Talk:Critical theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Writing style is opaque

(heading added 2006-08-22)
This page seems to spend a lot of time telling us about who writes about "critical theory" without actually telling us what it is. Can it not be rewritten to make some kind of sense to someone wanting to find out what it is? I'm not aware of any other field of human endeavour so opaque to outsiders. Someone has to make some kind of effort to persuade people that there's something important to learn there.

I agree. One requires a post-graduate degree in gobbledegook to understand the meaning of the particular "human texts and symbolic expressions" presented here. Fascinating though the "tendency to engage with non-Marxist influences" may be, such insights get the casual reader no nearer to an understanding of what "critical theory" actually is. Or perhaps that's the whole point ... is it all just so much self-serving waffle? Orie0505 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's 2012 and it's the same situation.

Here is the heading.

Critical theory is a Neo-Marxist examination and critique of society and culture, drawing from knowledge across the social sciences and humanities. The term has two different meanings with different origins and histories: one originating in sociology and the other in literary criticism. This has led to the very literal use of 'critical theory' as an umbrella term to describe any theory founded upon critique.

THIS PARAGRAPH MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE AVERAGE WIKI READER

In the sociological context, critical theory refers to a style of Marxist theory (Western Marxism) developed in the 1930s with a tendency to engage with non-Marxist influences (for instance the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud).[1] Modern critical theory arose from a trajectory extending from the antipositivist sociology of Max Weber and Georg Simmel, the Marxist theory of Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, toward the milieu associated with Frankfurt Institute of Social Research.

THIS PARAGRAPH MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE AVERAGE WIKI READER

Five "Frankfurt School" theorists were chiefly responsible for establishing critical theory as a specific strand of thought: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and, slightly later, Jürgen Habermas. With the latter, critical theory shed its roots in German idealism and moved closer to American pragmatism. The concern for a social "base and superstructure" is one of the few remaining Marxist concepts in much contemporary critical theory.[2]

THIS PARAGRAPH MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE AVERAGE WIKI READER

Whilst the critical theorists are usually defined as Marxist intellectuals, their tendency to denounce so many Marxian elements has been attacked as 'revisionism' by stricter Marxists. Martin Jay suggests that the first generation of critical theory is best understood not as promoting any specific philosophical agenda or ideology, but rather as "a gadfly of other systems."[3]

THIS PARAGRAPH MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE AVERAGE WIKI READER

This article is another example of both wikipedia wanking, and just dumbassery constantly rewriting the articles for Ph.Ds and other dumbasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.47.124 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted reference

(heading added 2006-08-22)
Deleted the reference to suck.com, which is an amusing site but not really related to this topic. The critical theorists are slightly less effervescent than a morgue.

ie - anyone know what this means?

To use an epistemological distinction introduced by Jürgen Habermas in 1968 in his Erkenntnis und Interesse (Knowledge and Human Interests), critical theory in literary studies is ultimately a form of hermeneutics, i.e. knowledge via interpretation to understand the meaning of human texts and symbolic expressions. Critical social theory is, in contrast, a form of self-reflective knowledge involving both understanding and theoretical explanation to reduce entrapment in systems of domination or dependence, obeying the emancipatory interest in expanding the scope of autonomy and reducing the scope of domination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.63.229 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion ideas

(heading added 2006-08-22)
We need to expand the above to give the more ordinary understanding of the word now, which has "critical theory" not just as a label for the products of the Institute for Social Research. It is now very nearly the same thing as cultural studies; we could put cultural studies on the front page, actually, rather than Critical Theory. --LMS

Classify under Social Sciences

(heading added 2006-08-22)
A Cultural studies page should most probably go under the Social Sciences heading rather than the Culture heading... -- BryceHarrington

Omission of "critics" of the theory

(heading added 2006-08-22)
You left out critics of critical theory. How can you be so one-sided? Ed Poor

Stop griping and add the critics yourself!

A critic of critical theory would be an uncritical theorist. would that make them less effervescent than even a critical theorist?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved Frankfurt school material

(heading added 2006-08-22)
I moved a lot of the Frankurt-school specific stuff to the Frankfurt School page, where it more properly belongs. I will soon expand the remainder with regard to the theoretical/philosophical/methodological aspects of critical theory per se as a kind of theory, which will also make it possible to incorporate aspects of critical theory that lie outside of the Frankfurt School proper, e.g. Foucault, Bourdieu, and feminist theory. -- Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Broader vs. narrower version

