The Psychoanalytic Critique of Cynical Theories (Part Three)
One of the most problematic things about Pluckrose and Lindsay’s Cynical Theories is that their book is full of superficial generalizations of French theorists’ works, and yet they still want to claim that they are providing close readings based on clear evidence: “we will make a case that we should counter these ideas through a clearly articulated mass commitment to the universally liberal principles and rigorous, evidence-based scholarship that define modernity” (19). Although I do agree that we should apply the modern ideals of empirical evidence, Pluckrose and Lindsay fail to live up to their own standards. For instance, they rarely quote directly the texts they are analyzing; instead, they rely on common misunderstandings of the people they are criticizing.
This desire to be seen as sticking with the facts, while one is simply repeating misleading generalizations, is a common problem for the center-Right. In fact, many podcasters and YouTubers make their living off of a fake form of modern reason: Since they want to attack the Left for undermining reason, they need to promote themselves as the ones who are making arguments solely on the basis of truth and evidence. For example, Ben Shapiro is fond of saying that “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Yet, Shapiro’s discourse if full of false claims and emotional appeals. Clearly, we have a case here of either a massive self-deception (repression) or the willingness to lie to others (cynical opportunism).
In one of the most openly hypocritical moments, the authors go as far as claiming that that thy are not doing what their book is actually performing: “This is not a book that seeks to undermine liberal feminism, activism against racism, or campaigns for LGBT equality. On the contrary, Cynical Theories is born of our commitment to gender, racial and LGBT equality and our concern that the validity and importance of these are currently being alarmingly undermined by Social Justice approaches” (19). Using the defense mechanism of negation, Pluckrose and Lindsay spend their time attacking liberal feminism, the fight against racism, and LGBT rights, but now they are saying that they are not doing what they are doing. As Freud would argue, they are admitting to their guilt, but they are also trying to deny what they are confessing.
One of the ways that they are able to maintain a contradictory relation to modernity is by claiming that the postmodernists combine together a modern critique of premodern institutions and beliefs with an ironic, nihilistic attitude: “At the same time, they took the modernists’ relatively measured, if pessimistic, skepticism of tradition, religion, and Enlightenment-era certainty—along with their reliance on self-consciousness, nihilism, and ironic forms of critique—to extremes” (22). As I have been arguing, it is actually Pluckrose and Lindsay who are being ironic and nihilistic since they want to be able to attack the postmodern Left and undermine the modern commitment to evidence as they seek out the recognition and support of conservatives and the Right. By failing to understand how modern capitalism has led to a replacement of all values with exchange value, they are forced to displace the loss of value onto the Left.
The basic center-Right ideology contains the following elements: 1) equating of liberalism with libertarianism; 2) the hiding of capitalist nihilism by blaming lost meaning on the Left; 3) the cynical use of the Web and other media sources to gain money and fame; 4) the combining of knowledge and entertainment; 5) insensitivity towards the suffering of minorities; 5) the promotion of a victim complex for the powerful; 6) a backlash against identity politics and minority-based social movements; 7) the false claim of being classic liberals; 8) the giving of a free pass to the Right by focusing on the Left; and 9) a confusing of the Left and Left-centrists.
It is my hope by carefully analyzing this book, we can gain a better insight into how our current culture wars are structured. As I have insisted, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the major ideologies shaping our lives today, and this process requires combining a psychoanalytic understanding of psychopathology with a close reading of cultural texts.