The Coddling of the American Mind: A review and reflection.

The Book
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. N.Y.: Penguin Press.

Changes
As recent as 2015 and up till the present there have been powerful and disruptive forces at work in Western society typified by widespread unrest, the depth of which has not been seen since the 60s. During this period we have witnessed the fragmentation of society as formerly shared core beliefs are challenged and discarded, institutional child abuse,  Black Lives Matter,  #MeToo, Terrorism, Trump, Far right protests, and the progressive left's disruption of free speech on campuses. For the young, future economic prospects are uncertain with many changes brought about by globalisation, wage stagnation, high University fees, and artificial intelligence. These changes have meant that many of the jobs that exist today will be automated and redundant.

Overprotection
Against this backdrop is the modern obsession of parents in overprotecting their children. Lukiaoff and Haidt believe that this obsession with the overprotection of children is one cause contributing to a  rapid rise in the number of adolescents suffering from depression, anxiety, and suicide. Nietzsche once said that "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." However, the children of the iGeneration are not getting this message. The message that iGens have been reared to believe is "What doesn't kill me makes me weaker." This is an unconscious slogan that reinforces the concept of safetyism: the widespread notion that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of unsafe spaces, bullying, child abuse, and hurtful words. Instead of producing a generation of healthy young adults our society has nurtured a generation of young adults who are susceptible to depression, anxiety and, in some cases are more prone to suicide than previous generations. The unrealistic hyper-concern for safety promotes emotionally fragile young people who exhibit traits of unreasonable fear and a tendency for a lack of sufficient resilience to ward off mental distress.

Victimhood
Students today, for example,  are more likely to believe that misogyny and rape culture are endemic on college and university campuses. They are more likely to be immersed in an academic culture that propagates the notion of masculine toxicity and the poisoning effect of white male privilege. This heightened cultural perspective assumes that a person's privileged upbringing or tribal identity may prevent them from empathising with those that are viewed as belonging to a victimised group or groups. Often the so called people of privilege may inadvertently say things that are commonly referred to as microagressions that hurt others (see previous blog: Victimhood culture ). Universities in many Western countries foster a culture of safetyism that seeks to protect students from ideas that may challenge their beliefs and attitudes. Many of these campuses provide safe spaces where students can go to feel protected from harmful ideas. Another common strategy is to de-platform speakers with dangerous ideas that could be upsetting to students. This protected culture is so sanitising that it provides the conditions that enable a form of emotional bracket creep. Such a situation as this fosters the notion that almost anything can be perceived as harmful or violent.

Social media
'Those ascribing to victimhood culture see themselves as individuals or as disenfranchised group members who often take offence to opposing views of some privileged person or persons who use their position to disenfranchise their supposed victim or victims' (see a previous blog - Victimhood Culture). Anything that can be considered as an attack on student groups or as being offensive in any way may be an opportunity to exercise collective punishment by ostracising or stigmatising, often by labelling someone as being racist, or cis white males, for example. Social media has become an effective tool used to appeal to and influence group-think (or mob) mentality (see Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's harrowing experiences at Evergreen State College - PART THREE: The hunted individual).

The digital social behaviours are often confrontational, adherents are inclined to be less inhibited in saying what they think about social issues. Those with opposing views are often shamed by using unsavoury language or specified derogatory labels. Those that are shamed in this way can incur the wrath of the mob and suffer an avalanche of citiscism for the perceived offence. Not only does this promote a group think mentality but also an intersectional reality whereby groups or tribes of victims intersect and support one another against the perceived oppressive opinions or violent ideas. The premise is that the more intersectional that you are the more social prestige you gain, for example, a trans person who is black will have more social and tribal credit that say a white, conservative male. The perception is those who are considered as belonging to more than one intersectional tribe may need more protection, affirmation and affirmative action by some compensatory process.

Over-parenting
The ME generation were fed on a diet of Dr Spock who emphasised that children should be permitted to develop at their own pace. This was often executed in a protected and scheduled fishbowl environment. However, when their children left home they would often feel like fish out of water and  not cope with the diversity of ideas in the real world. 'Always trust your feelings' is a typical phrase that iGenners would have heard time-and-again. The focus on feeling rather than reasoned thought makes this generation susceptible to conflicting emotions and an intolerance to the ideas of others.  

Expanded view
Lukianoff and Haidt give some suggestions as to how this situation can be alleviated with some creative thinking from parents, educators, schools and university administrators. We need to foster a sense of adventure and resilience by gradually giving our children freedom to venture beyond the over protective environment of the home. More opportunities to play with others rather than just through organised play dates. Schools need to have plenty of recess time so that children can learn how to socialise with diverse individuals. Parents and teachers need to limit the amount of time spent on screens and increase the child's experience of the outside environment; they should be taught how to manage risk. In terms of coping with others is the notion that when they draw a circle to exclude them they should draw a wider circle that includes them.

Links that you may find of interest:

Listening at the Great Awakening: Areo

PART THREE: The hunted individual

The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job: The Spectator

Interview by Brendan O'Neill with Johnathan Haidt: Fragility and Division: Sound Cloud

What is Meaning in the wake of Notre Dame?

Notre Dame-watercolour & acrylic-G. Woolley

Recap and going forward
In my other blog "Reading Comprehension" I have been concerned with the teaching of reading comprehension. Many of the ideas presented were associated with research for books that I had written. In contrast, this blog, focuses on a future book that I am in the process of planning and researching. At this point it does not have a name but it will focus on the essence of meaning and how, we as human beings, construct meanings as we interact with other beings and objects in our world. It will be concerned with perception, understanding and ontology.

To understand the meaning making process we need to dig deeply using fundamental religious, philosophical and scientific understandings. After all, comprehension is basically the act of gaining answers to questions that we like to ask ourselves. To ask foundational questions will enable us to begin to understand what is meant by meaning itself and what we mean when we ask what we or others mean. How do we interpret and construct meaning when we perceive something that elicits our attention during a particular instance?

Light bulb memories
The images that were firmly etched into our collective western mind with, for example, the shooting of John F. Kennedy and destruction of the twin towers in New York, could easily be recalled by those that are old enough to have seen the media pictures of the time broadcast around the world. These stark images are often referred to as 'light bulb' memories because they are almost as vivid as when we first saw them. Most people my age share those same images. Likewise, the recent burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral captured the collective attention of millions people, not only in the West but all around the world. I have painted (above) my impression of the destruction of this great icon and I am sure that you will instantly recognise it even though it is just a rough sketch. The burning of Notre Dame, no doubt is one of those light bulb moments that are etched into our collective minds. The vividness of that image in your mind is related to the intensity of the emotional impact of the event and its relationship to your world view.

