PDF Summary:Cynical Theories, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
Book Summary: Learn the key points in minutes.
Below is a preview of the Shortform book summary of Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. Read the full comprehensive summary at Shortform.
1-Page PDF Summary of Cynical Theories
Do you feel like social justice advocacy has gone too far? Or like you have to constantly be careful about what you say? The authors of Cynical Theories agree and explain how this came to be. While past movements for equality used to fight for concrete issues, the authors contend that contemporary activists and scholars are instead more concerned with policing language and culture, shutting down rational debate, and challenging the very foundations of liberal society.
In our guide to Cynical Theories, we’ll show how, in the authors’ view, social justice scholarship and activism changed from a force for good to a dangerous movement with totalitarian tendencies. We’ll also discuss why the tenets of liberalism—namely freedom of speech and belief in science—are more important now than ever. Through our commentary, we’ll offer insights and alternate views on the history of social justice and its impact on our modern world.
(continued)...
(Shortform note: Marxist critics of postmodernism argue it focuses on cultural hierarchy as opposed to class hierarchy because it is inspired far more by middle-class discontent than by the plight of the poor, working-class people. According to these critics, postmodern academics who were securely middle class viewed culture as the main issue threatening equality because they weren’t involved with labor movements fighting for economic equality—labor movements characteristic of previous left-wing scholarship and activism.)
Phase 3: Critical Theories
Pure deconstructive postmodernism, the authors explain, wore itself out after only a few decades. Because early postmodernists didn’t believe in objective truth, they couldn’t make any arguments about how things are or should be, causing the mostly academic movement to stagnate. However, a newer generation of academics, artists, and activists in the 1990s through the 2010s modified postmodernism into critical theories, or academic fields that aim to “critique” culture by noticing and challenging specific hierarchies—for example, the academic field of critical race theory “critiques” the idea of race as a whole, challenging those who believe in it.
Pluckrose and Lindsay suggest critical theories became popular because many of the main political goals of past activists were achieved—homosexuality was decriminalized, workplace sexual harassment was made illegal, and so on. Modern social justice activists therefore turned away from material approaches and flocked to the culture-and-language-based approach of postmodernism.
(Shortform note: To show how critical theorists abandoned and critiqued past approaches to social justice, we can look to legal scholar and critical race theory founder Derrick Bell’s view of Brown v. Board of Education. The case is a good example of a liberal approach to social justice since it used an existing institution—the US Supreme Court—to achieve a specific legal goal—outlawing racially segregated schools. But according to Bell, Brown v. Board of Education failed to truly provide equal education to all races. He argues that using the law to further integrate schools is the wrong approach to equality. Instead, he says society should invest more in both desegregated and majority-black schools to improve both.)
The authors outline two main components of critical theories:
1) Postmodern Methods
While critical theories don’t subscribe to the total deconstruction of pure postmodernism, they still use methods influenced by postmodern thought. Critical theories still deconstruct dominant narratives and look for hierarchies within language, culture, and everyday interactions at all levels of society.
(Shortform note: While postmodernism has heavily influenced how critical theories study aspects of culture, it doesn’t limit what critical theories study. Instead of being confined to a specific discipline like postmodernism is to philosophy, critical theories can serve as a sort of lens or framework to examine and critique a vast number of different disciplines. Critical theorists have used this general framework to examine topics from film to psychology to economics.)
2) New Doctrines
Critical theories differ from pure postmodernism in that they establish their own “truths” instead of trying to tear down the concept of truth entirely. Instead of being content with questioning or deconstructing a dominant cultural narrative, they argue using that cultural narrative is morally wrong. Non-dominant cultural narratives—usually the views and experiences of minority groups—therefore must be morally correct truths.
For example, a pure postmodernist deconstructs the femme fatale trope, arguing it represents a dominant narrative of the danger of women in control of their sexuality. They are content just to point this out, though. A critical theory, on the other hand, might go further and argue that using the femme fatale trope is morally wrong because it enforces this dominant narrative. Therefore, the critical theory suggests people shouldn’t put femme fatales in fiction.
(Shortform note: While the concept of truth changed massively during the development into and out of postmodernism, one component remained consistent: an emphasis on the individual. Liberalism, modernism, postmodernism, and critical theories alike all place individual perceptions at the center of what it means for something to be true—whether those perceptions are the “empirical evidence” behind science or the “lived experiences” behind critical theories. This contrasts with more community-focused philosophies like Ubuntu or communitarianism, which argue the world can only be understood through the lens of different communities of people.)
Part 2: The Social Justice Movement Rejects Science
Now that we’ve explored how the influence of postmodernism changed social justice, we’ll discuss Pluckrose and Lindsay’s critiques of the modern Social Justice Movement. Part 2 of our guide will focus on how the Social Justice Movement’s ideology rejects science. The authors argue this is counterproductive, as scientific research provides the understanding necessary to improve people’s lives in concrete ways (we’ll discuss their arguments on behalf of science further in Part 4).
