lenzen's review
3.0
In this book McManus argues that, especially with the emergence of Trump, postmodernism is becoming an increasingly strong influence on the right. McManus specifically argues that both right and left now have substantial movements which revolve around identity politics as a result of postmodernism.
Two Notions of Postmodernism
According to McManus, there are two notions of what postmodernism is: The first, which he finds more explanatory, is a cultural phenomena that is primarily a consequence of capitalism's enormous and enormously rapid power to transform society. Marx noted this early on and more recently it has also been noted by conservative Vivek Ramaswamy in his book [b:Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam|57030638|Woke, Inc. Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam|Vivek Ramaswamy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1621847094l/57030638._SY75_.jpg|89238794]. In that book, Ramaswamy credits capitalism's rise in India with effectively neutering the caste system in much of the country.
The second notion of postmodernism is as a philosophical school originating in France in the 1960s. Although the right sees the second notion of postmodernism as more important, McManus consistently downplays its importance or any influence that academics have in general. He insists that it is difficult for him to get his students to read even a 10 page essay so how could academics possibly be getting students to adopt philosophies to destroy Western Civilization?
Straw-Men and Uncharitable Interpretations
The preface of the book is hilarious and left me literally laughing out loud. I did, however, suspect that the book might be satire or just trolling due to all the straw-men and uncharitable interpretations. In this the book is rather inconsistent. In some essays, McManus goes to lengths to fairly present conservative beliefs as at least plausible but in others, there is little effort to do so. This is the book's biggest problem and I was absolutely dumbfounded that McManus sticks to the leftist party line in the cases were it is particularly shallow since he is clearly capable of looking deeper.
One of the standard leftist party lines that McManus sticks to is that the rise of right wing populism is due to conservative fear of change and, in particular, of straight, white males losing their power. There is no doubt that conservatives are worried about change but is the fear that white people will no longer have power or that neo-Marxist and postmodern philosophies are gaining ground? If it is straight, white males losing power, McManus needs to explain why conservatives love Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens, and Clarence Thomas, who are all black, along with Milton Friedman (Jewish), and, more recently, those who are "drifting right from the left" like Tulsi Gabbard (female), and Glenn Greenwald (gay). Here I am including the vast majority of Trumpists amongst those who love the people mentioned. No they do not put them out front as mere tokens while secretly calling them names behind their backs. Conservatives absolutely love them because they subscribe to the same conservative philosophies. Since McManus is a political scientist you would hope he would realize that to make a convincing argument that it is an "ism" or "phobia" at play he would have to provide some kind of empirical evidence, anonymous surveys perhaps, or at least some highly convincing logic that no it is not the politics that is the problem but the lack of whiteness, maleness, or heterosexuality.
From Trump's 2020 election results we saw that he gained ground with all minorities and with women. In the 2022 midterms there was a huge drop in support for Democrats among young black people. Are minorities all being duped due to the "false consciousness" that capitalism instills and walking straight into the mouth of the beast? Or is McManus's notion of "identity" a little off? If anyone can now associate themselves as having conservative/patriot/defender of Western Civilization as their identity, as minorities are increasingly doing, and conservatives love having them, does that not contradict the usual sense that "identity" is something you are born with little choice in the matter?
How Many Postmodern Conservatives are There?
One of the problems with McManus's arguments is that it is a little unclear who the postmodern conservatives (PMCs) are. He identifies Trump, various European nationalist and populist leaders, Steve Bannon and Dennis Pragger. He explicitly says he does not think all conservatives are PMCs but what percentage of Trumpists does he think fit the bill? This is important because one of McManus's central arguments is that PMCs are indifferent to the notion of truth. Now there certainly are opportunists on the right who are indeed indifferent to the notion of truth: they use whatever the base will believe because they think that it is that important that we beat the commie hordes. However, similar opportunists exist on the left. President Biden is one of them: take for instance his misleading statements regarding "deficit reduction" and "social security benefit increases" under his administration.
In terms of Trump's rank and file, it seems unlikely that they are "indifferent" to notions of the truth. It is more a case that they think Trump is telling the truth. It may seem ridiculous that they can honestly believe in "massive election fraud", but that it is the nature of politics. It has been shown that people's confirmation bias when loyalty to their side is at stake makes it near impossible to see problems with their side's position while they remain quite adept at seeing problem with the other side's. Evolutionarily this is probably due to the human predisposition to believe in religion which probably served an important evolutionary function at some point in the past. Loyalty to even ridiculous political and religious beliefs seems to be hardwired into people once they have chosen a side and especially at times when there is a major conflict between ideologies.
That leaves Trump himself. Is Trump indifferent to truth? It seems quite likely that he is, so here McManus has a point.
Are Left and Right Postmodernists Comparable?
