December 2021
Published in 2020, this book is a warning about Western cultural trends. Some of these trends have made big headlines in the last two years, like Critical Race Theory and Social Justice. These new theories may seem sudden and strange. Their advocates use unique terms and rebuff explanations, making understanding these positions complicated. Cynical Theories seeks to give a detailed analysis of these intellectual fads. By understanding their foundation, we can know their aims and impact. The authors’ tagline gives away their fears, "How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity- and Why This Harms Everybody." If you are concerned by these cultural trends, you are not alone. This book will not allay your anxiety. But understanding these trends will help us know how to engage with them. We will be able to take an appropriate stand on how to guide our own lives. It is the authors’ hope that reasoned understanding may yet win the day. That is my hope as well.
This book offers a very strong overview of postmodernism. It gives a detailed history and philosophy of the movement. The authors then tie in many trends we see today, arguing they are the fruition of postmodern thought. I think they are right. This outline is the most helpful aspect of the book. When we consider what is happening around us, we should ask, why do people think this way? What view of the world is being advocated? What do these people think about the human condition, about reason? What presumptions are left unsaid? We can compare this to what we know is true. Then we will tell what aspects of these trends are good and which are bad.
The authors are well-read and concise. The book starts out with a scholarly analysis of the philosophy behind Critical Race Theory, the new Social Justice movement, and changes in areas like gender studies. They claim all these trends are expressions of postmodern thought. The authors admit, "postmodernism is difficult to define, perhaps by design." Postmodern writers like to be revolutionary, unique, contrarian, and often use obtuse language. The quotes in the book bear this out. Though the field is diverse, the revolutionary trends we see today generally contain distinct features. The trends are a rejection of modernism and its values. Postmodern thought rejects universalism, reason, and objectivity. Instead, the theories revolve around personal experience. The authors mark the emergence of postmodernism between 1950 and 1970 with the key works of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Francois Lyotard. A big theme in the book is boiling down postmodern thought into two principles and four themes.
These two principles are referred to again and again as the authors step through their analysis of Postcolonial Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, Feminism and Gender Studies, and Disability and Fat Studies. They point out the influences of these two principles form a loose organizing grid over all these areas. What links these trends together is their allegiance to postmodern claims on knowledge. This is also why these trends seem so strange to many of us. They are operating from different presuppositions.
These two principles are responsible for the major shifts in discussions across our society. It has been commonly held that truth is discoverable by scientific methods and reason. Two people could dialogue over the data and whether certain theories lined up better or worse against a common standard. Interpretations were fiercely debated but most people agreed an objective reality was out there. Now, there is a broad rejection of the correspondence theory of truth. What we believe is just our preference. There is no common standard. These new cultural trends claim we each view the world a particular way. This is in contrast to our discovering innately true features of the world. Following postmodern ideas, social advocates argue truth is merely a cultural perspective. Your perspective is only due to your upbringing. If you were raised in a different culture, you would believe otherwise. You are in a box that your social group has created. This is true to an extent. We are influenced by our family, our time, and our place. Our early and basic beliefs are usually formed this way. Many people struggle later in life to expand their thoughts to include perspectives outside those they grew up with. They may also struggle with empathy for experiences they do not understand. The subjective and experiential elements of postmodernism are true to a limited extent.
But some postmoderns take these elements too far. Often it becomes fatalistic, we cannot resist the norms, or indoctrination, of our upbringing. We cannot learn anything new or substantially grow in our empathy without having the same experiences. It contains a radical rejection of propositional truth and embrace of experiential knowledge. It is easy to find counterexamples of people changing their original beliefs. Some people raised religious leave their faith. Others, raised secular, embrace religion later in life. People from liberal families become conservative and other conservatives become liberal. Some people even leave their home and live in another part of the world, embracing some of the local norms. Contrary to this fatalistic approach, we see in real life people are influenced by propositional truths and have the ability to change their minds against their culture or tenants of origin.
