The subject of Cynical Theories is the Social Justice movement based on “theory” — critical race theory, queer theory, and others. The authors analyze the central claims and beliefs behind “theory”, identifying numerous internal inconsistencies and showing how it collapses under analysis. Furthermore, they argue that in practice, “social justice” actually works against its purported goals; it deepens the divides that it is, or should be, seeking to heal. Finally, the authors claim that “theory” threatens to erode Western/classical liberalism altogether, which is dangerous for two main reasons: (1) the erosion of liberalism usually occurs with the rise of authoritarianism, which has had disastrous historical results across the board, and (2) classical liberalism is actually far more likely to achieve social justice goals.

On my reading, the argument is sound and well-researched. Postmodernism is a tough movement to pin down, partly by design, but I think the authors do a good job characterizing the main strains that critical theory has picked up on. The original themes of postmodernism (if they can even be rightly called “themes”) have mutated with the over time. So even though it might seem problematic to reduce authors like Foucault and Derrida to a set of axioms, the authors are really trying to identify how those authors show up in the present moment. It’s not a critique of the original postmodernists, per se, but of postmodernism as it shows up in the current movement. In that light, I think the book does a good job. The negative arguments are potentially devastating for critical theory.

Although it’s obvious from some of the language that the authors have strong emotions about these issues, the overall tone and approach seems even-handed. The target audience for this book will probably already have the sense that the claims of Theory — e.g., all white people are racist, denial of gender identity is tantamount to murder, etc. — are patently absurd. But the critiques help connect the social justice movement to the postmodern ideas from which it derives, and are all the more articulate and devastating for it. On the positive side, the authors try to demonstrate classical liberalism to be a better alternative. In this area, I think they’re successful as well, though with some qualification.

My major objection was that, while the authors assert that they support LGBT rights, their critique of queer theory and their affirmation of biological science goes right to the very heart of the movement — especially that fourth letter. The authors affirm that sex categories are rooted in biology, that they are relevant and necessary, and that statistically significant differences exist between the sexes. The trans movement flatly denies of all these — so how can the authors affirm both at once? Research can describe the sexual variations that may exist among individuals, but it does not, cannot, account for the outrageous claims of trans activists, which the authors themselves criticize. This seemed to me an outright contradiction, a case of the authors having their cake and eating it too.

Other than that, I mainly had a beef with the way the authors handle some of their own assumptions. For example, they frequently champion the correspondence theory of knowledge, and science as the determiner of objective truth, concepts with which many recent philosophers have taken issue (and not without good reason). They seem to lump empirical/scientific investigation and research into a general approach to ethics, which is also highly problematic. And as often as they reject the characterization of liberalism as metanarrative, claiming instead that liberalism is more like a process, they also fall back on metanarrative claims to things like common humanity, equal rights, etc. It’s not really a problem to have a metanarrative, since critical theory itself imposes a metanarrative of oppression onto everything (despite claiming to reject all metanarratives). But it seems like the authors are again having their cake and eating it too. Anyway, these are philosophical nit picks; I think that on a basic level, and certainly for the average reader, the arguments are successful in pointing out the flaws in critical theory and arguing for liberalism as the better way.

It’s a sad truth, though — and the authors point this out, of course — that critical theory is inherently hostile to criticism and debate. Its adherents are suspicious of logic/reason, use of evidence, and other rigorous practices as merely systems of power designed to maintain the status quo. They label disagreement as hate speech, evidence of prejudice, white fragility, etc., taking it as further confirmation of their own theory — the same circular logic used by religious cults. I’ve seen negative reviews of this book repeat the same fallacies — circular reasoning, ad hominem attack, and bulverism — in their dismissals. So despite the strength of the arguments and how potentially helpful they could be, even if they were proven wrong, there is a faction of people out there who simply won’t hear it on principle. What’s worse, the media seems all too willing to follow along. A sad state of affairs indeed.

If nothing else, read this book because they don’t want you to — who knows, it may be banned soon.