Cultural understandings
We may all have a slightly different understanding of the significance of the burning of this great building but it has created a great deal of heightened interest and commentary via the news media. Whatever we make of these individual images it will, no doubt, position us all with some point of reference or shared meaning. History also records to some degree a shared understanding for those who have visited the Notre Dame Cathedral or for those that have studied French history, art history, history of Western Religion, or even the history of Western philosophy.

Significance of Notre Dame
The cathedral has an historic, religious, artistic, philosophical and cultural significance that goes far beyond the borders of modern France. It was built in the twelfth century (started in the year 1163) during a time when Christianity had spread throughout Europe and beyond the city dwellers and into rural peasantry. The building represented incredible engineering and scientific achievement. It took over one hundred years for it to be finished with an enormous amount of money, time and dedication. Those who designed, engineered, and started building would never see the results of their efforts in their lifetime. For many the dedication came from the idea that it would be a beacon to show the world the glory of the God of the Bible. At this time virtually the only literate people were the monks (certainly the only ones that could read latin) in the monasteries that proliferated throughout Western Europe. Monasticism during the Dark Ages reflected 'revelation' and 'reason' in partnership. The Monasteries became the storehouse for understanding revelation, exploring known knowledge while applying and modelling democratic social structures. It was the educated class of monks that introduced Western civilisation to Greek scientific learning and encouraged the scientific enquiry of 'God's creation' hence giving birth to modern science and democracy (see previous blog - Inventing the Individual).

The Cathedral, more than any other icon still standing, was the epitome of the  combination of revelation (scripture) with reason (Greek thought) (see Ben Shapiros book, 'The Right Side of History' for a broader understanding - future blog). Not only did this building exemplify two great understandings that would eventually become the root of the Enlightenment but it brought the the teachings of the Bible to the common man (mostly illiterate at that time) through the visual stories and images in the stainless glass windows, art works and statues that adorned the building. The building itself was intentionally designed so that when you stand inside (or even outside) your eyes were directed to the ceiling, the spire, and beyond so that it gave the viewer a sense of eternity and transcendence. During this time the medieval church became the centre of learning and established the first universities that would give momentum to revelation and reason. This Gothic building had the power to take us back in time to remind us of the roots of our civilisation and of the great leap forward in human progress.

Humanist Enlightenment
Look to the left beyond the edge of the picture (in real life as if you were standing there) you would see the Eiffel Tower nearby. This more recent structure epitomises the peak of Enlightenment engineering and together with the advent of Darwin's Origin of the Species, exemplified the partial severing of 'revelation' from 'reason'. Together, the Eiffel Tower and Darwin's theory highlighted man's ingenuity and the beginning of a separation from Europe's spiritual foundations. Two world wars and the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people during the last century led to disillusionment with modernism and humanism (I will explore this idea extensively in future book reviews).

Separation and decline
Even though scientific humanism (reason) has been dealt a near fatal blow, much like Christianity  (revelation) before it, there have been some attempts to revive this philosophical root. Since the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 the new atheists and the neo-humanists have attempted to regain the initiative by claiming that science contradicts or is in opposition to revelation. However, the majority of Americans, for example, do not believe in evolution: postmodernism has now replaced humanism as the dominant philosophical force. Waning interest in STEM subjects reflects a general lack of interest in Science. Could this be a result of reason being divorced from revelation? Study of the material world without purpose and meaning is sterile.

How the Mind Works: Book review and reflection
This has been somewhat of a long introduction to my present book review but it is also a condensation of the previous reflections. This book is the second book that I have recently read written by the neo-Enlightenment thinker, Steven Pinker. In his book Enlightenment Now (see an earlier blog) he endeavours to posit the idea that the Enlightenment was the sole foundation that produced the benefits of modern human progress. After reading extensively, I found this naive and misinformed (for example see Ben Shapiro: YouTube). The book is entitled, 'How the Mind Works'. 'The Times' comment on the cover stated, 'How the mind Works will change the way your mind works'. Well for me, it didn't! It was very unconvincing. Pinker refers to himself as a cognitive scientist (as I do) so I was hoping to gain a better understanding of my own research area. Unfortunately, Pinker's book seemed to be some sort of justification for the Darwinian notion of natural selection. There is no doubt that all creatures are designed with a facility to adapt to their environment otherwise existence on earth would be difficult (obviously some species are not able to adapt sufficiently or quick enough when there are environmental stresses). But to suggest that the human brain and physiology, in all its biochemical and biophysical complexity, is entirely the result of natural selection is a huge leap of faith and is restrictive to further exploration.

Shaky ground
This book is over 600 pages long and when your foundational premise (natural selection) is based on very shaky ground (which I will point out shortly) it is very hard to stay focussed. It was like reading a never ending story. In essence, he relies on Darwin's theory, Sam Harris's neo-Atheism, and  Dawkin's flawed thinking. Shapiro (see future post: Right Side of History: Part 1) claims that he uses circular thinking because he assumes that this assumption is correct he bases his subsequent arguments around that premise. An example Page 166) is what follows - "readers young enough to have had sex education or old enough to be reading articles about the prostrate may have noticed that the seminal ducts in men do not lead directly from the testes to the penis but snake up into the body and pass over the ureter before coming back down." Now, wait for it! This is where the Big Crunch comes! Let's continue! " That is because the testes of our reptilian ancestors were inside their bodies. The bodies of mammals are too hot for the production of sperm, so the testes gradually descended into a scrotum."

Natural selection
You might be convinced by this argument, I nearly brushed over it (maybe that is why I put the bush in the picture above) but I had recently had a radical robotic prostatectomy and I know that there are quite a few good reasons why the vas deferens is so long and why it snakes around. He goes on to say, unlike a human engineer, selection is incapable of good design. "Animals are clunking jalopies saddled with ancestral junk and occasionally blunder into barely serviceable solutions." The main idea behind this claim is that natural selection is random and there should be some residual evidence of natural accidents, or changes, such as the one imagined above. The argument is that there should be evidence of successful changes, unsuccessful changes, and changes that are in the process of a long transformation. The tonsils, the tail bone, and the appendix were proposed to evidence this notion until it was found that they actually did have important functions - the search goes on and no residual body elements appear. It should be noted, however, that there is evidence from the genome that we carry faults within the genes structures (see YouTube: interview with Dr John Sanford) but they are redundant and generally do not affect the characteristics of the species (except in the case of some diseases). The length of the vas deferens does not prove natural selection.

Thus Pinker provides a very faulty argument for natural selection, which is the foundation for all that follows in his book. There is a lot of backward reasoning starting with natural selection. It is easy to take something that exists in a particular environment and then do some backward engineering. For example, lets say that humans developed language because our ancestors, who were apes needed ... etc. Without evidence that can be replicated in the laboratory it allows for some interesting stories that sound incredible and often illogical.