The second postmodern principle challenges humanity’s unity in a cynical way. Under modernism, freedoms were universalized. Everyone is to be given the right to freedom, happiness, and wellbeing. There was a focus on a shared human condition. Since postmodern thinkers reject objective truth as being shared by all, they view it instead as culturally formed by specific groups. Under these rules, knowledge is not the same for everyone. It is a weapon used by the powerful against the powerless. Society is presumed to organize itself to benefit those in power. This power is reenforced through what may be discussed, called "discourses." Since everything is about power and society exists to exert control over others, postmodern scholars assume the loudest cultural trends, or "prevailing discourses," are topics that benefit the strong. These propositions are not analyzed or reasoned through, because it there is no objective reality to compare them against. They are just rejected. Then, the solution is to amplify minority views. This is the thinking behind the urges to suppress majority views and give minority people a voice. It is why the primary concern is with people "being heard." Recently, this trend has led to better hiring practices and more diverse representation in movies. It has also led to people representing majority views being shouted down and threatened. Again, a thing that is somewhat true is being taken to an extreme. Historically, there have huge issues with minority views be considered. How can we have a full objective picture if we leave out parts of the human experience that minorities share? But the postmodern take does not allow dialogue or working towards a consensus. It does not respect each opinion but shuts down majority views to increase minority ones. This is with no regard to their content. Since other peoples’ views are merely misguided cultural constructs, we need not consider them. This does not promote listening. In fact, some social activists claim majority views should be violently suppressed as we promote the correct discourses. This is ironic, since the original complaint was that majority views were suppressing minority ones! With this tactic, the current majority view will simply be replaced with another, establishing power for a different majority. Hardly the way to promote goodwill and unity. This forcefulness is what we are seeing across campuses and in politics. Differences in power and airtime are the focus, rather than content. Social media does not help. With its memeification of facts and popularity rankings of postings, the majority discussions frequently drown out everything else. The important things we all have in common are ignored.
The book then argues four postmodern themes are derived from the two principles. These themes expose how those under the postmodern sway work in practice. They are the methods many of the current social trends use to enact change.
Since postmodern truth is relative, rather than objective, categories are arbitrary. The boxes we put knowledge in and the categories for how we think of things are very much open to debate. The boundaries between science and art, humans and animals, between genders, between races, and between outlooks are all questioned and subverted. We see this in cultural trends questioning the bedrock beliefs held for so long. For instance, nonbinary genders. While almost all known history has operated against two genders, these categories are now viewed as arbitrary and restrictive. Many postmodern activists delight in drawing out and making issue of edge cases, seeking to disprove the truth of the categories. Does an intersex person prove there are no clear genders? Does bias in science reduce it to opinion? Are humans viewed as special only because we are selfish? These assertions are used to breakdown previously held beliefs and open the way for embracing alternative postmodern beliefs. By casting doubt on our confidence, Social Justice advocates seek to reframe the argument to their values.
Postmoderns believe language creates truth. Therefore, language needs to be carefully controlled and guided. This leads postmodern advocates to an obsession with language. Many authors of current social justice work use obtuse and incoherent writing. Things written by others is cynically deconstructed. It is not what another author meant to say that matters, but how we the audience interpret it that is important. While language creates meaning, author intent is thrown aside. This is silly as then language only creates meaning in the mind of the listener. This is why Twitter storms happen over posts even when the original author did not say anything extreme. What they meant to say is not considered, just how people took it. This is the root behind the idea of "words doing violence" and tactics such as rudely interrupting opposition. Hostile readings of otherwise innocent communications are increasingly common. The authors wonder if postmodern writers use obtuse language themselves as a defense. Since what is being said cannot be understood enough to deconstruct it hostilely. The obtuseness is compounded by the postmodern tendency to invent new terms or redefine old ones. This creates a sort of in-crowd of those who know the "proper" terms versus those who do not.
