The Bernoulli Effect

Critical theory, when done well, is an excellent resource to have at hand.

This math stuff, though, is just gibberish, and I wouldn't classify it as critical theory.

Regarding critical theory as a valuable resource: You could be right in theory, but I think your "when done well" stipulation highlights the real problem: It's very rarely done well. Indeed, how can we know if CT's done well when its scholars are hermetically sealed in an ideological echo chamber? If only I had confidence that CT has been the target of rigorous skeptical inquiry over the last 30 years, like any emerging theory in the hard sciences would have been, I'd be more sympathetic. But instead we have Sokal's hoax.

But instead we have Sokal's hoax.

Cf: "Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime." (the fact that people can't even agree whether or not it's a hoax is just as troubling, or moreso, than if they could)

We don't blow off physics because some journal editors got lazy, and I don't see why we should for critical theory.

Anyhoo, I'm of the opinion that CT is best in its bubble - it's when it moves outward and tries to apply itself that it almost always overreaches or comes off sounding like a couple of college stoners. (must....resist...putting that in...theory-speak....)

K. Drum points out that the author of the WSJ article lied through her teeth. The text is a pretty standard math text.

jpe, thanks for the very interesting link re the physics journals. It will add to my appreciation of the comlexities of the academic world--especially the journals. It looks like the "physicists'" work has been discredited on whole, and the journal in question did admit the problem and promise to correct it. I wonder if Social Text ever offered a similar statement.

You seem to be sorely misinformed about critical theory. If you really want to know its origins and what it's about, go to Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, or Julia Kristeva, for example. Far from fraud and injustice, critical theory has often been consonant with conservative and libertarian agendas. It has been taken on board by theologians believing in the need for culture to retain a critical capacity in the light of saturated mass consumerism. Yes, it questions the empirical epistemology of some of the modernist project, but only through its awareness of modernism's susceptibility to the postmodern turn; what Adorno taught us most is that our notions of empirical truth are much more malleable and open to dialectical negotiation than we like to admit.

I'll try and reply in more depth when I'm not dodging hurricanes.

Certainly I've not studied postmodernism in a formal way, so I cannot debate you on details. But I don't think you'd dispute my claim that postmodernists, especially the Frankfurt school, are fundamentally hitched to Marxism. And I, in turn, have a fundamental objection to Marxism in all its forms: I value the rights of the individual over those of the group; I believe in private property rights; and I believe in capitalism; &etc. As E.D. Hirsch points out, even Gramsci recognized that a traditional liberal education was superior to the "progressive" educational ideas that stemmed from Rousseau and Dewey.

Thanks for engaging in debate on this one. I take your point: yes, critical theory certainly does have *some* roots in Marxism, but it is important to make a distinction between Marxist socio-economic analysis (which does run much deeper than the popular economic notions of "communism", etc.) and Marxist political action. No critical theorist of any note has been committed to Marxist political action. Indeed, Adorno's work was particularly lacking when it came to a theory of political action, and his links to Marxist were tenuous to say the least. Other main critical theorists were also on the fringes of the Frankfurt School. Like you, I disagree with the tenets of the Marxist political project, but nevertheless I believe that Marxist analysis still has a lot to contribute to the discourses of liberalism, not least because it highlights how anti-liberal liberalism can turn out to be.

The complexity and sophistication of Marxism is demonstrated by the fact that, in spite of critical theory's Marxist roots, it is really a conservative response to mass culture. Indeed, Culture (as a reified Marxist concept -- with a capital C) is truly critical theory's subject.

When it comes to education, I'm not quite clear about the distinction you're seeking to make between 'liberal' and 'progressive' educational agendas. Perhaps you could expand on this. From my point of view, education should seek to represent as broad a spectrum of philosophical approaches as possible; surely the most liberal solution is always to provide the information and let the student decide for him/herself.

Finally, perhaps I could challenge your view of postmodernism. While I accept that critical theory has some Marxist roots, postmodernism is a much less unified theory than critical theory and really *cannot* be described as Marxist. Postmodernity is as much a description of a cultural state of mind born of an age of post-industrialism; it is associated with irony, "incredulity towards metanarrative" (J. F. Lyotard, 1984, Manchester University Press), and the ethereality of consumer-driven urban life.

Thanks for the rational reply. I certainly have more reading to do--hopefully I won't have to do it by flashlight for the next few weeks.

Very briefly, my objection to progressive education stems from their emphasis of "process" ("learning how to learn") vs. "transmission of acquired knowledge". My view, and Gramsci's I believe, is that one can't very well argue a point of any political persuasion, unless one is grounded in the history of the debate--which comes from those nasty old "facts" learned by "memorization". One simply cannot think at at the edge of one's field without being a master of what has gone before. More to come...

Blogs being used at their best! Hope the hurricane doesn't bring you too much trouble. I'll certainly look forward to reading more.