Conclusion
Coming back to the Notre Dame Cathedral, what has this got to do with - How the mind works? Since Pinker's book seemed to be more about natural selection and a justification for humanism without faith, the Cathedral tells us a lot. After the French Revolution when the Humanist Enlightenment gained ground on the headless bodies of thousand that had been guillotined they seized many churches and cathedrals including Notre Dame, which they made into the Temple of Reason in which they placed busts of Greek philosophers in place of the crucifix and statues of Mary. However, this only lasted a couple of years until the guillotine caught up with them also, just as the horrific events of the twentieth century caught up with the Enlightenment.


Other links that may be of interest:

Rebuilding Notre Dame Cathedral Contradicts Everything Secular Europe Stands For: Rebel Priest

Vas deferens: Refuting 'bad design' arguments: Journal of Creation

War against boys: Book review and reflection

Hoff Sommers, C. (2000). The war against boys. NY: Simon & Shuster Paperbacks.

The war against boys
What ever happened to 'let boys be boys'? The following anecdote from Sommers book highlights the situation in schools today. "A sixth-grade boy, whose mother asks to be identified as Dan, squirms as his teacher tells his parents he's not trying hard enough in school. He looks away as the teacher directs his parents to a table of projects the class has done on Ancient Greek civilisation. Some projects are meticulous works of art, with edges burned to resemble old parchment. Dan's title page is plain and unillustrated, and he's left an 'e' out of 'Greek'. "You'll never get anywhere if you don't try," says Dan's father as they leave the classroom. "I don't understand," says Dan's mother, whose two older daughters got straight A's in school without her intervention."

The gender gap
It became apparent in the 1990's girls were falling behind in math and science and this revelation gave momentum to the movement to focus more on girls' education. This movement in education overlooked the obvious fact that boys, too, were failing in other areas such as reading, writing, and school engagement. The push in girls' education was so successful that they now outnumber boys entering higher education institutions. "Today women in the United States earn 57% of bachelor's degrees, 60 percent of master's degrees, and 52 percent of PhDs. One can only assume that the gender gap is real and it has a negative effect on boys' education and life opportunities." What alerted parents and others was the observation that girls were collecting the majority of honours and awards in high school.

Pay gap
There has been much said about the gender pay gap in the news media. Almost daily there are calls for equality in the work place. However, in most Western countries it is illegal for employers to pay women less than a man doing the same job. There has been a concerted effort in OECD countries to make sure that women have equal opportunity and equal pay. It is disingenuous and discriminatory in our modern society to have it any other way. If this was not so it would be the most logical thing for an employer to hire women rather than men because it would be cheaper and more efficient. However, there does not seem to be any evidence that this is happening. What is certain is that in Australia and in other western countries employers will face heavy fines if they do otherwise. What then is the problem with the so called gender wage gap?

Gap driven by choice, lifestyle, and hours worked
The gender pay disparity is driven more by choice of occupation and lifestyle, hours worked, and length of employment in the work force. Sommers suggests that female doctors are more likely to be paediatricians than higher paid cardiologists. In General, women dominate lower paid occupations such as child care, teaching, nursing and other jobs within the service industries. This is because women, on the whole make life style choices by electing professions that tend to be nurturing and caring roles. Many women, who choose to have a family, will prefer to stay at home longer to nurture their family. Jobs like teaching, for example, enable women to be more available outside of school time including school holidays. Furthermore, women tend to look for jobs that allow them to be more agreeable while men tend to be more competitive and seek more aggressive and competitive occupations. Some would posit that gender stereotyping actually coerces women into lower paid positions.

Countries like Sweden have for a long time implemented affirmative action policies whereby they use quotas to try and redress the imbalance in some occupations. However, Affirmative action in Sweden has been very disappointing. Despite the fact that the Nordic countries have taken the lead in gender equality the results indicate that there are more women in the work force but fewer Swedish women reach top executive positions than more conservative countries like the United States of America.

Merit or equity
There are problems for men entering the workforce as well. As already alluded to above there are more female college and university graduates available for employment. Some affirmative action policies will mean that women will be selected as more suitable because the employer may need to fulfil a certain equity quota. Logcally, one would expect that the most qualified applicant for the job should be selected, but this is often not the case. All people should have equal opportunity to pursue the career of their choice regardless of race, gender, or age. However, if applications for positions are judged according to equity of outcomes it creates an unfair advantage and leads to poorer quality applicants securing higher levels job. In contrast, contract selection according to merit is fair and will lead to better creativity and productivity.

Schools and boys
The worrying problem in schools is that male underachievement is feeding the growing college and university entrance gap. In the last twenty or so years there has been a concerted effort by teachers to lift the performance of girls but the same effort has not been applied to boys. There may be other reasons for this as well. In the past boys have tended to perform at each end of the achievement spectrum while girls were more likely to congregate in the centre. However, particularly in primary and preschool education there are few role models for boys as nearly all teachers in primary schools (elementary schools) tend to be female. Added to this is the fact that it is more common for boys to grow up without a father present at home, particularly in black American homes. Many other fathers are at home but are disengaged and do not provide what is needed. Boys are more likely to have a learning disability or ADHD. Boys all favour a different style of learning but since most teachers are women they will prefer a more feminine teaching style.

Staking the deck
What is more concerning is that it would seem that the deck is being stacked against giving boys 'a fair go' in education. Sommers asks the question, "What is the answer? More boy-friendly curricula? More male teachers? More single-sex classrooms? Special preschool classes to improve boys' social skills? Extra recess where boys are allowed to engage in their characteristic rough-and-tumble play? More engaging schools like Aviation High? ... these are all promising solutions-and all are strenuously opposed by the women's lobby." Furthermore, boys are generally noisy, rowdy, and hard to manage. They are often messy, disorganised, and will not sit still. Boys like action, risk, and competition. They also tend to do less well with group work and are not as good with language as girls. They tend to think that reading is a feminine activity. Since the 1970s there has been a decline in the amount of time given to recess and structured outdoor activities. It is unsurprising that obesity has become a problem for girls, but even more so for boys. Boys are give more suspensions for minor acts. What is more concerning is that there has been a deliberate push to make boys less masculine because male traits are seen as being less virtuous.

Second sex
Britain and Australia have raised concerns for the gender gap and a more equitable education of boys. For example, in 2002, the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training published Boys: Getting It Right: Report n the Inquiry into the Education of Boys. The report called for a change away from just a focus solely on the needs of girls for gender equality and deterred calls for the transformation of boy's masculinity. There is much to be done in most Western countries otherwise boys will become the second sex. This is particularly concerning due to the likelihood that the economy will drift further toward a knowledge based society and will attract more women.