Cultural relativism has been mentioned already. This is the view are we are helplessly influenced by our own culture. Those in majority culture are dismissed because their sentiment and language does not, and cannot, do justice to other views. This combines tightly with the fourth theme since individuals are presented as mere cogs in the cultural machine. Majority culture people are hopelessly alienated from others different from them. This undermines individual expression and the ability to find common ground. People from different cultures cannot know each other since knowledge is reduced to experiential knowledge. People are viewed as intractably biased, so rather than listening to their reasoning or individual experience, they are dismissed as a product of their environment. The authors note these themes fit perfectly with identity politics. These themes are prevalent in those fields. In identity politics, the most significant unit is the identity group, not an individual or humanity generally. This inhibits unity as each group is cast as vying for power in a zero-sum game. Rather than work together, we are told we need to fight for our group otherwise others will take advantage of us. Individual experience not conforming to the identity group is cast aside. For example, a black police officer may not be presented as someone with a different opinion but as someone who has been taken over by the system. No emphasis is given to the common traits among us all.
A key feature of this cultural relativism is the idea of Standpoint Theory. The idea is people cannot process information apart from their standpoint, or perspective. This operates on two assumptions: (1) people in the same social position will have the same experience, (2) one’s power position determines what they can know. The authors claim Standpoint theory is the root of identity politics. It is the gulf no one can cross because only those in the identity group can understand each other. This conveniently makes for marketable political units. It may be politics is happy to reinforce this idea because it presents tidy groups to appease to win elections. It simplifies things if we can stereotype people this way. Though this stereotyping is hypocritical in a system designed to give minorities an authentic voice. Standpoint theory contradicts its own goals. While trying to prompt us to consider new points of view, it ends up boxing people into smaller, but still rigid categories.
How did postmodernism go from a minor academic viewpoint to a worldwide movement? Some of it is the disappointment with the modernist worldview. Reason is great but we realized even scientists are biased. Objective truth makes sense but then why do different groups often believe contradictory things? Modernism has some holes in it. There is also the continued desire for change. Arguably, modern ideas have ruled most of the Western world for some time now. Yet, the world is still broken, despite the gains for civil rights and for the oppressed. People are searching for new tools to push society further.
The authors call this transition from scholarship to political action, "Postmodernism’s Applied Turn." Pure postmodernism does not allow for objective truth, and thus, the authors argue, is not useful for activism. Moral principles require a common truth which applies to both parties. We can only call others to change if something we believe applies to them. During the 1980s and 1990s, new theorists wanted to reorder society and change it. They drew on postmodern ideas, such as the cultural production of "discourses." These are ways of speaking which reenforce certain ideological principles. But these theorists now take the two postmodern principles as objective truth. In some ways, this is contradictory and a betrayal of postmodern philosophy. But it is necessary to use these ideas as moral imperatives, otherwise they are not binding on others. The four postmodern themes became the methods used to achieve new solutions. Identity politics are a powerful tool, winsome because they appeal to humanity’s tribal nature. Combine this with a moralistic call for justice, and people’s hearts are moved to action. This heart stirring allows for political action. Political action is happening as those who wish to reorder society are beginning to achieve their goals.
The authors feel these postmodern ideas are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They differentiate the Social Justice movement from social justice work. Social Justice is a postmodern movement, while social justice is humanitarian work more generally. Their main objection is "it isn’t going to work." Social Justice in the book is defined as the combination of Postcolonial Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, Feminism and Gender Studies, and Disability and Fat Studies. All contain the same core presuppositions applied to different areas of life.
Social Justice is appealing. The authors state:
"Social Justice is a nice-looking Theory that, once put into practice, will fail, and which could do tremendous damage in the process. Social Justice cannot succeed because it does not correspond with reality or with core human intuitions of fairness and reciprocity and because it is an idealistic metanarrative. Nevertheless, metanarratives can sound convincing and obtain sufficient support to significantly influence society and the way it thinks about knowledge, power and language."
