Talk:Critical theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There seem to be a lot of factual errors here[edit]

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)

This Article Does Not Make Any Sense[edit]

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)

Added "technical" message[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Pictogram voting comment.png 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?[edit]

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

The article lacks a Criticism section...[edit]

... 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_theory&oldid=961579007"