Richard Williams has a worthwhile Mercatornet piece on the prevalence of circular logic within political doctrines such as CRT masquerading as academic theories. Such doctrines he refers to as 'guardian angel' theories.
Circular logic protects ‘critical race theory’ from its own contradictions
CRT has a ‘guardian angel’ which keeps it safe from criticism
One of the great frustrations of my academic career, now spanning four decades, has been the number of “guardian angel theories” that I have encountered. Opposing and undoing them is very hard work, not because the logic and conceptual work are difficult, but because the guardian angels are conceived and maintained for mostly emotive, political, and otherwise self-serving reasons. Such motivations make it difficult for people to examine or critique the theory openly and transparently.
A “guardian angel” theory is one that is self-referential, relies on itself to prove itself, and has built-in mechanisms acting to protect a theory from critique.
Not unfamiliar, but the whole piece is well worth reading as "guardian angel" theories are very common in modern political discourse. Also worth reading for this observation on personal moral choices.
Some CRT proponents will make light of my belief that personal moral decisions can have any impact on hard socio-moral issues such as racism. I am convinced that it can and that it does. I use as my example a historical instance where a single moral decision by a single man could have saved as many as 10,000,000 human lives. Josef Stalin could have stopped the murder of the Ukrainian farmers who opposed his Marxist program in the mid-1930s (the Holodomor) with a single word (nyet). But he did not.
One of the great frustrations of my academic career, now spanning four decades, has been the number of “guardian angel theories” that I have encountered. Opposing and undoing them is very hard work, not because the logic and conceptual work are difficult, but because the guardian angels are conceived and maintained for mostly emotive, political, and otherwise self-serving reasons. Such motivations make it difficult for people to examine or critique the theory openly and transparently.
A “guardian angel” theory is one that is self-referential, relies on itself to prove itself, and has built-in mechanisms acting to protect a theory from critique.
Not unfamiliar, but the whole piece is well worth reading as "guardian angel" theories are very common in modern political discourse. Also worth reading for this observation on personal moral choices.
Some CRT proponents will make light of my belief that personal moral decisions can have any impact on hard socio-moral issues such as racism. I am convinced that it can and that it does. I use as my example a historical instance where a single moral decision by a single man could have saved as many as 10,000,000 human lives. Josef Stalin could have stopped the murder of the Ukrainian farmers who opposed his Marxist program in the mid-1930s (the Holodomor) with a single word (nyet). But he did not.
6 comments:
Things such as CRT are the stuff of Religious Awakenings. I can see why a Mormon might hesitate to put it so bluntly.
We all like some religious awakenings: Abolitionism is one example. All sensible people oppose others e.g. Prohibition.
But they don't last for ever: I wouldn't be surprised if slavery makes a comeback in the next century or so. Maybe the treatment of the Uyghurs is slavery already? I don't know enough to decide.
With CRT, they don't really try to hide it. Disagree and you're racist. It's probably at the point where, be white and you're racist, applies. Very good piece though.
One thing that did raise an eyebrow, is the author saying he is a Christian. The Christian religion must be the ultimate Guardian Angel theory: You must have faith to believe in God. If you ask for proof, you do not have faith. In a vacuum of evidence, your faith alone proves the existance of God
I wonder if he would agree...
An interesting Christian take on the old problem of self-sustaining and irrefutable theories. I had an encounter with a "Guardian angel" in my last job.
I had been asked to investigate an alleged case of bullying of a student by a lecturer. He had followed her into a room and angrily remonstrated with her over some earlier misdemeanour. Someone had mentioned "safeguarding", which sets off warning bells.
Anyway, I interviewed both of them, plus all the witnesses. Then, being a thorough sort of chap, I made an appointment with the College safeguarding lead - it was possible that there had been previous disagreements between this pair.
The safeguarding lead was a zealous woman, keen to see evidence of bullying, exploitation and abuse at every opportunity. She had no knowledge of the lecturer or the student, but listened to my account of the incident and said that she viewed it as a clear case of bullying and abuse. I pointed out that witnesses disagreed with her, and thought the whole thing was a storm in a teacup. I also said that the student herself thought that she had not been bullied, actually got on well with the lecturer, and admitted that she had deserved a bollocking.
"Do you realise", said the safeguarding lead, leaning in conspiratorially, "That denying being bullied is often a sign that bullying is taking place?"
One way of testing such things is to ask "Is there any evidence I could offer that would change your mind?"
If (after much prevarication and deflection) the answer is 'no' then the belief or ideology cannot be tested and is therefore not rational. It may still be 'true' for the individual in an emotional sense, but should we allow others' emotions to compel us without the possibility of debate?
dearieme - the treatment of the Uyghurs is certainly claimed by some to be slavery. The climate change narrative is similar to a religious awakening, but lacks a really worthwhile level of renunciation. Buying a Tesla doesn't measure up at at all.
Bucko - I wonder if not hiding the real nature of CRT leads to much more quiet cynicism than its proponents realise. Much deeper divisions too.
Sam - interesting. I suppose the safeguarding lead could have said "denying being bullied is often correlated with bullying having taken place" and she would have been on less circular ground. Treating the correlation as reliable guide to your particular case with clear contrary evidence was a pretty basic mistake, but people do it.
DJ - that's an attraction of a more positivist outlook. In a sense it's almost too powerful in that it would destroy swathes of political discourse. I've long thought that some powerful ideas never become mainstream for that reason, they make it too difficult for elites to sell nonsense based on emotional appeal.
AK
You speak of destroying swathes of political discourse as a bad thing. :)
Post a Comment