The Compassionate Case Against Postmodern Radicalism

Someone has to hold the postmodern radicals accountable for harming disadvantaged minorities

In this series, I attempt to build a philosophy of compassion, and to robustly justify and defend the concept of compassion. I believe that compassion is the driver of a reformist politics, and it is the best way to prevent a movement from turning impractical or reactionary.

In the last two episodes, I have been making the case that compassion bolsters objectivity and free speech. There's actually another essential ingredient of healthy political discourse that compassion can bolster: a willingness to compromise. Recently, I talked about the need to bring back a willingness to compromise, particularly on the progressive side of politics, and the need to argue against the postmodern critical theory worldview to successfully achieve this. It turns out that compassion can help us out here. Today, I will make the compassionate case against the postmodern-crit worldview, and the compassionate case for a more compromising approach to social justice.

Let's start with the basics first: those on the radical postmodern left often like to say that they are intolerant of social injustice, implying that we moderates don't have a backbone. However, it is the practical results that matter, and the results of radical activism inspired by postmodern theory speak for themselves. The radicals have brought massive backlash to the communities and the causes they supposedly support, and enabled the rise of a very reactionary form of culture war politics. I believe they should be held accountable for the harm this has led to. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the radicals' refusal to acknowledge this reality. If the radicals insist on refusing to change course in light of what's been happening in the past five years, I think we can fairly accuse them of having no compassion at all.

If only more progressive-minded people understood the goals of the postmodern critical theory worldview, and the implications of their approach, they would be a lot more concerned about it. The crits' approach doesn't bring any practical improvements to the lives of the people they say they want to help, because it is not supposed to do that. Instead, the crits' approach is about heightening the conflicts between supposed 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' groups in society, to demonstrate that the status quo is untenable, and also unreformable. Imagine this: if the lives of disadvantaged groups improved, wouldn't it lessen inter-group conflict in society, lessen the feeling of oppression, and demonstrate that the status quo is indeed reformable? The most committed crits certainly don't want this to happen. This is why their actions, from making unreasonable demands and refusing to compromise, to alienating large sections of society, are designed to make practical reform impossible. Only when reform is denied will there be ongoing, heightened conflict that destabilizes the existing system. To achieve this, the crits are essentially willing to throw long-suffering and vulnerable minorities under the bus. And most honest people on the far-left are clear that their plans for 'revolutionary change' won't happen for several decades at least. This effectively means that they are willing to condemn long-suffering and vulnerable minorities to heightened conflict and suffering for at least two generations. Think hard about this.

When a compassionate person, who wants to improve the lives of long-suffering people as soon as possible, begins to truly understand all this, they would naturally be overcome with a feeling of frustration, maybe even anger (as I certainly did a few years ago). However, the more useful thing to do would be to turn all this into motivation to take action, to end the crits' influence in progressive circles, by forcefully arguing against their harmful ideas and methods. The crits certainly aren't intolerant of social injustice. Instead, their actions show that they are clearly willing to see even more injustice happen, as long as it benefits their movement. On the other hand, us moderates, or practical progressives, aim to gradually improve things for long-suffering minorities, by a process of gradual reformism, with all the compromises that entails. While it might not be perfect, it would bring relief to people's lives as soon as possible, and gradually make things even better over time too. Anyone who understands that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good should understand the need to compromise in order to achieve results. This is why those who are truly compassionate, and hence truly don't want to see the prolongation of injustice and suffering, should be more than willing to make reasonable compromises to move things in a better direction.