(heading added 2006-08-22)
This article is branching sharply away from a description of the narrow (if not quite Frankfurt-School-specific) definition of "critical theory" into a general account of "theory" in the humanities and social sciences. I think the narrower version was more meaningful, and articles exist on Continental philosophy and literary theory which this page shouldn't duplicate. At a minimum, the more Frankfurt-specific meaning of "critical theory" from older versions like [1] should be resurrected. The new version is something that can be called by a lot of names -- literary theory, cultural theory, continental philosophy -- while the old version represents something that is only called critical theory. -- Rbellin 15:24, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, critical theory is what the term is typically referred to within the humanities - literary theory applies only to texts, continental philosophy doesn't really encompass someone like Foucault, cultural theory doesn't really deal with sometthing like Heidegger. Critical theory is the best term to encompass all of that. I think "Frankfurt school" covers the Frankfurt-school specific approach quite well. Snowspinner 17:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is really not a major point, I guess, but I dispute the claim that "critical theory is what the term is typically referred to within the humanities" (not sure I understand this, but I guess what you mean to say is that the thing you describe as "critical theory" is most commonly referred to by that name within the humanities). That's just not factually accurate, or at least not in my experience (as an academic in the humanities myself). Pretty much all the academics I know would describe this amorphous entity as "theory," "literary theory," or "continental philosophy." In my experience "critical theory" is more often used as a specific term related to a smaller group of authors centered around the Frankfurt School. It seems our impressions of the facts of the case differ here. All the same, as I say, it's a minor point. -- Rbellin 21:23, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At a quick glance, UC Irvine's Critical Theory Institute seems to cover a lot more than Frankfurt School. My experience at Chicago has been similar. Literary theory refers specifically to what English people do, continental philosophy is similarly philosophy centric. Theory in general is more promising, but really only works within the humanities - we'd get a lot of pissy scientists if we called it "theory". Snowspinner 22:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that "Critical Theory" primarily refers to the post-Marxist school of criticism that centered around the Frankfurt School. Webster's New Millenium Dictionary of English (via dictionary.com) only has one definition, and it directly references the Frankfurt School. This article should discuss the broader heritage of the Frankfurt School in contemporary theory (i.e. in the work of Jameson, Baudrillard, Habermas, etc), and thus be an entry point into Critical Theory as a school of continental philosophy, and its applications in other disciplines, like education and political theory. For anyone interested in literary criticism, I suggest we redirect from this page to literary theory and literary criticism pages. People who want such a vastly expanded take on contemporary theory should definitely be redirected to continental philosophy (why shouldn't this category include Foucault?) -- Symbot 04:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An opening paragraph

"Begin at the beginning. Go on until you come to the end. Then stop."

Lewis Carroll

An opening paragraph has been omitted at this entry, what with all the talk around the subject. I can't even make a stab at it. Someone please fill in the blanks and give this torso a head such as:

"In (what's the field), the cluster of related ideas called Critical Theory address (particular issues) within (identifiable parameters) using the rhetoric and techniques established in (what?)". Continue in this vein until a full, evocative opening description of "Critical theory" has been expressed. If someone wants a definition at Wikipedia, they should find an expanded one in the opening paragraph, before the subject is broken into subheadings. Doesn't that seem fair to your reader, who has run across "critical theory" and googles the phrase. I got here fresh from describing "Chinoiserie" which is a sub-set of "critical theory." ...Apparently... Wetman 18:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

(fixing formatting) I agree with this comment and will take a stab at a general introduction. -- Rbellin 02:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Several of us on CommunityWiki are struggling to understand "Critical Theory."

It is not because we necessarily agree with it- we don't know if we do. But it's because we feel resonance with it. Several of the terms and issues here are ones we find ourselves using. It is hard to understand the page as it presently reads; We need a PlainTalk description of the issues.

Some questions that, if answered, may help clear things up for those of us who are not familiar with the theory, but feel some sympathy for it:

• Why do Critical Theory people care about "Identity?" What kinds of identities are they talking about? For instance, my name is Lion Kimbro. Okay: Who cares? What does the Critical Theory care about my identity? Of all the things in the universe the Critical Theory could pick to talk about, why did they decide that "Identity" was something they cared about?
• What kinds of conclusions did the Critical Theory reach about "Identity?" If I were a lumber jack, what would the Critical Theory give me? Could it help me do something else instead, perhaps? Are there notions in the Critical Theory that could help me become a Piano Teacher? What does the Critical Theory help me do?
• What does "dissonance" between public identity and private identity mean? Is that like, Fred goes to school, and likes who he is, but the public tells Fred that he's garbage if he's not wealthy? If that's true, then tell us about that thing. It's really hard to read past the abstractions in here.
• If that is the case, then what does Critical Theory tell us about this dissonance? What can you do if there is such a dissonance? What kinds of paths would the Critical Theory recommend, and why?
• What kinds of ways did the Critical Theory tell us that cultural institutions shape us? What kinds of mechanics did it look at? "Mechanics of privilege and marginalization-" Were they concerned with, say, television advertising? How much detail did they get into it's analysis?

Coverage of Criticism of the Field is Needed

Critical Theory certainly ought to be expounded upon, but its critics also ought to be expounded upon, as critical theory is neither universally accepted nor universally respected, even among academics and philosophers. Two of the notable strains of criticism that ought to be documented are:

• An attack from the Left that critical theory is too academic, dense, and divorced from politics to make a real difference in people's lives. E.g. Katha Pollitt [1].
• An attack from lots of random places that critical theory is a bunch of uninteresting academic hacks writing poor essays that say nothing of note, and say it badly. Two brouhahas of note are the acceptance of a deliberately nonsensical article by Alan Sokal by the supposedly peer-reviewed journal Social Text [2] and the awarding by the journal Philosophy and Literature of its "Bad Writing Contest" prize to critical theorist Judith Butler, which ended up being written up in the Wall Street Journal by the journal's editor, spawning a thorough public ridicule of the field. Also relevant is an apologia from critical theorists defending themselves after that incident [3], and a further attack (among many) against that defense [4].