This revolution in our society is gaining lots of momentum because it seems positive, and people want to be on the right side of history. Advocates intentionally claim it is the next stage of the civil rights movement for this reason. But its foundations and methods are seriously flawed. How can we establish equality and justice if we promote warring identity groups in a zero-sum game? How can we setup a strong society if we destroy society’s social fabric? How can we be unified if we deconstruct everything that humanity has in common? The authors take pains to not be misunderstood in their aims. They "do not seek to undermine liberal feminism, activism against racism, or campaigns for LGBT equality." They just think there is a better way to achieve these ends.
Social Justice, also called Theory in the book, is composed of several different fields. Postcolonial Theory seeks to free the East from oppression from the West. Like many applications of Theory, it unfortunately hardens many of the racist and biased ideas it claims to be fighting against. For example, postcolonial scholars view reason and science as Western cultural constructs. Since Western culture is considered dominant, these are majority view constructs. Therefore, science should be devalued in favor of other (nonrational and nonscientific) forms of knowledge production. This aligns with racist stereotypes of the barbaric Eastern oriental and the logical Western imperialist. Only in this case, the higher value is placed on the barbarian. Are non-Western people bad at reasoning? Do they not contribute to scientific endeavors? Theory advocates seem to say so and diminish their contributions. Adoption of the Postcolonial viewpoint would not lead to teaching non-Western people the sciences. It does not acknowledge non-white, non-Western contributions to the sciences and reason. It also denies the common ground we all share in mathematics, philosophy, and observation. These things have united people across time and culture. Hence, the authors say Postcolonial theory is in danger of being racist, holding people in ignorance, and promoting divisiveness.
Queer Theory seeks to free the marginalized from the standards of normal. This discipline leans on the blurring of boundaries the most. It holds people are born a blank slate but then "scripted" by culture into rigid categories. While the understanding of gender roles has changed back and forth throughout history, the base understanding of humanity consisting of two sexes has been overwhelming. Queer Theory claims sex, gender, and sexuality are all cultural constructs and is radically committed to cultural constructivism. It frequently focuses on very rare edge cases to illustrate the blurring of boundaries. This is contrary to earlier feminism or LGBT activism, which appealed to our shared humanity. The authors note the social construct argument completely ignores humans are a sexually reproducing species. There are clearly two sexes in humans and broad norms across history. While not discussed in the book, other treatments are helpful in distinguishing more clearly between gender, gender role, and sex. While current cultural trends use these terms almost interchangeably, it is helpful to separate the biological idea of gender (or sex) from the cultural idea of gender role. Biological gender would be your DNA, genitals, gonads, and other physical characteristics, including mental or psychological. While there is wide variety within the category of male and female, these two categories are very useful. Gender roles are the roles in society, the family, and fashion norms. What has changed dramatically across time and culture are gender roles, not biological sex. Do women work outside the home or are they the primary childcare? Do men wear their hair long or short? Do women wear dresses or pants? These are all gender roles. Gender roles are culturally constructed norms. This does not mean all gender differences are culturally constructed. Queer Theory is helpful by separating gender roles from being moral imperatives, they are not. But this can also be done without embracing Queer Theory. A seasoned historical study would show that current gender roles are not unique or mandated as what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman." These are unfortunate boxes people have been subjected to and persecuted with. A focus on how people dress or how they wear their hair is a superficial understanding of identity. Unfortunately, many current trends just reintroduce these superficial stereotypes. A sensitive man who loves horses and pink is not allowed to be in a broader definition of male, he must be a female. Like Standpoint Theory, there is a danger that people are not being freed from boxes, there are just more boxes now.
