Liberalism versus identity politics and social justice

From: jimruttshow8596

The discussion between Jim Rutt and James Lindsay delves into the core distinctions between philosophical liberalism and contemporary movements often labeled “Social Justice” or identity politics. Lindsay, an author and independent thinker, along with his co-author Helen Pluckrose, argues for a return to liberal principles as a means to achieve genuine progress and address societal challenges [07:17:00].

Philosophical Liberalism: The Alternative

According to Lindsay, philosophical liberalism stands opposed to authoritarian movements of all types, regardless of their political alignment or religious underpinnings [07:31:00]. It is presented not merely as a political philosophy, but fundamentally as a method for resolving conflicts between individuals and within societies [10:44:00].

Key tenets of this liberal approach include:

• Property Rights [10:52:00].
• Democracy: A method for authenticating leaders and resolving political conflict [11:16:00].
• Freedom of Expression: Including the right to petition the government and peacefully protest [11:41:41].
• Reasoned Argument and Evidence: A preference for settling conflicts through objective evidence and logical reasoning, rather than emotional responses or demands [12:10:00]. This means acknowledging that truth can sometimes be uncomfortable and life unfair, but still prioritizing empirical reality [12:22:00].
• Universal Humanity: A core belief that all human beings are autonomous individuals with their own minds, intellects, and capacities for moral decision-making [16:40:00].
• Self-Correction: Liberalism’s strength lies in its willingness to self-criticize and improve, continuously striving to live up to its ideals [20:23:00]. Historical examples cited include the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights movement, both driven by appeals to foundational liberal principles [20:47:00].

Lindsay contends that liberalism has achieved unmatched successes in human history by consistently reducing oppression and increasing flourishing wherever its principles are applied [19:26:00].

The “Social Justice” Movement: A Counter-Liberal Worldview

In contrast to philosophical liberalism, the current “Social Justice” movement (capitalized as a term of art) is described as having a fundamentally different worldview, epistemology, and ethics [01:04:24].

Roots in Postmodernism and Critical Theory

The movement’s methodology is deeply influenced by critical theory infused with post-modern epistemology and ethics [10:18:00].

Postmodernism’s Origins: Beginning in art and literature around the 1940s, postmodernism questioned rigid structures and rules, emphasizing that rules are often arbitrary [25:45:00]. French philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault in the 1950s and 60s applied this to language and power, arguing that culture is produced through linguistic representations and that societal rules inherently contain “structural oppressions” [26:51:00].

The core postmodern idea is that all knowledge and claims to truth are political, serving power dynamics rather than describing objective reality [29:19:00]. This leads to:

• Postmodern Knowledge Principle: No access to objective truth; all knowledge is socially constructed, often in service of power [41:11:00].
• Postmodern Political Principle: Dominant groups construct knowledge to maintain power, making it an ethical imperative to dismantle these “powerful discourses” [41:19:00].

Four Core Themes of Postmodernism:

1. Blurring of Boundaries: Eliminating distinct categories (e.g., man/woman, knowledge/storytelling) to make everything interchangeable [42:09:00].
2. Almighty Power of Language: The belief that words act as “magic spells” to structure societal reality and sociology [42:26:00].
3. Cultural Relativism: Judging other cultures or knowledge systems (e.g., science vs. witchcraft) from one’s own perspective is deemed invalid [42:37:00].
4. Dissolution of Universal Humanity and the Autonomous Individual: Individuals are seen purely as products of their social groups, and there is no shared human understanding or universal principles [43:14:00].

The Applied Turn: In the 1980s and 1990s, postmodernism shifted from abstract deconstruction to a practical tool for radical activists. The “experience of oppression” was explicitly exempted from deconstruction, while postmodern tools were applied to dismantle perceived power structures and “oppressive” systems. This led to identity politics becoming central to the movement [46:05:00].

Key Manifestations of “Social Justice”

Postcolonial Theory

Postcolonial theory, influenced by figures like Gayatri Spivak, employs strategic essentialism [47:51:00]. This concept involves adopting negative stereotypes from a powerful group in an ironic, self-aware way to resist that power [48:26:00]. However, Lindsay argues that this often results in merely reversing existing hierarchies (e.g., “girl power” instead of chipping away at gender differences), rather than dismantling them entirely [49:56:00].