In any case, I don't know all the details, and don't have time right now, but ideally someone intimitely familiar with these matters could write up a summary. It's a rather controversial issue, and the incidents described above are quite well known even among the general public, so we ought to report them.

1. Katha Pollitt. Pomolotov Cocktail. The Nation, June 10, 1996, p. 9.
2. Alan Sokal. Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text 46/47 (1996), pp. 217-252.
3. Just Being Difficult? Academic Writing in the Public Arena. Eds. Jonathan Culler and Kevin Lamb. Stanford University Press, 2003.
4. Mark Bauerlein. Bad Writing's Back. Philosophy and Literature 28 (2004), no. 1, pp. 180-191.

--Delirium 05:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen the article on the Sokal Affair and the "anti-" sections of the articles on postmodernism and deconstruction? I think the major problem with Wikipedia's pages on contemporary Continental philosophy (and its many pseudonyms, like literary theory and critical theory) is not a lack of criticism. And especially not a lack of criticism which takes "it" (whatever it is) as a single, unified thing -- which is basically a completely naive attitude, but one that gets a lot of press. I think it would be far more informative to treat the differences between thinkers, and their criticisms of each other, in greater detail. Wikipedia should not lend itself so readily to maintaining a state of willed ignorance about complex matters, even if NPOV requires that willed ignorance also have its say (does it?). Though, come to think of it, an article on academic obscurity and writing styles would be interesting enough. -- Rbellin 05:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I mostly objected to a reader of this article coming away with no idea that it's a highly controversial subject. I agree a brief note and then a pointer to other places this is discussed, like continental philosophy, is better than rehashing the same debates here. As far as treating it as one unified thing, from the perspective of analytic philosophy, which is where a lot of criticism comes from, it is all similar in being fundamentally non- (or even anti-) analytic. --Delirium 20:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Postmodernism series

I've created a template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger, Nazi party member

I see we have a series of edits going on over whether Martin Heidegger should be introduced as a member of NSDAP. I think not. He is not referenced by critical theory by virtue of his role in National Socialism, although names sometimes or often associated with critical theory have expressed a variety of views on Heidegger's culpability for this. If people want to learn about Heidegger, including his role in the Nazi Party, let them read the article. Otherwise people who persist in including this characterisation ought to argue its relevance here. Buffyg 6 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)

Clean Up

This could use some better organization. It looks like a textdump as is. Seeing as there is a split between the two forms of critical theory, that would be a place to start to re-organize it.--Weebot 19:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

adorno vs postmodernist philosophy

How is adorno's opposition to totality any different from later postmodernist philosophers' opposition to metanarratives? thanks.--Urthogie 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Talk page, plus comments

The six or so earliest comments didn't have headings, so I decided to be bold and add them for ease of page use; this way they appear in the Contents table (which consequently appears higher on the page) and can be replied to separately with greater convenience. You're welcome to revert if you think I was wrong ... if so, please paste these comments back in when you're done. (I didn't sign the additions so as not to confuse the reader into thinking I wrote the comments; this omission is not intended to deceive.)

Presently, there's no specific mention of "critical theory in education," which is a major subfield of the social sciences branch. I'm not competent to add it, as I merely studied it tangentially in graduate school and liked some (though not all) of the concepts I explored. However, I wanted to raise the issue that this part of the topic needs discussion. Obviously, if it already treated elsewhere in some other article, then we should simply find some way to link the two. Lawikitejana 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is Critical Theory in International Relations also

See "The Politics of Global Governance" edited by Paul F Diehl, Lynne Rienner publishers Boulder, chapter 3 "The False Promise of International Institutions" by John Mearsheimer, page 82. (article reprinted from International Security, Vol 19, No 3, Winter 1993.

Criticising 'critique'

Re. "Critical theory is social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole". According to wiktionary critique as a verb is defined thus:

Verb
(US) To review something. 
I want you to critique this new idea of mine.

If this is the meaning intended I suggest substituting the word 'review'. If not, the word is jargon local to the field, and ought to be better defined as an aid to comprehension for the lay reader. Dinamisbo 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OopS! I see now that critique is defined further down the page. Might I suggest that the quoted line is altered to "Critical theory is social theory oriented toward critiquing (see below) and changing society as a whole" Dinamisbo 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Plain Speech and Critical Theory

We need more explanation on this page. And it needs to be understandable. It can be done, I believe. Martin Luther King expressesed very very abstract ideas and profound arguments as if they were the plainest thing in the world. Collectively, by dialog and wiki, we may be able to construct simple explanations. Make it comm-on to commune-icate. Make it plain. If you don't know how, answer how you can, and we can work on it. Speaking plain isn't always easy. -- Lion Kimbro