I would recommend this book as essential reading for those that are concerned with real equality of opportunity for all.

Other links of interest:

The war against boys: Prager U

Make men masculine again: Prager U

Tucker Carlson interview with Jordan Petersen: The lefts toxic masculinity label to blame for the crisis.

Why do girls outperform boys on reading tests throughout the world?: OUPblog

Asian American boys

Gender pay gap explained: Harvard

Gender pay gap: Guardian - 20-29 year old women earn more than men

Why Traditional Masculinity is Good for Academia: Areo

Masculinity and Poway Synagogue: Culture

Woman said man who stopped to help her when her car broke down assaulted her: Daily Wire

The Enlightenment: Is this the foundation of progress and meaning?

Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism and progress. UK: Penguin Books.

Progress
Steven Pinker has written a rather large, interesting and easy to read book about human progress since the enlightenment. There certainly has been a lot of progress and that progress seems to be gathering momentum. In my own life time I have seen many improvements and innovations. I remember (fortunately I don't have Alzheimer's) living as a young child in the western suburbs of Sydney. We had an ice box for a refrigerator and the ice man would come regularly in his horse and cart to deliver a block of ice to keep our food fresh. We did not have a car, a telephone or a television. When I was married my wife and I had a car but we waited several years before we could afford colour TV and phone. My children and their partners acquired these devices as soon as they moved to their first home. May grandchildren haven't even left school and they have their own mobile phones, iPads, Playstations and watch Netflix using their own channels to access their favourite shows.

Pinker uses a lot of print, paper and graphs to painstakingly show how the Enlightenment has enabled this progress, not only with technology but in many other social and environmental domains in Western countries and beyond. For example (in a similar fashion to the web site - HumanProgress.org) he shows how we have progressed in areas such as health, lifespan, wealth, equality, environment, peace, safety, and so it goes on for another 300 pages until you get to the meatier chapters of 'Reason', 'Science' and 'Humanism'. There is only one problem, this progress did not start during the Enlightenment, most of the ground work was laid during the Dark ages (also see previous blog - Inventing the Individual) when Christianity permeated into most of Europe. No one doubts that the momentum picked up after the Renaissance and the development of modern scientific method even though the interest in Greek philosophy and scientific method was nurtured in the monasteries of Europe (see future blog - The Book that Made Your World - listed below). Through the centuries the momentum has gathered pace to the point where human knowledge doubles every few years and technological advancement rapidly alters how we interact in almost every aspect of modern living. One would expect that progress should gain momentum, as knowledge and technological innovation are cumulative. But to presume that somehow this began during the Enlightenment is wishful thinking and overstated.

Reason
Pinker contends that, the ideals of the Enlightenment were products of human reason. Human nature itself has always struggled with rationality by using argument to justify belief. People automatically act on their feelings and use reason to support their presuppositions. It is often quite difficult to attempt to change the beliefs of another person particularly if those beliefs are well entrenched. Pinker seems to think that all Enlightened people need to do to create a better society is to have  diverse groups that engage in rational debate. The presumption is that eventually the great questions that plague mankind will somehow be solved by human reason. Until recently most people in the West had been enculturated with Judeo-Christian teachings and therefore expect to treat others as they would want others to treat them. Until recently sharing a common core of beliefs such as this created a climate of trust enabling the coming together of minds.

In recent times, following the devastation of two world wars, this core set of beliefs has been brought into disrepute and replaced with ideologies: multiculturalism, globalisation and post modernism with their embrace of diversity and relativism. What we are now experiencing is the rise of tribalism and polarisation of belief on the far right and also on the far left. Rather than using informed argument and debate, the protagonists prefer to label and condemn (see a previous blog - The righteous Mind). Terms such as 'hate speech', 'privileged white males', 'toxic masculinity' and 'shouting down speakers' who present different ideas silence freedom of thought and reason itself. There appears to be no recognisable or agreed upon 'common ground'.

Science
As mentioned above, modern scientific inquiry and rigorous research began in the European monasteries and was the catalysts for a plethora of new ideas. Modernism embraced Enlightenment ideals but sidelined the foundation of faith. Postmodernism has sidelined both faith and reason by asserting that truth is relative. The danger is that the flowering of reason, new ideas and harmony will wither if the roots of our Judeo-Christian heritage are severed completely. Humanism without the faith foundation, has failed to bring in a golden age of harmony and understanding. The postmodernists have recognised this but have instead sowed division instead of harmony. Yes, many aspects of our modern world are getting better, people are getting richer, living longer and healthier lives but there is a crisis of meaning. There is evidence of an existential angst; people are feeling lonelier and suicide rates are climbing rapidly (see interview with Johnathan Haidt) despite Pinker's claim that the lives of the ordinary person has improved exponentially.

Conclusion
This book is worth reading because it acknowledges what most of us take for granted. Living in the contemporary world has become so much better in so many ways. The concern is that we do have a crisis of meaning and that all the mod cons that we are privileged with do not necessarily make life more meaningful. If we, as a society ignore our Judeo-Christian roots, the soul of our civilisation will wither at our peril.


Other book reference:
Mangalwadi, V. (2011). The book that made your world: How the Bible created the soul of Western civilisation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Internet links (some hyperlinks above):

Punishing the crime vs blacklisting the soul: Quilette

Enlightenment wars: Quilette

Prager U:  Dark ages

Pinker is wrong about the Enlightenment

HumanProgress.org

Are we suffering from a crisis of meaning?

One year later: Steven Pinker addresses his critics.

Also consider: The wealth of the One Percent - human progress and the myth that the one percent are robbing us all.

The French genocide that has been air-brushed from history:Quillette

The mess we are in: A review and reflection.

Keane, B. (2018). The mess we're in: How our politics went to hell and dragged us with it. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

The mess
Most of Bernard Keane's book is devoted to the current political and cultural 'mess' that Australian liberal democracy is finding itself in during this transitional period of history. Due to the reach of globalisation and the influence of the internet the rest of the world is also mired in one way or another. Some of my previous book reviews have addressed these cultural issues that have arisen over the last couple of decades so I will focus more on Keane's last couple of chapters where he examines some of the underlying ideas and meanings that have filtered through Western thought, particularly in relation to the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment.

Emotion versus reason
Keane believes that Western modernity emphasised the role of the individual and there has been a long tradition of using scientific reasoning since the Enlightenment.  He goes on to say that the Reformation was probably the most important movement in Western civilisation as it focussed on the direct relationship between man and God. It overturned the idea that we need a priest as an intermediary but, instead, places the responsibility for the important decisions on the individual (see previous blog: Inventing the Individual). As a consequence, individualism was embedded  into the "very fabric of European life" and gave impetus to Democracy and individual creativity. The Enlightenment took reason and science to a new level but in so doing it made the error of separating its foundation of faith from reason. The danger is that reason without faith can lead to a mechanistic and materialistic world devoid of human feeling.

