault, while consensus theory is good at appreciation. I certainly think the 21st century West could do well with a bit less finding fault and a bit more appreciation.

There are many forms of consensus theory, but the most famous and influential school of consensus theory has to be Talcott Parsons's functionalism. Indeed, back in the post-war era, sociology and Parsonian functionalism were almost synonymous. Parsonian functionalism examines society using a functional lens. It is based on the idea that society needs to fulfill certain functions, namely adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance. Parsons showed how institutions like families were important systems that allow society to fulfill these functions. Although Parson's analysis of the family was criticized for being too focused on the typical middle class nuclear family, I think we can apply a similar analysis to the diverse family types we have today, and still come away with a similar conclusion about the importance of the family to society. The thing I like most about functionalism is how it understands that every society needs to fulfill certain functions, how complex systems are required to make it all work, and how important it is to appreciate things when they work well.

So why did functionalism cease to be influential? Part of it was a deliberate attempt by those with certain political agenda to discredit it. Part of it was that Parsons's ideas were perhaps too America-centric, and also too centered on 1950s middle class America. This needs to be addressed, and can certainly be addressed. However, perhaps the most important criticism was that it was not empirical enough. That is, it was not evidence-based enough, it was not rooted enough in the reality of society, and the real lived experiences of people. As someone with a science-related background, I certainly believe that everything has to be evidence-based to be valid. As I've said before, just like how we expect doctors to practice evidence-based medicine, we should demand that those in disciplines that aim to influence our social sphere, disciplines like sociology and philosophy, be as evidence-based as possible. And I believe we can certainly fix functionalism and update it for our current context with a good dose of empiricism.

There has also been a movement called neofunctionalism that aims to revive the framework of functionalism whilst fixing its faults. However, I have mixed feelings about neofunctionalism because it aims too far to incorporate other schools of thought, including conflict theory, which ultimately helps the tilt towards conflict theory. Instead, I believe we should keep functionalism firmly rooted in consensus theory, so that it can provide a contrast to conflict theory. I believe that conflict is certainly not the only way to change our society to be more just and humane. Having a good appreciation of how things work when they work well, also gives an insight as to what is needed to build good families and societies, and we can demand that these ingredients be available to everyone, regardless of their race or socio-economic class.