Your missing the point Lion, you are not supposed to understand it. The subtext here is that people who write like this don't want to be understood by "lumberjacks". They don't want to be "understood" at all, in the usual sense of the word. But they are very keen to display their cleverness, as a way of distinguishing themselves from the un-washed proletariat, whom they pretend to defend. It's all about status and power. No "lumberjacks" allowed. The funny thing is that if you take the time to analyze this kind of writing and translate it into plain english, most of it evaporates into the banal and the patently ridiculous! see here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1785351.htm MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear MarkAnthonyBoyle, I think you're a bit off track. First, let's acknowledge that some critical theory is very hard to read. And, in some cases, yes, it's obfuscation and wordiness in place of clarity. At times, however, the difficult language helps to advance difficult ideas. It can take years of training to understand, but that's also true for advanced chemistry. Also, "plain talk" can conceal a real ideological agenda. Take your own country of Australia. One can say that Australia is a country, pure and simple. But we critical theorists would say, hmmm, let's look at that. What's a "nation?" What's a nation-state? What does "Australia" mean and who tends to exert control over its meanings? We might note, for example, the long history of White Supremacy in making "Australia," the way its economy is today dominated by large corporations, etc. The plain fact of "Australia" then becomes something to explore. And we critical theorists also look at ideas like "woman," "Black" person, "justice" and so forth. Does that mean we're unconcerned with justice? Heck no! Does that mean we don't believe in woman's rights? No sir. So it's not that we lapse into endless relativism, as your citation charges. Rather, we pay careful attention to the ways in which ideas are invented, shaped, and put to use. Give us a chance: you might find that a lot of us are plain-speaking folks, who really do want the best for everyone, including lumberjacks. --Dylanfly 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John Carey was talking about art criticism, but the quote applies just as well here: "It might as well be barbed wire, it is saying, ‘Get out, don’t come here, you don’t belong. If you can’t talk this kind of stuff, you don’t belong.’" http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigidea/stories/s1475178.htm . I'm sorry Dylanfly, I just don't buy the difficult ideas, difficult language argument. Difficult ideas need very clear and precise expression, not obfuscation and ambiguity. People who work in the education industry are paid to explain ideas. Furthermore, they are in a position of power, they are gatekeepers, they give out tickets to a better lifestyle. (I know, that's where I work these days). Are you really on the side of the underdog? Or are you more concerned with defending your privileged position with verbal barbed wire? It's a fair question, I think, don't you?MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair question. But there are points to make: (1) "Critical Theory" is an absolutely massive field of study. Boxing it all up and saying it's impenetrable is unfair. Critical Theory includes feminism, marxism, postmodernism, cultural studies, and critical race theory. Surely you find some of this accessible and informative? (2) I think it's valid to say that there are times when "plain speech" just doesn't get the job done. That's true in critical theory as it is for archeology, organic chemistry, and urban planning. Not everything has to be for a general audience. There are plenty of people who "translate" difficult stuff (like Judith Butler and Jacques Derrida) into easy ideas. Try reading a simple book by Walter Truett Anderson, such as Reality Isn't What it Used to Be. That's a super easy introduction. Give it a shot.--Dylanfly 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the attitude that gets my goat. Firstly, I'm admonished for being an Australian (probably a white supremacist, could well be misogynous to boot, hell, probably a homophobe as well), then I'm patronized (obviously need something easy to read). A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable. Sitting at a desk making stuff up is not intellectual or scholarly, except in the most base use of the terms; it's called fiction (this is an attack from the Socialist Left that critical theory is too academic, dense, and divorced from politics to make a real difference in people's lives). What I'm challenging here, to spell it out clearly, is that the purpose of an article in Wikipedia should be explanantory to someone without specific knowledge. If the material is controversial that should be noted (NPOV).MarkAnthonyBoyle 09:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry your goat was got, MarkAnthonyBoyle. It's just that critical theory has been around for more than seventy years. Whether some folks like, or agree with, it is of no real relevance here. What matters is that the subject be well described, and as just about all commentators have said, written in as plainly as possible. However, as Dylanfly points out, some of the concepts are not easily described in simple English. Lumberjacks may well not want to enter here. Now, if we could move on from everyone's point of view and use this page to discuss ways of improving the article... Sunray (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

how about a section detailing criticisms of the "theory?" 92.40.108.177 (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical ethnography

I trimmed out the material here that was also at the "main" article. neither are very good, but now they show movement "toward a critical representation of critical ethnography within the context of overtly neutral yet covertly biased collective documentation of cultural artifacts within the 'body' of electronic spheres of 'mind'" you know, this can be fun...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed the rest out because I couldn't find much to jstify this being such an important aspect of critical theory that it justifies it's own section. I could be wrong. If you know different feel free to revert. filceolaire (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Two primary definitions

The Greek noun from which kritikos is formed is krisis, which in its turn derives from the verb krinein. One cannot help wondering sometimes if there is a relationship between the unsuccessful attempt to deal with a language other than one's own and the inability to deal with the language that is one's own. Pamour (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just editted the Construction section and removed redundant words - Synthesis, production and construction all mean the same thing. Replaced them with creation.

If you feel There are real nuances that have been lost then please explain here what those subtle differences are here so we can find a form of words that reveals those subtleties to non sociologists like me. filceolaire (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The current lead reads like (an outdated) family history

I think there should be some discussion of what the purpose of critical theory is, and what people have done with it more recently. In this context, I'd like to discuss these edits in detail. Especially this deleted text:

The first use of the term originates with the work of neo-Marxist theorists closely connected to the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The term "critical theory" was meant to distinguish their work from "traditional" theory, by connecting "normative social criticism to the emancipatory potential latent in concrete historical processes," in order to "liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." These thinkers were influenced by German Idealism and Marxist theory, but have often engaged with non-Marxist influences (for instance the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, American Pragmatists such as John Dewey – and even Martin Heidegger).