Postmodernists on the left are mischaracterized as not believing in truth when in fact it is the possibility of knowing truth that they are "skeptical" about coupled with a belief that what society regards as a way of knowing truth is invariably just a means for one group to oppress another. McManus claims, by contrast, that for PMCs it is more a matter of indifference to what the truth is as opposed to skepticism about ever knowing it. He does, however, also cite conservatives thinkers arguing that since it is hard to know the truth traditions, the past, or even what a strong leader says should be held in high regard.
McManus is correct that there is a weakening of knowledge standards on both the left and right due to postmodern thinking. On the left it takes place starting in academia: for example in Critical Social Justice there is an increasing push to have myth, story telling, and "lived experience" pushed as valid means of knowledge even for the purpose of academic research (see, for example, the infamous paper on Feminist Glaciology). On the right, we do not see this in the small sliver of academia where conservatives still exist, but rather at the populist level in the notion that people should "do their own research". In both cases, weakening standards is a response to the perceived politicization of science: a key notion promoted by postmodernists.
PMCs: Why Now?
McManus believes that the rise of PMCs is due primarily to capitalism rapidly transforming society. He sees this change as leaving people fearful and without old traditions to hold onto. This is a strange argument because since the start of the Industrial Revolution technology has been advancing at breakneck speed in the United States and conservatism has endured. McManus also believes that "boredom" and "loneliness" are big factors in the rise of PMCs along with the rise of the Internet which promotes polarized identity politics.
McManus's belief as to which factors are most important is plausible. Another possibility, however, is that PMCs are right and there is a genuine ideological struggle. Polarization at such times is standard throughout human history as is the rapid spread of misinformation. The French Revolution is an example of this. McManus does not have any sympathy for the notion that there is a genuine ideology struggle at play now as the result of theories pushed by leftist academics. Most of the factors McManus mentions, however, are not unique to this point in history so other than the rise of the Internet the arguments are not convincing.
Coinciding with the rise of Internet, however, is what James Lindsay (one of McManus's archenemies nowadays) and Helen Pluckrose call the rise of "applied postmodernism" and "reified postmodernism" in their book [b:Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|53052177|Cynical Theories How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|Helen Pluckrose|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1582386609l/53052177._SX50_.jpg|73371092]. So which factor was most important? Or was it both in some combination?
Are Jordan Peterson's "PostModern Neo-Marxists" Even Possible?
As mentioned, James Lindsay currently seems to be McManus's big nemesis. At the time this book was written, however, James Lindsay had not yet written his. Thus Jordan Peterson is taken as the best public academic critic of postmodernism and Marxism from the right. McManus and other contributors to the book describe how postmodernism and Marxism are inconsistent. Here the problem is that they think primarily of classical Marxism and what I will call "classical postmodernism": i.e. prior to what Pluckrose and Lindsay describe as its evolution through "applied" and "reified" phases. What is left of postmodernism is incompatible with classical postmodernism. This was known and debated during the evolution through the "applied" and "reified" phases since classical postmodernism ultimately rejects any assurance of knowledge.
Similarly, neo-Marxism is not classical Marxism. Thus we find that some neo-Marxists like Adorno and Horkheimer were able to reject the notions of historical progress central to classical Marxism. (Others like Marcuse and Habermas were more optimistic.) Does that mean neo-Marxists are not Marxists or just that they are a new strain? What seems most essential to Marxist popular appeal is not the notion of historical progress or even the dialectic at all but rather the notion that Western Civilization is oppressive. That is something that reified postmodernists and neo-Marxists can agree on and how they were able to come together like a hand-in-glove in woke'ism. Another thing both reified postmodernists and neo-Marxists have in common is downplaying the authoritativeness of Enlightenment Rationalism and science (although with neo-Marxists the extent to which they do this varies from critical theorist to critical theorist). Neo-Marxists and postmodernists, hence, share a common interest in promoting “other ways of knowing” as on par with science.
If only oppressor versus oppressed is left could we say that the leaders of the American Revolution were postmodern neo-Marxists since they believed in the oppression of the British over the colonists? One difference is that postmodern neo-Marxists believe that there are gnostics able to understand and apply a "higher science" to the analysis of social problems and history and compared to America's founders they believe in giving more power to such gnostics as opposed to designing a system with a central tenet of limiting the power of government due to its history of abuse.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately the book is thought provoking. McManus does have a case that there is an increasing influence of postmodernism on the right. The case that it is comparable to the influence on the left, however, where it is an established school of academic thought, is not convincing.
On a more pedestrian level, the book suffers from being a series of very short essays with considerable repetition. It does seem like a low effort publication in this regard compared to writing it up as a real book instead. Finally, the organization of this book is ironic since one of McManus's central claims is that it was a move away from books to five minute compressions of complex issues on TV and then the rise of the Internet that led to the problems associated with the rise of postmodernism and identity politics.