This leads to the concept of “decolonizing” fields like philosophy or science, based on the belief that reason and scientific methods are “properties” of white Western culture due to their historical development in Europe [52:52:00]. Teaching science in non-Western contexts is thus seen as a “colonial act” [54:03:00]. This perspective actively ignores the usefulness and universal applicability of reason and scientific knowledge [56:09:00].

Research Justice

A particularly “blatant attempt to cook the books” is the concept of research justice [01:05:59]. This idea asserts that research and academic canons have historically excluded ideas and voices from marginalized groups due to “systemic power dynamics” [01:06:08]. Therefore, there’s an ethical imperative to disproportionately cite “black women in particular,” and “marginalized voices,” and to minimize the amount of “white Western materials” in curricula [01:07:07]. This effectively makes an individual’s identity the primary criterion for citation and curriculum inclusion, rather than the merit or validity of the work [01:07:56]. This, Lindsay argues, is a deliberate attempt to manipulate academic standing for activists [01:08:16].

This approach has even begun to infiltrate mathematics education, with calls to make math “less individualistic and more collectivist” and questioning the “presumed objectivity of mathematics” [01:11:22].

Queer Theory

Queer theory radically rejects anything considered “normal” or “normative,” viewing it as inherently constraining [01:19:24]. Queer theorists opposed gay marriage because making it legal normalized being gay, thus removing its “radical divergent” status [01:19:32].

A highly controversial tenet is the claim, articulated by Judith Butler, that biological sex itself is as “culturally constructed” as gender [01:21:01]. This is seen as an extreme extension of deconstructing gender roles, aiming to destabilize any normative categories [01:22:32].

Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality

Critical race theory (CRT) traces the concept of race to its historical invention in the 16th century to justify racism, slavery, and colonialism [01:26:51]. While acknowledging that liberalism has worked to reduce the social significance of racial categories (e.g., through “color blindness”), CRT and intersectionality seek to re-emphasize the social significance of race and identity [01:27:40].

Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work is cited as foundational to this, asserting an “identity first” approach where “I am black” is more meaningful than “I am a person who happens to be black” [01:29:06]. This emphasis on identity aims to reverse power dynamics and assert “black power” [01:28:44]. This approach defines black culture in opposition to white culture, viewing values like productivity, reliability, and punctuality as “white supremacy” [01:33:09].

The Impact of the “Social Justice” Worldview

The “Social Justice” worldview is described as “hermetically sealed,” capable of dismissing any criticism as coming from a place of “white Western hegemonic culture” [01:03:39]. This perspective is seen as leading to:

• Psychological Harm: It encourages catastrophizing, paranoia, cynicism, and pessimism, making individuals more sensitive to slights and leading to a belief that the world is inherently against them [01:36:34].
• Backward Prescriptions: Even if some of its diagnoses of societal problems were correct, its proposed solutions are consistently “100 percent backwards” [01:39:26].
• Cynicism: It often uses word games and redefinitions (e.g., of “colorblindness”) to dismiss opposing views as “racist” [01:45:52].

Responding to the Tide of “Social Justice”

Lindsay proposes several actions for those who still adhere to liberalism and universal human principles:

1. Listen Better: Acknowledge the sincerity of some concerns, even if the proposed solutions are flawed [01:41:22].
2. Reassert Liberalism: Actively remind people of core liberal principles and civics, which have been systematically neglected in education [01:41:49].
3. Show Up: Engage in local bureaucratic processes, like school board meetings, where activists often gain influence due to lack of opposition [01:42:22].
4. Get Informed: Understand the arguments and jargon of the “Social Justice” movement, as well as the robust alternatives offered by liberalism [01:43:01].
5. Speak Up and Stand Firm: Do not be intimidated by accusations or name-calling. Those upholding liberal principles possess the “moral high ground” and “epistemological high ground” [01:46:28].