It is only with Habermas that the connection to German Idealism has been severed, and a number of people have proposed a different way to "re-inherit" the tradition, most notably Nikolas Kompridis, a student of Habermas and also a consistent Heideggerian. The current lead misdirects readers into thinking that critical theory ended with Habermas. In fact, the last significant contribution to critical theory by Habermas was The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, which is almost three decades old.

Walkinxyz (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Drivel"

I typed in the word "drivel" and it sent me to "Critical theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.230.115 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Now when I type in "drivel" it sends me to "Scientology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.230.115 (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Both have been fixed. Regulars of this page should check links more often. I will see if I can lock the redirect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been set to Wikipedia:Pending changes now and that should fix.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of factual errors here

I just read "A Very Short Introduction to Critical Theory" and thought I'd see what Wikipedia had to say. Before I had read very far I had to stop and add this comment as there seem to be important errors here.

First, I'm not convinced "critical theory" has two meanings as stated in the first paragraph and repeated under definitions. Critical theory was the term take by Frankfurt school theorists when they came to the USA to escape Hitler. Partly as a result of their being in the USA and partly as a result of their German books being translated into English a subsequent set of ideas influenced by them appeared in various other disciplines such as Literature, Cultural Studies, Sociology etc. This wiki article doesn't seem to recognise the relationship.

Second - in the second paragraph it claims there were initially five Frankfurt School theoreticians and then speaks of a "second generation" of Frankfurt School scholars - Jurgen Habermas is right, but Gyorgy Lukacs and Gramsci are wrong - these are if anything pre-Frankfurt school, not second generation.

Third - although there claims to be a reference to it - I'm sure a concern with base and superstructure is not a remaining Marxist philosophic concept in much contemporary critical theory, the whole point of critical theory is to focus on ideology, language, power and concepts rather than situate these upon some "base". Further what is a "social" base and superstructure? The term refers to an economic base and a social superstructure, the concept of a "social base" seem meaningless.

Fourth the idea that critical theorists are revisionists I can imagine being said by "orthodox" Marxists but surely classical Marxists are the original 19th century Marxists in particular Marx and Engels, so how could they be critical to a twentieth century theory? The ideal that Analytical Marxists are critical of them for being revisionist I would consider doubtful also - there aren't any references to this claim, and while I can see Analytical Marxists being critical of imprecise use of language I haven't read them using "name calling" terms like "revisionist" on anyone.

I haven't read any more of the article, I felt I had to stop and add these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graceandpeace (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Added "technical" message

Added the technical template due to the writing style being completely opaque to non-experts in the subject. Judging from this talk page, a) I'm not alone and b) it's been like this since at least 2006. A couple of suggestions:

• Please focus on what critical theory is rather than what it aims to do. Take, for instance, the paragraph below, from the "Definition" section. This could describe virtually any modern worldview, except for those such as religious fundamentalism which reject most/all science.

The core concepts of critical theory are as follows:

1. That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), and
2. That critical theory should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.

• Avoid references to other schools of thought where possible, and limit the amount of name-dropping. If I were to define Christianity or quantum physics, I would not do so by saying "Christianity evolved from the Ancient Hebrew religion under Mithraistic and Orphic influences" or "quantum physics is the result of classical physicists rejecting particular elements of that worldview, such as Niels Bohr, and arriving at detailed conclusions about chemistry and determinism". Please explain, for non-experts like myself, what critical theorists actually think and/or do, and not just which philosophers synthesized which branches of Marxism. Those things might belong in a "See also" section or a detailed history, but not in the lead and definition.

Lunaibis 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lunaibis: Agree. This article is confusing to people who have never taken a Sociology class. I have clarified your template and added another.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Chas. Caltrop, it is up to you to gain consensus to change the lead of this article. It is also your responsibility to ensure that your edits are factually accurate. For example, in this edit you changed the text "Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud" to "Synthesizing the investigation methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theory proposes that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". Not only was that not an improvement of style, it involves a change of meaning, and it is highly doubtful that it is strictly correct on a factual level. "Synthesizing the investigation methods" of Marx and Freud does not mean the same thing as "drew on the critical methods" of Marx and Freud. The former claim appears to be a vulgarization and distortion of the latter, and I doubt it is correct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A reply

Sure, if you say so. Thanks, for taking the bait . . . and waiting for that call to Edit War.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That was a disruptive and immature comment, and anyone reviewing this exchange will see it as such. "Thanks, for taking the bait" implies that you are attempting deliberately to provoke me. Please don't. If the factual accuracy of your edits is challenged it is up to you to defend them, not to respond with nonsense. To reiterate, it involves a change of meaning to alter "drew on the critical methods" to "Synthesizing the investigation methods"; the former entails that Frankfurt School theorists were influenced by both Marx and Freud, while the latter unfortunately suggests that these were the only influences on the Frankfurt School, which is certainly wrong. Beyond that, "synthesizing" means something very specific and isn't the same as "drew upon", so again there is an unexplained and dubious change of meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A second reply

Sure, if you say so. Thanks, for taking the bait . . . and exposing your gaming of the system, just as you did at the Sino-Soviet Split page, several YEARS ago.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: The article should stay in the staus quo, consensus form. We have no consensus for a change, so staus quo takes precedence. More importantly, the new version appears unsupported by references in the body of the article. It should not be instated until we see some references that support it, especially the use of "synthesise" and the assertion about what the Frankfurt Theorists believed critical theory proposes. And Chas. Caltrop, some freindly advice. Your behaviour here comes close to tendentious editing, and your behaviour on this talk page shows all the signs of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Please, assume good faith on the part of other editors and respond in a polite, honest and helpful manner when discussing edits. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Mark Marathon (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC) .