Rousseau and the rise of emotion
Keane claimed that the French philosopher, Rousseau thought that mankind would be far better off without reason. This view was essentially anti-Enlightenment because, instead of celebrating reason, Rousseau believed  that the path to knowledge was through examining one's own feelings. Rousseau's philosophy of suppressing reason in the name of the emotional truth of the masses places him at the start of an intellectual tradition that leads deep into twentieth-century (and twenty-first-century). This philosophical perspective inspired Romanticism and resonated with many people in today's society experiencing fear, confusion, loneliness and loss of meaning. Rousseau provided a feelings foundation for the rise of notions of victimhood, tribalism and rage within our post-modern culture. It would seem that many people in our contemporary world are not only experiencing feelings of alienation but also envy as they are confronted with flagrant displays of wealth and power through the electronic media. These are the kinds of sentiments that Trump exploited so effectively in his bid for the Whitehouse with his passionate rejection of reason and the deliberate blurring of the factual information (see How Rousseau Predicted Trump).

Renaissance and homogenous thinking
Keane echoes Marshall McLuan's argument that the invention of the printing press inevitably led to nationalism by homogenising national languages and thereby minimising the notion of the tribe within states. Thus, the consolidation of a national language brought people together and consolidated the nation state. The printed book is also viewed as an extension of the visual faculty that intensifies perspective and the fixed points of view. Thus, the moveable type reinforced the notion that space is "visual, uniform and continuous". This provided a stable platform that provided a shared grand narrative that gave impetus to industrial growth, capitalism, and economic prosperity.

Postmodernism and the internet
Just as the printing press had a profound effect on Western civilisation during Renaisance the internet is now having an even greater impact on human knowing, memory and meaning. In our present postmodern situation the grand narrative has been replaced along with reason itself. Truth is no longer seen as absolute but all truth is considered as being relative. Today's digital citizens tend to read less even though they may spend a lot of time on the internet. They are able to multitask more easily and more effectively than the previous generation. They are likely to be more concerned with knowing how and where to find information rather than remembering important facts. On social media they are constantly rewarded with 'likes' and being linked with those that are more inclined to agree with their own thoughts and feelings. Social media users are more inclined to provoke outrage and the venting of anger as it elicits more rewards in the form of likes, sympathetic responses, and repostings. Keane believes that digital users are spending more time alone with their devices and are more likely to develop a lack of empathy for those with differing viewpoints. This narrowing social interaction allows the user to express ideas with some degree of anonymity without having to explain or justify ideas. Often the intent of the user is to stir up rage and elicit shared emotional reactions.

Political dissociation
Even though humanity as a whole is doing better than at any other time in the history of the world social media constantly bombards users with a supply of social issues to worry about. "The internet is the great dislocator of our time, disrupting us psychologically, socially and economically." For many, this situation has lead to the distrust of politicians and feelings of alienation, anxiety, and outrage.

Other useful links:

Post-truth in an age of Authenticity

How should we read Rousseau

Victimhood Culture: My thoughts and reflections

Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2018). The rise of victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, safe spaces, and the new culture wars. Los Angeles: Palgrave Macmillan.

In my previous blog (Kindly Inquisitors) I discussed a dangerous principle that threatens our civil liberties. In this blog Campbell and Manning take up the challenge by identifying some trends within Western societies that relate to cultural identity and meaning.

Language
We have all come across the phrase, 'Sticks and stones may beak my bones but names will never hurt me'. As a young child I would use this to minimise the impact of unwanted name calling and put-downs. Language expressions can be hurtful at times even when they are said in jest or when they are well intentioned but inappropriate for a particular situation. Language expressions in the form of micro-aggressions are, however, viewed by a certain moralistic sub-cultural group  as not being mere slights but are seen as offensive and aggressive acts in themselves (also see a previous Blog - The Righteous Mind). 

Microagressions
Microagressions are often ordinary and brief verbal expressions (see a previous blog - Limits of Critique) of environmental or personal indignities that intentionally or unintentionally communicate hostile insults to persons or groups of people. Often these slights convey hidden attitudes that may have been inherited or culturally appropriated and have a negative racial, gender, sexual or religious bias. Some examples of miocroagressions are as follows: A white man or woman clutches purse or checks his wallet as a black or latino passes by them. Whistles or cat calls are heard as a woman walks down the street. Two gay men walk down the street holding hands and are told not to flaunt their sexuality.

Nomenclature
Having labels for verbal harms can make people more mindful of prejudice and insult and can help then avoid offensive language. Expressions such as 'mansplaining', 'whitesplaining', 'slut shaming', 'fat shaming' and 'cultural appropriation' are also terms that highlight perceived biases in the language. Some other terms are not so subtle such as 'transphobia', 'homophobia' or 'hate speech', for example. As a result, our understanding of abuse has now been expanded to include trivial and ambiguous instances. It is important to be aware that some public behaviours may be inappropriate and that some people may not even notice that they are being offensive to some.

This form of moralistic labelling, according to Cambell and Manning often stems from people assuming the moral high ground. They tend to focus on language or gesture without taking into consideration the actual intentions of the speaker. This type of labelling is essentially a self-righteous act that magnifies small offences and marginalises the offending groups within our society. The propensity to call out faults and label others may seem virtuous but there is the real danger that the caller may become blind to their own inappropriate behaviours while calling out others. As a consequence, those that are exposed to such extreme stereotypical and judgemental labels for trivial offences may be prevented from voicing their opinions and may stop engaging in the public space altogether. The Biblical injunction to 'take out the log from your own eye before looking for the speck in another's eye would seem to put this type of behaviour into perspective.

Victimhood culture
Cambell and Manning have identified three types of subcultural trends that can be seen operating within modern Western cultures: victimhood culture, honour culture and dignity culture.  Honour cultures dominated the pre-Christian era in Europe. Honour cultures are also prevalent throughout the Arab world and are commonplace within gang cultures in present-day Western societies. They are overly sensitive to insults, value aggression and have a proclivity for violence in order to appease perceived wrongs. This perspective is opposed to dignity culture, which has prevailed in the liberal west, at least until this postmodern period. The notion of dignity comes from Western Judo/Christian tradition that places worth on the individual no matter what identity group or groups they may belong to (see a previous blog - Inventing the Individual). Dignity is inherent within the individual and exists independently of what others think, thus, honour is of less importance and minor grievances are often ignored.