The tagline given for Critical Race Theory (CRT), is "ending racism by seeing it everywhere." This is a good summary of the authors’ critique of CRT. They stress the very American nature of this scholarship. They note race is almost always framed in the American context. Quoting two of CRT’s proponents, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, they cite: "Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." CRT is a revolutionary process. It substitutes neutral legal reasoning with politically charged and racially directed policies. They break CRT scholarship into two parts: one materialistic and one postmodern. The material being concerned with economic, legal, and political systems that affect racial minorities. The postmodern is more concerned with linguistic and social systems, implicit biases and underlying racial assumptions. The authors are much more severe against the latter where Enlightenment rationalism is replaced by the postmodern understanding of truth. Racism is viewed as being everywhere and working against people of color, who are aware of this, while white people are blind to it. Racism is defined as "prejudice plus power" and therefore only white people can be racist. CRT was founded in legal theory and so tends to have legislative solutions, rather than relational ones. It is worth noting the book does not explicitly mention Robin DiAngelo or Ibrahim X Kendi, both of whom declare themselves to not be CRT scholars. However, DiAngelo is clearly in view and cited in the notes multiple times.
The authors argue the development of CRT was what lead one of its founders, Kimberle Crenshaw, to propagate the idea of intersectionality. Intersectionality is when multiple minority positions are combined. Crenshaw uses the illustration of a street intersection. A person standing at an intersection could be hit by a car coming from any direction, or even more than one direction at once. So too, a marginalized person can be struck from multiple dimensions when they are discriminated against. They may not even be able to tell which of their identities is being discriminated against. These identities stack, or intersect, to add complexity. A black woman faces unique problems neither a white woman nor a black man may face. While socially constructed, these identities dominate one’s interaction with society. Like other identity politics, the group identity becomes the main concern, not other aspects of the person. The authors point out, the intersections could be reduced further and further until one gets an individual. Everyone is unique when enough dimensions are considered. For instance, how many people were born on your birthday to your parents, living in your town, with your name and social security number? Probably just one. But in practice the group identity is emphasized. CRT does not emphasize situations individually or people as a person. It is viewed through the power dynamics of groups. There is a singular focus on prejudice. Like other deconstructive areas, original intent is minimized. The same hammer is then applied to every nail.
While the goals of ending racism are noble, the authors are skeptical CRT’s methods will have a positive effect. CRT presumes racism is normal and permanent. How will racism end if it is presumed to be a part of human nature? Worse, since truth is culturally constructed, there is no firm standard. The authors express concern, "Everything the marginalized individual interprets as racism is considered racism by default – an episteme that encourages confirmation bias and leaves wide open the door of the unscrupulous." Since intent is rejected and there are no objective definitions, whatever someone feels is racist is racist. This is a recipe for abuse and personal vendettas. These excesses are sure to create skepticism against overcoming racism. With such a dark outlook, it is hard to see how CRT proponents even hope for success. Outward conformity appears to be the goal, not a true inward end of racism. Unlike Queer Theory or Postcolonial Theory, this is one area where modernism agrees with the cultural construct argument. The authors agree saying, "While other factors may have contributed, race and racism as we understand them today probably arose as social constructions, made by Europeans to morally justify European colonialism and the Atlantic Slave Trade." Science does not show significant differences in humans across the world as a species. All the biological differences by race are superficial. Like the Bible claims, we really are one human race. Therefore, racist attitudes are misguided and to be corrected. It is the tactics that are in question with CRT.
Feminist studies have also taken a postmodern turn. The authors argue intersectionality has been imported. "Multiple axes of marginalized identity were Theorized into existence right under the noses of the earlier feminists and, with them, a new need to read everything through a lens that magnifies potential oppression, bigotry, injustice, and grievance- and one’s own complicity in systems of power and privilege." This slicing of females into ever smaller subgroups has hindered unity. "Rather than rallying around the shared identity of women, understood as a ‘sister-hood,’ intersectional and queer feminisms denied that women had common experiences and complicated what it even meant to be a woman." This tension can be seen between traditional feminists and their trans counterparts. Like other areas of postmodern trends, division is increasing rather than unity.