Two Notions of Postmodernism
According to McManus, there are two notions of what postmodernism is: The first, which he finds more explanatory, is a cultural phenomena that is primarily a consequence of capitalism's enormous and enormously rapid power to transform society. Marx noted this early on and more recently it has also been noted by conservative Vivek Ramaswamy in his book [b:Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam|57030638|Woke, Inc. Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam|Vivek Ramaswamy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1621847094l/57030638._SY75_.jpg|89238794]. In that book, Ramaswamy credits capitalism's rise in India with effectively neutering the caste system in much of the country.
The second notion of postmodernism is as a philosophical school originating in France in the 1960s. Although the right sees the second notion of postmodernism as more important, McManus consistently downplays its importance or any influence that academics have in general. He insists that it is difficult for him to get his students to read even a 10 page essay so how could academics possibly be getting students to adopt philosophies to destroy Western Civilization?
Straw-Men and Uncharitable Interpretations
The preface of the book is hilarious and left me literally laughing out loud. I did, however, suspect that the book might be satire or just trolling due to all the straw-men and uncharitable interpretations. In this the book is rather inconsistent. In some essays, McManus goes to lengths to fairly present conservative beliefs as at least plausible but in others, there is little effort to do so. This is the book's biggest problem and I was absolutely dumbfounded that McManus sticks to the leftist party line in the cases were it is particularly shallow since he is clearly capable of looking deeper.
One of the standard leftist party lines that McManus sticks to is that the rise of right wing populism is due to conservative fear of change and, in particular, of straight, white males losing their power. There is no doubt that conservatives are worried about change but is the fear that white people will no longer have power or that neo-Marxist and postmodern philosophies are gaining ground? If it is straight, white males losing power, McManus needs to explain why conservatives love Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens, and Clarence Thomas, who are all black, along with Milton Friedman (Jewish), and, more recently, those who are "drifting right from the left" like Tulsi Gabbard (female), and Glenn Greenwald (gay). Here I am including the vast majority of Trumpists amongst those who love the people mentioned. No they do not put them out front as mere tokens while secretly calling them names behind their backs. Conservatives absolutely love them because they subscribe to the same conservative philosophies. Since McManus is a political scientist you would hope he would realize that to make a convincing argument that it is an "ism" or "phobia" at play he would have to provide some kind of empirical evidence, anonymous surveys perhaps, or at least some highly convincing logic that no it is not the politics that is the problem but the lack of whiteness, maleness, or heterosexuality.
From Trump's 2020 election results we saw that he gained ground with all minorities and with women. In the 2022 midterms there was a huge drop in support for Democrats among young black people. Are minorities all being duped due to the "false consciousness" that capitalism instills and walking straight into the mouth of the beast? Or is McManus's notion of "identity" a little off? If anyone can now associate themselves as having conservative/patriot/defender of Western Civilization as their identity, as minorities are increasingly doing, and conservatives love having them, does that not contradict the usual sense that "identity" is something you are born with little choice in the matter?
How Many Postmodern Conservatives are There?
One of the problems with McManus's arguments is that it is a little unclear who the postmodern conservatives (PMCs) are. He identifies Trump, various European nationalist and populist leaders, Steve Bannon and Dennis Pragger. He explicitly says he does not think all conservatives are PMCs but what percentage of Trumpists does he think fit the bill? This is important because one of McManus's central arguments is that PMCs are indifferent to the notion of truth. Now there certainly are opportunists on the right who are indeed indifferent to the notion of truth: they use whatever the base will believe because they think that it is that important that we beat the commie hordes. However, similar opportunists exist on the left. President Biden is one of them: take for instance his misleading statements regarding "deficit reduction" and "social security benefit increases" under his administration.
In terms of Trump's rank and file, it seems unlikely that they are "indifferent" to notions of the truth. It is more a case that they think Trump is telling the truth. It may seem ridiculous that they can honestly believe in "massive election fraud", but that it is the nature of politics. It has been shown that people's confirmation bias when loyalty to their side is at stake makes it near impossible to see problems with their side's position while they remain quite adept at seeing problem with the other side's. Evolutionarily this is probably due to the human predisposition to believe in religion which probably served an important evolutionary function at some point in the past. Loyalty to even ridiculous political and religious beliefs seems to be hardwired into people once they have chosen a side and especially at times when there is a major conflict between ideologies.
That leaves Trump himself. Is Trump indifferent to truth? It seems quite likely that he is, so here McManus has a point.
Are Left and Right Postmodernists Comparable?