Cambell and Manning suggest that microagressions are associated with a third cultural perspective or victimhood culture. Those ascribing to victimhood culture see themselves as individuals or as disenfranchised group members who often take offence to opposing views of some priveledged person or persons who use their position to disenfranchise their supposed victim or vitims. Their concerns are usually legitimised by way of appeals for help to authorities or to the digital masses on social media. Victimhood thrives on gossip and grievance to elicit the attention and sympathy of others. Victimhood culture differs from honour and dignity cultures as it highlights its own victimhood and exagerates personal discomfort. Gossip is often used in the form of trial in absentia whereby the gossiper attempts to publicly shame and exclude the offender. When this is applied to a prominent personality it may often lead to bad publicity, arrest, imprisonment and the destruction of reputation. The power of denunciation is self-reinforcing as it highlights the virtuous nature of the accuser. In some situations it can lead to serious legal consequences for the accuser, particularly if the alleged (see the Jussie Smollette saga) offence is exaggerated or untrue. Victimhood culture sometimes encourages hate crime hoaxes and the resulting moral panic can lead to further false accusations and bitter consequences. In the past we have seen the results of witch hunts and pogroms. If left unchecked it will produce a climate of moral puritanism, mistrust and injustice (see the Joe Biden saga).

Safe spaces
How does this victimhood culture develop and how does it spread throughout our society? Cambell and Manning believe that it does not necessarily come from those that have been the down-trodden and those who are the victims of prejudice. Victimhood culture tends to be popularised in the Western universities and colleges and is generally found amongst upper middle class and well-off students particularly in the fields of study such as journalism, humanities, sociology and psychology. It is championed by cultural and philosophical theories that have roots in social justice, feminist theory, post-modern and Marxist philosophies. Many tertiary institutions provide safe spaces for students so they can be protected from microagressions and others forms of predjudice (see a previous blog - Springtime for Snowflakes). They are places where students can go to feel secure in a non-threatening environment. However, there may be a very serious down side to this. In seeking to help students stay safe institutions often assume an extended parent like role. Instead of preparing students for the wider world they homogenise and overprotect students to the degree that they are unable to adequately cope with any opposing views and opinions.

What these higher institutions should be doing is developing resilience and preparing their students to think critically, to debate, and to use rational argument to challenge what they perceive as bad or dangerous ideas. This is the essence of free speech and creativity. New and productive ideas often arise when old ideas are challenged and debated. The use of labels such as 'microagressions' will only lead to the stifling of debate and moral stagnation. It must be kept in mind, that at the end of the day, these students will eventually hold prominent leadership roles within society and, in part, determine the future for us all.

Other links that may be of interest:

The rise of victimhood culture on campus: Jonathan Haidt

The appeal of Victimhood

Postmodernism and the left

Ben Shapiro forgivenes

Joe Rogan and Sam Harris on the Liam Neeson Controversy

Fake Bigotry: The American Mind

Kindly Inquisitors: Book review

Rauch, J. (2013). Kindly inquisitors. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Fundamentalism
Rauch contends ..."A very dangerous principle is now being established as a social right: Thou shalt not hurt others with words. This principle is a menace - and not just to civil liberties. At bottom it threatens liberal inquiry - that is, science itself." In America, France, Austria and Australia and elsewhere, the notion of the inquisition is being resurrected to  punish people who are perceived to hold opinons that are hurtful to others (see previous book review - Springtime for Snowflakes). This situation is a type of intellectual authoritarianism, once the province of the religious and the political right, that is being promulgated by the progressive  political left. It is a new type of fundamentalism that is not about religion but it is a righteousness (see previous book review - The Righteous Mind) based on the premise that they hold the moral high ground and there is no possibility that their views might be wrong.

The enlightened few
What is being advanced is a type of society, similar to Plato's Republic, whereby the masses are governed by a humane and enlightened few. The founding principle of the Republic is an absolute devotion and submission of the individual to a utopia that is based on an intellectual authoritarianism. Plato believed that knowledge comes from wisdom and that governance should be exercised by those who are wise. This view holds that the enlightened few will govern the masses in a more humane and sensitive manner. The new progressive fundamentalists, likewise, see themselves as being the arbiters of pubic discourse and morality.  In doing so they seek to criminalise open criticism and regulate thought. This situation is currently being played out in the public sphere: a rising form of authoritarianism in disguise and it is just as insidious as what Plato was proposing for ancient civilisation.

Meaning and knowledge
Here, questions are raised about meaning and knowledge. Can a chosen few have the knowledge and truth to make decisions for the rest of the population? This may, on the one hand, seem to make life easier because it would save us from having to make moral decisions and we could go about living without having to make too many difficult choices. Who will make the wise decisions? Who can we trust? Good men are liable to make mistakes and are sometimes unwilling to be open to criticism. This may sound rather sceptical but is it appropriate? "A society which has accepted skeptical principles will accept that sincere criticism is always legitimate." In other words, knowledge can only stand until it is debunked. Liberal science is not just for scientists it is a cultural process of inquiry that seeks to test ideas.

Reason and faith
Universities are the guardians of free thought and knowledge through criticism. Every one has different opinions about what constitutes prejudice. If universities endeavour to enforce what they perceive as 'correct opinions' they become bigoted and self-righteous. This then becomes a type of stubborn orthodoxy and another form of injustice. Can reason be the arbiter of knowledge?  Reason itself relies on faith, in this case, faith in liberal science. This is why liberal science must be open to criticism and not dogma. Reasoning can be responsible or irresponsible but if diversity of ideas is not allowed then it follows that knowledge cannot be tested and verified. However, when free speech is perceived as being offensive it leads to fundamentalist principles and outrage. Rauch contends, "A no-offence society is a no-knowledge society."

Authoritarianism
"Whenever the believers in the Fundamentalist Principle get the upper hand, they strive restlessly and untiringly to suppress diversity of opinion, and they do so not simply out of cynicism or power lust, but, on the contrary, out of the purist and most principled of motives." The threat is that the fundamentalists embrace authoritarianism and in the name of fairness and compassion, are capable of committing atrocities (as the Marxist did during the last century).

Liberal scientific and democratic ideals
Liberal democratic ideals (see previous book review - Inventing the Individual) presuppose the right to offend in the pursuit of truth. In doing so it has a responsibility to allow criticism to check for the accuracy of knowledge. Offensive words are just words, they are not violence. What should be done to placate the feelings of those that are offended (see recent blog - The mess we are in)? Nothing at all! The history of science is full of criticism and hurt feelings. No one likes to have their cherished ideas debunked. If this were not so then our society would make little progress. Rauch makes it very clear with this statement, "The inquisition failed to keep Copernicanism down. All it did was slow the progress of knowledge and kill people."


Other links of interest:

Professor's legal victory for free speech: The Australian

Inventing the Individual

Siedentop, L. (2014). Inventing the individual: The origins of Western liberalism. London: Penguin Books.