The authors see four shifts in thinking:
The authors claim academics loved these approaches. The shifts feel new and sophisticated. The authors think academics jumped at the chance to publish papers in what was becoming a stalled-out field. Their attacks in this chapter were a bit ad hominem, judging these scholars inner motives. The four shifts are applications of the postmodern knowledge and political principles. While the authors tip their hats to gender being more than a social construct, it would have been nice to see them defend this position more specifically.
Human health is not immune from reinterpretations under postmodern views. In Disability and Fat studies, the authors claim activism has changed. It was focused on giving access and opportunities. Previous activism mandated crosswalks, ramps to buildings, closed captioning on TV, and other things which help disabled people participate in society more readily. These changes have been very positive and inclusive. This focus has shifted to disability itself as a social construct. For example, there is an identity difference between being deaf and Deaf. The first is an impairment where one cannot hear. The latter is a sacred social identity. Postmodernism would argue it would be wrong to change being Deaf. The new ism of "ableism" is the thought that it is better to be able-bodied than disabled. It is now considered a judgmental belief. This may seem insane under the objective viewpoint of modernism, but it logically follows under the relativism of postmodernism. The authors note, alarmingly, that some activists consider treating, diagnosing, and curing disabilities as cynical and discriminatory practices. While this is probably still outside the center of culture, it is a logical progression. Even cancer could be viewed as a natural endowment if one follows down this road.
These reinterpretations of identity lead to offensive positions. The authors quote Lydia X. Y. Brown likening outwards signs of being Muslim to outward signs of being autistic. Comparing herself to a Muslim woman, Brown says:
"Wearing hijab is an outward sign of being Muslim. She was performing ‘being Muslim’ and wanted to be associated with being Muslim and chooses to wear the hijab so that other people- Muslin or not- can identify her, similarly to how I, as an Autistic person who doesn’t instinctually or innately flap my hands or arms- it was never a stim that I developed independently- will deliberately and frequently choose to flap, especially in public, in order to call attention to myself…"
Here Brown discusses how Autism is a social construct just like being Muslim is a social construct. Both are a "performance." Since being autistic is part of her primary identity, and since identity is just outward performance, Brown goes out of her way to alert people she is autistic. She sees no dishonesty in faking autism tics and pretending to do them to draw attention to herself. She sees little distinction between unintentional stims and conscious performance. This is a self-first, self-focused mentality. If I were Muslim, I would take offense to wearing the hijab being merely part of a performance of being Muslim. This position reduces faith and medical conditions into horizontally focused performances. Life becomes about how others view us. Faith and medical conditions are pawns to be used in identity politics. This follows from meaning being a social construct.
According to the authors, we are now in the "third phase in the postmodern project." The first phase was deconstructive (1965-1990), the second was reconstruction (1990-2010), and the third phase is postmodernism being treated as fundamental truths. It is its own metanarrative. It claims to be true and apply to all people. It calls for complete conviction. The new enemies are "patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism, cisnormativity, heteronormatitvity, ableism, and fatphobia." The third phase finds these cultural ills everywhere and in everything. This can be disorienting for those who probably agree with many of these things being evil but then question the sound judgment of some of the other items. The authors hit hard, claiming intellectual honesty and diversity have little place in these new trends. There is no tolerance for disagreement or dialogue. Instead of pushing for understanding or compromise, we are being pushed to condemn this list wholesale without question or nuance.
The authors say Social Justice activism often attacks science, "not only because science and reason have an irritating habit of revealing the flaws in Theoretical approaches; it is also because they are universal and thus violate the postmodern knowledge principle and the postmodern theme of centering group identity, around which Social Justice scholarship is organized." Scientific propositions conflict with the postmodern propositions behind Social Justice. Postmodern Social Justice conflates propositional knowledge and experiential knowledge. It completely overemphasizes experience. It is hostile to other analytical methods that contradict its claims. Alison Bailey claims criticism of Social Justice does, "psychological and epistemic harm to members of marginalized groups." Since language is power and language is truth, disagreeing is a severe affront. Since identity is socially constructed, society disagreeing with an identity is to make this identity unreal. Disagreeing with minority groups, literally takes the meaning out of their lives, according to postmodern knowledge theory. This justifies the violence against opposition. How can these ideas be refined or confronted if they cannot be questioned? Theory becomes an a priori truth that cannot be analyzed or evaluated.