Postmodernists on the left are mischaracterized as not believing in truth when in fact it is the possibility of knowing truth that they are "skeptical" about coupled with a belief that what society regards as a way of knowing truth is invariably just a means for one group to oppress another. McManus claims, by contrast, that for PMCs it is more a matter of indifference to what the truth is as opposed to skepticism about ever knowing it. He does, however, also cite conservatives thinkers arguing that since it is hard to know the truth traditions, the past, or even what a strong leader says should be held in high regard.
McManus is correct that there is a weakening of knowledge standards on both the left and right due to postmodern thinking. On the left it takes place starting in academia: for example in Critical Social Justice there is an increasing push to have myth, story telling, and "lived experience" pushed as valid means of knowledge even for the purpose of academic research (see, for example, the infamous paper on Feminist Glaciology). On the right, we do not see this in the small sliver of academia where conservatives still exist, but rather at the populist level in the notion that people should "do their own research". In both cases, weakening standards is a response to the perceived politicization of science: a key notion promoted by postmodernists.
PMCs: Why Now?
McManus believes that the rise of PMCs is due primarily to capitalism rapidly transforming society. He sees this change as leaving people fearful and without old traditions to hold onto. This is a strange argument because since the start of the Industrial Revolution technology has been advancing at breakneck speed in the United States and conservatism has endured. McManus also believes that "boredom" and "loneliness" are big factors in the rise of PMCs along with the rise of the Internet which promotes polarized identity politics.
McManus's belief as to which factors are most important is plausible. Another possibility, however, is that PMCs are right and there is a genuine ideological struggle. Polarization at such times is standard throughout human history as is the rapid spread of misinformation. The French Revolution is an example of this. McManus does not have any sympathy for the notion that there is a genuine ideology struggle at play now as the result of theories pushed by leftist academics. Most of the factors McManus mentions, however, are not unique to this point in history so other than the rise of the Internet the arguments are not convincing.
Coinciding with the rise of Internet, however, is what James Lindsay (one of McManus's archenemies nowadays) and Helen Pluckrose call the rise of "applied postmodernism" and "reified postmodernism" in their book [b:Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|53052177|Cynical Theories How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody|Helen Pluckrose|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1582386609l/53052177._SX50_.jpg|73371092]. So which factor was most important? Or was it both in some combination?
Are Jordan Peterson's "PostModern Neo-Marxists" Even Possible?
As mentioned, James Lindsay currently seems to be McManus's big nemesis. At the time this book was written, however, James Lindsay had not yet written his. Thus Jordan Peterson is taken as the best public academic critic of postmodernism and Marxism from the right. McManus and other contributors to the book describe how postmodernism and Marxism are inconsistent. Here the problem is that they think primarily of classical Marxism and what I will call "classical postmodernism": i.e. prior to what Pluckrose and Lindsay describe as its evolution through "applied" and "reified" phases. What is left of postmodernism is incompatible with classical postmodernism. This was known and debated during the evolution through the "applied" and "reified" phases since classical postmodernism ultimately rejects any assurance of knowledge.
Similarly, neo-Marxism is not classical Marxism. Thus we find that some neo-Marxists like Adorno and Horkheimer were able to reject the notions of historical progress central to classical Marxism. (Others like Marcuse and Habermas were more optimistic.) Does that mean neo-Marxists are not Marxists or just that they are a new strain? What seems most essential to Marxist popular appeal is not the notion of historical progress or even the dialectic at all but rather the notion that Western Civilization is oppressive. That is something that reified postmodernists and neo-Marxists can agree on and how they were able to come together like a hand-in-glove in woke'ism. Another thing both reified postmodernists and neo-Marxists have in common is downplaying the authoritativeness of Enlightenment Rationalism and science (although with neo-Marxists the extent to which they do this varies from critical theorist to critical theorist). Neo-Marxists and postmodernists, hence, share a common interest in promoting “other ways of knowing” as on par with science.
If only oppressor versus oppressed is left could we say that the leaders of the American Revolution were postmodern neo-Marxists since they believed in the oppression of the British over the colonists? One difference is that postmodern neo-Marxists believe that there are gnostics able to understand and apply a "higher science" to the analysis of social problems and history and compared to America's founders they believe in giving more power to such gnostics as opposed to designing a system with a central tenet of limiting the power of government due to its history of abuse.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately the book is thought provoking. McManus does have a case that there is an increasing influence of postmodernism on the right. The case that it is comparable to the influence on the left, however, where it is an established school of academic thought, is not convincing.
On a more pedestrian level, the book suffers from being a series of very short essays with considerable repetition. It does seem like a low effort publication in this regard compared to writing it up as a real book instead. Finally, the organization of this book is ironic since one of McManus's central claims is that it was a move away from books to five minute compressions of complex issues on TV and then the rise of the Internet that led to the problems associated with the rise of postmodernism and identity politics.
More...