Crisis of belief

I shall begin this book review with Sidentop’s final statement, “If we in the West do not understand the moral depth of our own tradition, how can we hope to shape the conversation of mankind?” He contends that many misguided intellectuals attribute the progress of Western civilization as resting on the foundation of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance of the fifteenth century. Modernity is characterised with the rise of secularism and modern science. With it has come a crisis of belief and questions about the relationship between secularism and faith.

Liberal democratic ideals

Our liberal democratic ideals did not, as many modern humanists believe, stem directly from Ancient Greek and Roman culture. Antiquity was grounded on 'natural' inequality and based on the ancestral family, hierarchical structure and slavery. The government of the Ancient city was based on patriarchy, racism, slavery, and the subjugation of women and the poor. Ancient democracy supported the notion of hierarchy and inequality. Only the male heads of property owning families could vote and make laws that formed the government of the people. This meant that women, slaves, foreigners and non-land owners were regarded as taking on a subservient role, which reflected their proper (natural) place in the world. 

The ancients

The ancient philosophers used reason to prop up this ancient notion of the 'polis' because they viewed world of matter and the cosmos as reflecting their own social hierarchical structures. Thus, the ancients believed that the paternal head was the guardian/priest of the family and property. The family property was the spiritual home of their ancestors. The notion of self was linked to an understanding of their position and status in the 'natural' order.  Thus, philosophical reasoning reflected this 'natural' order and ancient science demonstrated the processes. Moreover, the cosmos, for example, was seen as being composed of something like a hierarchy of concentric spheres, the closer the relationship to the earth and matter the lower the order or status of the sphere.  

The notion of the individual

A radical departure from the ancient 'natural' order was the Christian understanding of human kind: God created rational creatures who were endowed with the ability to reason and were free to make choices. It was an egalitarian understanding  whereby all individuals, no matter what their social status, race, or gender have a soul and are socially responsible. This notion developed into a new sociability,  a ..."sociability founded on the role of the individual conscience, on accepting the claims of a universal moral law. In no sphere did this emerge more clearly than in the status and treatment of women. We have seen that women had played an important part in the growth of the early church." The equal status of men and women in the marriage union was also reflected in society. The Biblical concept of reciprocality whereby you are expected to treat others as you would have them treat you has become known as the "golden rule" and is a foundation for a theory of "natural rights", ..."rights which belong to the individual as such, rights which are in that sense pre-social and ought to serve as a criterion of legitimate social organisation."

The individual and Government

The concept of democracy, liberalism and the notion of the individual and our understanding of natural rights were all developed in the hothouse of Western monastic culture. While Europe fragmented into localised feudal fiefdoms after the fall of the Roman empire the proliferation of monasticism preserved and spread Christendom throughout the West. In contrast to the hierarchical structure of the secular feudal society Western monasticism gave value to the individual and fostered the notion of egalitarianism. In monasteries persons neither had property or differential status but did have individual rights and responsibilities. Thus monasteries were regarded associations of individuals of equal status, for example, an abbot was usually elected by the monks. Thus, it was effectively government from the bottom up and essentially laid the foundation for modern liberal democracies. 

Meaning of individuals

By the time of the Renaissance the rise of individual agency and the development of modern liberal science and liberal society based on reasoned argument was already well underway. Theologians and philosophers in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries developed cannon law which gave legitimacy to the notion that corporations came to be understood as associations of individuals. Thus the final authority of any association is found in the individual.

Springtime for Snowflakes: A book review

Snowflakes
The term 'Snowflakes' refers to the generation centred around the year 2000 to the present and is characterised by having less psychological resilience than previous generations. They are more emotionally vulnerable and take offence with ideas that challenge their own world view. Snowflakes have generally been raised by over-protective parents that give their children a sense of their own uniqueness and entitlement. When they feel emotionally challenged with language,  actions or confronting ideas, in  tertiary settings, for example, they often appeal for help, often through social media or appeal to campus authorities to shame or shut down the opposing views.

Academic climate: in crisis
Many higher education campuses thoughout the the US and other western countries have promoted social justice consciousness-raising or "wokeness". This ideological bias can be evidenced by the prevalence of "safe spaces, " trigger warnings," "bias reporting hotlines," and the "no platforming" of speakers. Such terms and actions as these have found their way into feminist and gender theory and into mainstream college and general university culture. This situation reinforces the vulnerabilities of the snowflake generation and gives legitimacy to a self-righteous and bigoted notion of social justice ideals. The effect of these trends is the stifling of free speech and developing a climate for a no-contest for ideas. Instead of promoting fee speech and open debate many universities and colleges have become close minded and self-censoring.

Social Justice
Social justice principles have promoted diversity and inclusion in most Western societies. Since the 1960s the social justice movement, particularly in America, promoted civil rights for people of all races. Social justice ideals have been important in promoting tolerance and improving the lives of the disabled, women, racial, religious, gender and ethnic groups within western societies.

Overtime time, however,  "social justice warriors" have become intolerant to other voices in society.  Rectenwald contends rather than encouraging diversity and inclusion social justice ideologies have become increasingly authoritarian and anti-intellectual. Public universities and colleges have for centuries been the melting pot for openness, critical thought, creativity, innovation and the fostering of academic rigour using scientific methodology. In contrast, so called "justice warriors" are often blinded by their own self-righteousness (see previous book review) and intolerance, for example, they would not use demeaning and derogative terms used to highlight racial difference but have no compunction about using bigoted terms such as "toxic masculinity" or 'white privilege' to shame and silence others.

Social justice as an ideology
The transformation of social justice into a 'fundamentalist' ideology by the progressive left draws upon Critical Theory (see earlier book review), liberal philosophy and postmodern theory and has led to a paradox of tolerance where pure tolerance is now impossible. Rectenwald contends that some sentiments in society are so intolerant that they become "intolerable". This social justice ideology draws from linguistic constructivism, rather than language representing reality it instead, constitutes a kind of social reality. This theoretical perspective takes the view that rather than describing a physical act it is itself a material agent. This orientation promotes terms such as "discursive violence" and "hate speech" not as a description of distasteful language but rather the social justice believer equates opinion with violence itself.

Dogma and the new religion
Linguistic and social constructivism is a type of philosophical and social idealism that enforces moral absolutism, which demands that all citizens should be of the one mind - a religious fundamentalism .  Rectenwald believes ..."Once beliefs are unconstrained by the objective world and people can believe anything they like with impunity, the possibility for assuming a pretence of infallibility becomes almost irresistible, especially when the requisite power is available to support such idealism. In fact, given its willy-nilly determination of truth and reality on the basis of beliefs alone, philosophical and social idealism necessarily becomes dogmatic, authoritarian, anti-rational, and effectively religious" (see also Is postmodernism a religion). This is at odds with the Christian notion that all individuals are equal, responsible, and should be free to make their own choices; principles promoted by Martin Luther King and others during the civil-rights movement.