The authors go so far as to say, "it is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind." While few people we know may be studying these ideas in-depth, it is taught in universities and propagated by corporations. The authors cite the many offices of Equity or Inclusion as evidence of the far-ranging reach of these trends. They criticize the "valorization of victimhood" that a fixation on oppression and marginalization promotes. They also claim things must be pretty good if one has time to focus on microaggressions and pronoun missteps. While I agree with the frustration of people focusing on the trivial, I think the authors minimize the difficulties still present in the lives of minorities.
The authors are defenders of "liberalism." They define liberalism as, "political democracy, limitations on the powers of governments, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for evidence and reason, separation of church and state, and freedom of religion." Essentially, it is a combination of modernist and Enlightenment values. The authors prefer to think of it as a "framework of conflict resolution," or a system, rather than a specific worldview. This is because they seek to emphasize that the specific beliefs within liberalism are scientific and self-correcting. The ideas change throughout time. They reject the thought liberalism is a metanarrative. To them, it is a set of tools. Given these tools carry with them specific presuppositions, so I am not sure their narrow definition is entirely justified. The authors wrote the book because they believe liberalism is at risk from the far right, with its increasing reliance on authorities and demagogues. They also think it is also at risk from the far left, under these postmodernist ideas.
I agree with their assessments that postmodern ideas do not correspond with reality. These ideas are contradictory, both rejecting objective truth but then forcing its own metanarrative as morally correct on others. The metanarrative can only be morally correct for everyone if it is objective. Postmodernism seeks to empower people and level the playing field. I agree with the authors that it is unlikely to do either. Postmodern trends suppress perspectives, just like modernism did but for different reasons. It divides people against each other into smaller and smaller groups. It does not seek the psychological or medical good of people, because the standards being fought for are not compared to an outside reality. It is willing to break useful categories of understanding to push political agendas. It does not promote empathy, learning, listening, or critical thinking. In some cases, it ignores authenticity and deeper meaning in favor of how we are viewed. Social Justice as defined above is not just or reasonable. It achieves fairness by ruining the game for everyone, like a child who flips the table when the game is not going their way. It may succeed in things being even, but only because we all have nothing. Our culture has anger about injustices that have spanned hundreds of years. Something needs to be done. It is unlikely emphasizing hostility and disunity between people is going to result in better treatment for all. Identity politics have failed to achieve unity or peace. The more central they become, the less cohesive our social fabric seems to be.
This postmodern outlook leaves many questions unconsidered. If everything is socially constructed, why have so many of our problems been present throughout all of history? Economics, technology, climate, and family relationships have varied dramatically across history. It is more reasonable some sort of universal human condition is the cause. Maybe we need to look towards deeper issues than just the social norms of a single culture, to more universal causes common to humanity. We need a stronger basis for identity, more complex and deeper than intersectionality allows. Our identities are a combination of parts: biological, social, and personal choice. These intellectual trends minimize the role of personal decisions. They presume people need to be protected from disagreement rather than equipped to think well.
Far better would be a moral call to unity as humankind. We are all one people, made by God, who are to be one family. Christians are on the right side of history when they remember "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." We can acknowledge differences between us in these areas, but these areas are of lesser importance than what we have in common. We should affirm these positional truths while seeking to grow in our experiential understanding of others. No need to throw out one form of knowledge like postmodernists do. In the end, it will be mercy, compassion, and grace that will gather every nation, tribe, people, and language together. The very sort of mercy and forgiveness that postmodernism denies us.