Two Pillars of Progressive Ideology

Author: Tim Platnich

Publish Date: April 18, 2024

There are two fundamental pillars of progressive ideology. These are: critical theory and post-modernism.

In a nutshell, critical theory divides people into two classes: the oppressors and the oppressed. This division applies in many contexts including:

• the rich oppressing the poor

• capitalists oppressing the proletariate

• white people oppressing everyone else

• men oppressing women

• successful people oppressing unsuccessful people

• talented people oppressing the less talented people

• science oppressing other forms of 'knowledge'

• mathematics oppressing less exacting methodologies

• western culture oppressing non-western cultures

• straight people oppressing all forms of non-straight people

• colonists oppressing indigenous people.

Intersectionality means that a person may be oppressed in many different but intersecting ways. For example, a poor, indigenous, proletariate, gay woman suffers from multiple oppressions.

Critical theory requires, at a minimum, some sort of reconciliation between the oppressors and the oppressed. Reconciliation is a broad concept and encompasses such measures as DEI educational or employment opportunities, monetary and other compensation, and punishment of the oppressors. At the extreme end, critical theory requires a complete rebuilding of society's social, economic and political structures. To this extent, some consider it an extension of Marxism.

According to critical theory, everything about society must be considered through the lens of oppressor and oppressed. It is black and white (no pun intended). There are no shades; there are no nuances. As such, critical theory is an ideology. It is not really a theory. It is a truth that is not subject to any rational analysis. Rational analysis is, itself, a form of oppression.

This brings us to the second pillar of progressive ideology - post-modernism. Prior to the Enlightenment (in which I include the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Reason) all 'truth' was ideological. In Europe the mainstream ideologies were Christian. Truth was a matter of religious pronouncement and the faithful acceptance of same. There was no debating the truth. To debate the truth as declared by the Church or scripture was to be an apostate. At some points in history, being an apostate could cost one their life. The hallmark of these times was the crushing of any dissent.

Along side religious 'truth' there was superstition. Superstition was the unreasoning belief in mystical cause and effect. Products of superstition and mysticism include such things as: ghosts, spirits, daemons, ferries, gremlins, leprechauns, black cats, witches, unlucky numbers and so on.

The Enlightenment brought forward a new way of thinking that was antithetical to the religious and mystical approach. Foremost in the Enlightenment was reason. The scientific method was a pillar of the Enlightenment. This method required objective observations to be made and recorded. Cause and effect was to be hypothesized then tested through further objective observations. Observations were matters of the human senses: seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and/or tasting. They did not include gut-feelings, intuitions, visions, hallucinations, and the like.

The Enlightenment promoted the concept of objective facts. The 'earth is round, not flat', was established as a matter of objective fact. It was irrelevant whether someone 'felt' that this fact was wrong, unfair, oppressive or disagreeable. One didn't need to accept this 'fact' on faith. Rather, one was invited to prove the statement to be false using logic combined with observations. One was invited to critically think and challenge orthodoxies. Through open and reasoned debate, knowledge could be obtained and progress could be made.

Steven Pinker notes as follows in his book "Enlightenment Now":

"The ideals of the Enlightenment are products of human reason, but they always struggle with other strands of human nature: loyalty to tribe, deference to authority, magical thinking, the blaming of misfortune on evildoers."

Post-modernism argues that there is no objective facts or truth. Each person can have their own truth. Truth is a subjective matter. You have your truth, I have my truth. How one feels is what matters. Objective reality be damned. Facts be damned. Critical thinking be damned.

Critical Theory (which has nothing to do with critical thinking, by the way) goes hand in hand with post-modernism. Like all ideologies, critical theory does not stand up to critical, factual scrutiny. Hence, critical theory must undermine such scrutiny by including post-modernism as part of its oppression mantra. The argument is that the ideas of the Enlightenment came from white men and western culture and therefor are tools of oppression.

Critical theory and post-modernism appeal to the strands of human nature that Pinker warns against. They appeal to tribalism for example. Oppressors are one group of tribes; the oppressed are another group of tribes. They appeal to deference to authority: follow what we say and do not critically think for yourselves. They appeal to magical - meaning non-logical - thought. They appeal to the blaming of misfortune on others - the oppressors. They argue that the notion of personal responsibility is just another tool of oppression.

To be sure there are valid grievances in the world, past and present. These grievances must be defined with objective data. The facts must be ascertained. Regarding facts, former President John Adams said:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

We must not allow wishes, inclinations and dictates of our passions alter the state of facts and evidence.

The grievances, once defined, need consideration. What remedies, if any are just. This requires careful logical consideration. Knee-jerk remedies dictated by feelings of guilt may cause more harm than good. Continued tribalism may not be the answer. A restructuring of society may be disastrous. Stalin wanted to not only restructure society but restructure human nature. Many millions died in the pursuit of this restructuring which ended in absolute failure. Stalin was an ideologue. He thought that individualism could be replaced by collectivism provided all the committed individualists were eliminated.

We must consider the dangers of critical theory and post-modernism. They may be leading society back in time to eras of dogmatism, superstition, tribal and class warfare.