Organizing content according to waves?

It might be useful to organize this page by allocating thinkers within "critical theory" according to "waves": "pre wave", the Frankfurt school 1st wave, 2nd wave etc.. This might help with a lot of the insanity found in this piece. It would also help in allowing us to add a lot more information on the newer generations of critical theory scholars in the world today.

However I know that doing so would also entail a brutalization of the incredible vivacity and differences among these documents. The danger, however, might be that in so doing we simply brutally intervene and take sides in the ongoing debates on this matter. Harbermas, after all, famously said the "first wave" built itself to a theoretical standstill...

Anyone have any thoughts on this? User:Pastisagrotesqueanimal

This Article Does Not Make Any Sense

I am an intelligent, highly-educated person and I could not make heads nor tails of the content of this article. This paragraph, for example: "Postmodern critical research is also characterized by the crisis of representation, which rejects the idea that a researcher’s work is an “objective depiction of a stable other.” Instead, many postmodern scholars have adopted “alternatives that encourage reflection about the ‘politics and poetics’ of their work. In these accounts, the embodied, collaborative, dialogic, and improvisational aspects of qualitative research are clarified”.

What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.113.230 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree--this article is a mess. Is the extensive discussion of the difference between literary critical theory and social critical theory necessary? Need it be so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mics 777 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been trying to clean it up. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Does the Critical Theory article at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy look more clear? For the section discussed in this thread, I doubt it is possible to explain it in 2 or 3 paragraphs. It will need a major expansion to become clear, and even then, it might not be fully accessible to everyone (I struggled with a few of these authors even when studying them formally). --MarioGom (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Stanford article is better written, but still overwhelming. Whatever is written here needs to be accurate, yet it also should be concise enough to be comprehensible or it's useless for the majority of readers. Tgrayson (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The article lacks a Criticism section...

... without which it is just an unserious write-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.53.245 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a criticism.Sdio7 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Vorbee (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There should probably be some criticism from a right-wing/anti-Marxist perspective, too. I'm sure there are anti-Marxist social theory alternatives to critical theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Drbogatyr: Feel free to contribute or propose any reliable source for that. --MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts about adding some stuff about the so-called Sokal Squared hoax? Frankly I find the attacks on critique by that crowd to be less than convincing, but they did attract a lot of media attention, and in the minds of many now "critical theory" is most closely associated with the caricature versions of queer theory etc. that they created/lampooned. I think a paragraph or so on this episode is warranted. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

more generally, I have just been revisiting Benhabib and Held, and really thinking that this page does not get across some of the key and important elements of critique... Given the relative sparsity of activity on talk I will just assume I can go ahead and start jazzing it up. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that this article (or any other article) needs a dedicated criticism section. While I agree with Cleopatran Apocalypse that this article should at least mention Sokal squared, I agree with the WP:NOCRIT essay that negative criticism should be woven throughout the article in the appropriate sections. --DavidCary (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it really doesn't make sense to have specific criticism sections, since good information and analysis should not really be expressed in normative terms. It doesn't really benefit anyone. The Sokal Squared hoax is a good example of negative reactions to /interpretations of critical theory in the public sphere, so I think it's notable for that reason. But it should be in the context of a broader discussion about the impact and reception of this theoretical approach. I am working on a bunch of articles in the broader genre — i.e. the claimed outgrowth of critical methods. It is a fascinating field. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You cannot possibly be serious that the main page about a major school of thought should not bother to acknowledge that there are critics and opposing views. Wikipedia is not a place for "broader discussion". People come here for facts. It is a fact that critical theory has been criticised by liberals and utilitarians and conservatives, why do you think that these critical facts should be woven into a longer essay? This is nothing short of obscurantist; trying to bury and reframe the criticisms of critical theory in a way that will make it seem to a casual reader hat critical theory is completely accepted and unchallenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.137.230 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Phantom quote

The first paragraph here cites Horkheimer as saying Critical theory seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them", referencing his book Critical Theory: Selected Essays, p.244. This quote is cited everywhere (it may be his most famous quote), but having looked through the book it does not seem to actually exist. The closest is on p.246, where he says "its goal is man's emancipation from slavery".