The Book:
Rectenwald, M. (2018). Springtime for snowflakes: Social justice and its postmodern parentage. Nashville: New English Review Press.

See also:

'Deplorable professor' sues NYU

Stephen Hicks: falsification of Marxism and the development of Postmodernism

Dr Alan Kirby on Post-postmodernism

Review: The Righteous Mind

Cover image from Amazon

Reason: a slave to emotion
The righteous mind is by nature a mind that is moralistic, critical and judgemental. Haidt contends this characteristic has been reserved for the righteous conservatives but is now exhibited by the post-modern progressives in society. It would seem that adherents to contemporary notions of social justice would hold that truth as being relative and rationalism as being delusional.

Generally people seem to condemn some distasteful actions very quickly, in doing so they tend not to use sufficient time to think carefully but act from a feeling orientation. Haidt supports Humes contention that most people are slaves to passion. For most of us our passions are automatic. This is particularly pertinent in an age where social justice and political correctness are emotionally sensitive issues. Ever since the Age of Enlightenment reason has been held to be our most noble attribute. However, arguments in the public sphere are no longer focussed on truth.  In the postmodern era truth is relative and has given way to passion and tribalism.

Reason and faith
Haidt claims that, "In the decades after Hume's death the rationalists claimed victory over religion and took the moral sciences off on a two-hundred year tangent." However, Haidt does not develop this important notion to any extent. He briefly mentions the contribution of Christianity to Western civilisation and progress. He also discusses the ethics of utilitarianism and deontology but does not elaborate on the sacred and man's relationship of being made in 'God's' image. This relationship elevates mankind as co-creators and as beings that are imbued with dignity. Creativity values both reason and faith. Reason without faith leads to reason's demise just as faith without reason is doomed to fail.

Six foundations: understanding the righteous mind
Haidt develops a particularly interesting premise on which to view current social development where both faith and reason are facing darker times. He draws a distinction between liberals, libertarians and social conservatives by showing how they are different and what drives their particular world views within contemporary society. Such values cut across political party lines to varying degrees. This is a useful tool in understanding the mess we are in at this moment in history.

These distinctions are given some extra depth by considering six foundational elements that further differentiate current political and social groupings: care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation as moral foundations. For example, the political left strongly rests on care/harm and liberty/oppression which support the ideas of social justice and emphasise compassion for the poor and the marginalised. In contrast, conservatives care more about the fairness/cheating foundation.

He finishes with some good advice for the the next time you find yourself seated beside someone from a different orientation. Don't just jump straight into the conversation to defend your point of view by bringing up contentious issues of morality. Start by establishing some common ground, use a bit of praise and express some genuine interest the other person's concerns.

Haidt, J, The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. London: Puffin.

Also read:
The death of postmodernism and beyond Alan Kirby

The Limits of Critique

Cover image from Amazon

Modern-day critics
Modern day critics of literature unmask and delve between the lines to determine hidden truths and repressed beliefs. It stems from Marxist critical pedagogy, that requires consumers of literature to adopt a critical and questioning approach to reveal embedded social and political power relationships that lie, often unnoticed, within text and other works of art. Critique is now the dominant form of interpretation in literate circles. Rita Feleski examines critique and situates it among other forms of literary examination and credits it with a worthwhile contribution. However, it does have its obvious limitations. It is essentially a poststructuralist notion of language whereby the practitioners of critical literacy search for discourses and reasons why they are included or left out of texts.

Suspicion
Interpretation is often motivated by a spirit of disenchantment and skepticism or outright condemnation. Freud and Nietzsche join Marx as the creators of this art of critical interpretation. They have instantiated a system of suspicion of motives.

To the postmodern critic meaning is not always apparent. It must be disentangled and discerned. Rather than revealing ultimate truth it seeks to unveil hidden meanings and power relationships. This view has been given impetus by post-structuralist language thinkers such as Foucault and Derrida, who have entrenched the notion of suspicion and made truth a relativist quagmire, particularly when combined with Marxist and Freudian thought. "This entrenching of suspicion in turn intensifies the impulse to decipher and decode. The suspicious person is sharp-eyed and hyper alert; mistrustful of appearances, fearful of being duped, she is always on the lookout for concealed threats and discreditable motives. In short: more suspicion means more interpretation".

Society and contemporary culture
The consequences are catastrophic because the focus on suspicion and skepticism serves as a catalyst for political dissent. Those that are marginalised and victimised are more likely to harbour mistrust of the motives of others. What now pervades contemporary culture is a sense of disbelief. "While poststructuralist critique rejects hidden truth and dogged or naive pursuit of ultimate meaning, it engages nonetheless in what I (Felski) call a second-level hermeneutics - a method of reading that looks beyond the individual text to decipher larger structures of cultural production." Emotional cues in text and film, for example, are intertwined with inferences and judgements that give vital clues to the characters and their world view. However, we must be cautious about imposing their own ideas and prejudices, in effect this has a serious ethical and moral dimension. In the end it comes down to an austere exercise in demystification rather than attention to aesthetics and associated affective qualities of a work. of art.  In other words, it is a metaphorical act of 'digging-down' rather than 'standing-back'.

Postcritical interpretation
Felski maintains that the act of criticism is an integral part of Western civilisation. Part of being a responsible individual in society is having the privilege to dislike and have a desire to bring about change. However, forms of disagreement in democratic societies has been couched in particular and acceptable forms that legitimate diverse views. Felski believes that ..."critique, as we have seen, is not one thing but an eclectic array of philosophical tenets, political ideologies, and modes of interpretation." Moreover, we in the west have built walls around cherished world views and interpreted art and public discourse through a narrow sense of mistrust and disbelief. The antidote to the critique of suspicion is what Felski calls a 'postcritical interpretation.

Postcritical interpretation takes into consideration a variety of critical perspectives and traditions. Rather than 'digging down' and 'standing back' critiques should engage with works of art and  appreciate aesthetics. This wider approach seeks to recontextualise what we know and to view our world with new perspectives. Often works of art, whether the written word, film, art, etc have the potential to reorient and refresh our situational perspectives. Such works may often stem from different regions, periods and personal world views but are always embedded within various religious, philosophical and cultural contexts. Thus, critique should not only be concerned with skepticism but should also consider beauty and creative work's inherent ability to challenge our own thinking and to open up new possibilities. Without this tolerant and wider view of critique we will become slaves to narrow ideology and dogmatism.

Felski: R. (2015). The Limits of critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

See also:
Postmodernism is dead -what comes next - Alison Gibbons