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