I'm happy to be corrected, but I think this is a phantom quote; i.e. a case of one person having misquoted it, and everyone else copying from that original misquote. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

Article Scope

This article will confuse readers who encounter critical theory in the broad sense and find here an almost exclusive emphasis on the older narrow sense. For example, it emphasizes Western Marxism at the expense of post-Marxism. For the "broad vs narrow" distinction, see The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This narrow emphasis becomes incoherent when the article (correctly!) list Erich Fromm, hardly a "Western Marxist"! Cerberus (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to what the difference between the Frankfurt School's CT and the general CT. Are they overlapping, completely different, or was one a successor to the other? Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree with the comments above and wonder (I am not an experienced editor) if there is a disambiguation problem here? The problem with this article as it stands is that it tries to deal with both a clearly definable thing (CT) and a completely different thing, if it is a thing at all, which refers to a vast range of different ideas and approaches. The article also has glaring errors, but they would be editable in the normal course of things. There is a Frankfurt School article: Should references to Critical Theory (caps) should be merged there? I have asked admin to take a look at Teahouse. Emmentalist (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Emmentalist, the teahouse is certainly a good idea. But admins have no special powers wrt content here. I agree that the CT/CT is a bit confusing here. But it's up to us (here on the talk page, or through WP:BOLD edits to the main article to figure something out :) I also believe that wikipedia's articles on Critical theory and/or the Frankfurt school are a bit lacking given the vast amount of scholarship on that topic...

A way forward? Maybe we can split this article into two? Maybe disambiguate to Frankfurt School? Not sure, but the term is also quite confusing in reality (not so much only here on wikipedia). The SEP is correct Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. ... many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. Mvbaron (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a WP:CHIMERA or if it's simply missing the connecting claim that "critical theories" are intellectual descendents of "Critical Theory". Sennalen (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm editing the lead, I might make more edits later

The lead section gave me the impression that the lowercase general "critical theory" is not attributable to the Frankfurt School. The source cited in the first section of the lead contradicts this, as does the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry. I plan on researching this further and editing as appropriate. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Alright nevermind, this is substantially more complicated than I gleaned from the initial sources. The general conception of "critical theory" does originate in the Frankfurt School but many invocations "critical theory" do not seem to actually meaningfully build off of the actual work of the Frankfurt School. I don't want to spend the massive amount of time necessary to research this thoroughly enough to rework this article so I'm leaving this up to people more literate in the subject than I. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 08:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro misleading

Opening prolog describes “critical theory” as if there is a “critical theory” outside tof marxist Critical Theory that is describes critical thinking. There is not, and reference #1 that this section references describes marxist Critical Tgeory from the Frankfurt school. 50.238.46.18 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Great Refusal

Marcuse's Great Refusal does not mean a refusal to work for political change, as the Criticism section claims. Entirely to the contrary, it means a refusal of technocratic liberal capitalism. It very strongly encouraged revolutionary praxis in the American and German flavors of SDS. Sennalen (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe Marcuse ever advocated "refusal to work for political change". This needs to be rigorously sourced, or deleted. Zaslav (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Simpler, more accessible language

I find the specialized terminology here makes it hard to know what is being said. Example: 'While modernist critical theory (as described above) concerns itself with "forms of authority and injustice that accompanied the evolution of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system" [I think I know what authority, injustice, etc. are.], postmodern critical theory politicizes social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts [what do they mean by that?], to implicate [what?] themselves [who?] in the process of collecting and analyzing data [what does that say about collecting data?], and to relativize [meaning?] their findings."' There are two quotations; are both from the same source? (The footnote is confusing.) I know it is hard to do, but a good encyclopedia article will explain to a non-expert something more comprehensible than this. Zaslav (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Classical Marxism

Still we don't know what Karl Marx really wanted a society equal for all or just domination of prolitariat 146.196.33.134 (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Post Modern Critical Theory

>Postmodern critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist-era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality, and universal truths, while politicizing social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings."[5]

The source doesn't say that, and no one in the source is a Critical Theorist. Feels like it's been tact on by someone looking to associate Post Modernism and critical Theory. 203.192.78.82 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"euphemism for marxism"

Regarding this edit, seeing a current political talking point appear verbatim at the top of a section admittedly caused one eyebrow to arch at bit. I'm trying to un-arch it and look at the sources to see what to make of it, and I'm not finding verification yet. A search through GBooks snippets for the Jay book doesn't reveal a clear match for the claim, but I don't have access to the whole thing, so apologies if I'm missing it. Reader doesn't verify the claim, either, and that one I have access to. It says, In other (though not all) respects, the self-definition of 'critical theory' in the 1930s reveals the name as a code term for Marxism (or Lukacsian Marxism) and not its drastic reinterpretation as primarily negative, immanent dialectical critique. In other words, some of the critical theory from that time is hard to distinguish from Marxist critique, and sometimes people may have used it because calling yourself Marxist could get you in trouble, but it's very far from saying "Critical theory is a euphemism for Marxism", which is inaccurate as a generalization and just sounds like we're calling them sneaky.

Regarding the line citing Marcuse, According to Herbert Marcuse, Horkheimer's Critical Theory was an interpretation of Marx through Freud while distancing itself from the name of Marx. - I was going to restore this, but reposition it, however there doesn't seem like a good place in the current article IMO. The current section on Marx seems to function as background, not on the varied ways his ideas were taken up in critical theory. We have a separate section about Horkheimer for a line describing Horkheimer's approach, and it could go there, I suppose, but on its own it doesn't seem ideal. After all, there's a lot about Marxism that Horkheimer wasn't into (including some things which were a sticking point for Marcuse in particular, like the potential for/importance of direct political engagement and collective action, I think). I mean, it's obviously fair to say that the Frankfurt School tried to distance itself from the name Marx when their lives were literally in jeopardy for the association in Germany, before moving to the US in between two Red Scares, but it seems like it does a disservice to the reader to say so without context. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I included the wrong page number from Jay. It's on xiv in the introduction, An inadvertent brand name (like "the Frankfurt School"), it has seemed to some as little more than a euphemism for Marxism, coined only to cover its exponents' radical tracks. cited to footnote 12 which quotes Gershom Scholem, I told him [Benjamin] that Horkheimer's programmatic essays about what was now being circulated under the code word 'Critical Theory' (for the word Marxism, which, as Benjamin explained to me, was now taboo for political reasons) had failed to enlighten me in this regard. [...]" "Euphemism" is thus Jay's choice of word. Although he distances himself a little from it saying it "seems to some", the "some" in question includes no less than Walter Benjamin, and Jay doesn't present any other theory of the phrase's origin.

Matuštík also enlists Marcuse to this position, quoting him as saying Horkheimer used Critical Theory as "a cover for Marxism." Matuštík says in his own voice, For Horkheimer, and partly for Adorno, Critical Theory had been a cover of self-distancing from the early Marxism of the IfS.

The more primary sources tend to say something like "code word", but "euphemism" seems to precisely capture the context that this is not just a particular argot but a deliberate construction to avoid another phrase. E.g., Merriam-Webster the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. I don't have sources that go in more detail on their reasons for doing this, but it squares with the naming of the Institute for Social Research, which would have been the Institute for Marxism if not for fears of alienating financial sponsors. Sennalen (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who Jay is, but using the correspondence between Scholem and Benjamin as evidence for what is "Marxism" or is not "Marxism," is the same as using any other right-wing analysis of the subject of "Marxism." For them "Marxism" was the enemy, "the beast," nothing else. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Martin Jay is one of the most preeminent living scholars on the history of the Frankfurt School. Walter Benjamin was a founding contributor to what became "Critical Theory" and an enthusiastic Marxist. Gershom Scholem, though critical of Marxism, was Benjamin's personal friend of many decades, collaborated with Theodor Adorno and was eulogized by Jürgen Habermas. Suffice it to say, you're barking up the wrong tree with this line of criticism. Sennalen (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on Jay and on Benjamin. It is true that Scholem was eulogized by Adorno, but he was much more than "critical" of Marxism (even though his brother died as a Socialist). After studying much of his vast material on Jewish mysticism and history, the conclusion is pretty much inescapable that he was very conservative, not to say outright "reactionary," in his political views. In any case, it sounded to me a little surprising that the evidence presented by Jay seemed to be putting a little too much emphasis on the correspondence between Scholem and Benjamin. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Critical theory uses Marxist philosphy in its analysis of culture, but also Hegelianism, Nietschze, and Heidegger, among others. It integrates existentialist thought in a way that Orthodox Marxism and Marxism-Leninism were clueless about, if you went up to Lenin and gave a critical theory analysis he would be utterly mystified. The figures around Schoelem such as Strauss are generally hypocritical as well anyway, they use Hegelianism in a materialist fashion, which really is Marxism, but they do it from the right, so it's totally different right. They also use Heideggerian and Nietschzean philosophy while hiding this fact and pretending as if it is simple the purview of their opponents and that's that. The greatest innovation the critical theorists made was to deconstruct the hegemonic culture itself and it's effect on the lived experiences of minorities in society who are thus unable to live authentic existences. This is the true heresy to them as their ideal image of society is simply hegemonic imposition of the authentic lived experiences of the hegemonic and the erasure of minority experiences and perspective. They are reading Heidegger straight in a more or less fascist fashion, the Critical Theorists are using him in a subversive fashion and turning him on his head. That's the true difference. 2601:140:9500:7F00:81DB:E23A:8B29:4B7A (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

needs reordering

very confused layout Thatjakelad (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Critical theory and "ideology"

The article currently includes this sentence, "It [critical theory] argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation." But since critical theory is itself a form of ideology, this line of argument destroys itself. What is best way to repair this? Pete unseth (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

But it is not, nor referred to as an ideology in the article. 213.161.247.227 (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Critical theory is a type of ideology, though the article may not refer to it as such. So, I refer again to the sentence about how critical theory views ideology. Pete unseth (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Critical theory is a methodology, not an ideology. Ie when rightists propose that their is an evil structural wokeness that must be purged from society, that is essentially a critical theory analysis. They are proposing that the structural forces are of wokeness, rather than misogyny and racism. Of course they do not acknowledge this, they plagiarize instead.2601:140:9500:7F00:81DB:E23A:8B29:4B7A (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"they plagiarize instead" Well, you can not be prosecuted for copyright violation for imitating the methodology of your opponents. Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical theory is certainly an ideology. "It argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals." (That is not a "methodology".) Then in the next sentence, "ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". As it is now written, it would then appear that for critical theory followers, "ideology" is only the belief of others, those who hold opposing views. I think these sentences should be rethought and rewritten. Pete unseth (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)