(Shortform note: Though Pluckrose and Lindsay mainly focus on areas where scientific research and the Social Justice Movement conflict, other critics of the Social Justice Movement suggest it’s negatively influencing science instead of rejecting it entirely. These critics note many math and science institutions have adopted certain ideals of the Social Justice Movement: Requiring diversity, focusing on women and non-Europeans in the history of science, and accepting the idea that the scientific method is inherently oppressive. While this influence is subtler than an outright rejection of science, critics of the Social Justice Movement believe it’s just as dangerous to society.)
Pluckrose and Lindsay cite two main areas as representing the Social Justice Movement’s rejection of science:
Gender and Sexuality
Pluckrose and Lindsay explain that the Social Justice Movement believes gender and sexuality have nothing to do with biology, instead claiming that gender and sexuality are entirely culturally constructed narratives. Society determines what it means to be a certain gender, assigning certain activities, qualities, and things as signifiers of gender. Then, it assigns genders to people at birth and has them “perform” their gender through these signifiers. For example, a dress isn’t inherently feminine or womanly—it’s just pieces of fabric arranged in a certain way. But society decided to associate dresses with womanhood, and so now women and girls are encouraged to wear them to signify their gender.
The Social Justice Movement argues the narratives of gender and sexuality are inherently oppressive. People in power—cisgendered straight men—use strict categories of gender and sexuality to define themselves as the “default” or “ideal,” and everyone else as “inferior” or “abnormal.” The Social Justice Movement believes science is often a tool of this oppression, used to argue straight, cisgendered people are the norm and everyone else is disordered somehow. Therefore, the movement rejects science that claims gender and sexuality are based on inherent, objective qualities (genetic factors or brain chemistry, for example) rather than purely on cultural narratives, viewing this research as an attempt to legitimize oppressive cultural narratives.
(Shortform note: Many liberal and conservative skeptics of transgender rights tend to define what’s acceptable based on specific medical science versus cultural belief. For example, Douglas Murray (The Madness of Crowds) suggests some transgender people genuinely experience gender dysphoria and can benefit from gender-affirming medical treatments. However, he also argues cultural influences—like the Social Justice Movement—confuse others into thinking they want the same treatments or into rejecting the concept of gender altogether. Murray therefore believes society should create different categories to distinguish between genuinely transgender people and those who are just misled.)
Disability and Fatness
The Social Justice Movement views “healthy” and “unhealthy” as oppressive cultural narratives created by dominant groups in society—abled-bodied thin people, in this case—to label themselves as ideal or default and the disabled or fat as abnormal or inferior. They view attempts to treat or cure disabilities and fatness as part of this oppression since it is society enforcing the idea that it’s better to be able-bodied and thin than it is to be disabled and fat. In other words, it is society saying able-bodied thin people are superior to disabled and fat people. Therefore, the Social Justice Movement is skeptical or even hostile to scientific research trying to cure disabilities or prove why fatness is unhealthy.
(Shortform note: While Pluckrose and Lindsay argue the Social Justice Movement’s views on disability and fatness stand in contrast to scientific consensus, there is some evidence to suggest scientific opinion on these subjects is by no means unified or set in stone. For example, when the American Medical Association recognized obesity as a disease, they did so against the recommendation of their own research panel. In addition, the definition of disability remains in flux, seeing a number of changes in the legal and medical realms over the past several decades.)
Part 3: The Social Justice Movement Rejects Freedom of Speech
In addition to rejecting science, the Social Justice Movement also rejects freedom of speech, explain Pluckrose and Lindsay. Part 3 of our guide will show how the beliefs and methods of the Social Justice Movement are anti-free speech.
Anti-Free Speech Beliefs
Pluckrose and Lindsay explain that the Social Justice Movement is anti-free speech because they believe access to knowledge is based on identity—race, gender, and so on—instead of on reason and evidence. According to the Social Justice Movement, people of marginalized identities have more knowledge than everyone else about power and oppression because of their experiences. People from dominant groups lack this knowledge, and so the Social Justice Movement believes these people’s ideas about power, oppression, and social justice should be devalued or dismissed. Pluckrose and Lindsay explain this is anti-free speech since it seeks to restrict or devalue ideas based on who says them rather than on merit.
(Shortform note: Some critics of the Social Justice Movement have noted how the movement’s beliefs have led to self-censorship, or individuals and institutions restricting their own speech to avoid controversial subjects. In the publishing industry, for example, some companies are reluctant to publish books where authors aren’t directly discussing their own experiences after a number of high-profile protests. In these protests, books are harshly criticized and even pulled before they’re published due to accusations of racism and other types of insensitivity. This shows how even when the beliefs of the Social Justice Movement aren’t passed into law, they can still limit free speech.)
Anti-Free Speech Methods
Pluckrose and Lindsay contend the Social Justice Movement is anti-free speech in their methods, attempting to police and control people’s language and culture. Since the Social Justice Movement views oppression as the result of cultural narratives, they try to prevent people from enforcing those narratives in their language and culture.
In practice, this often means ganging up on people with dissenting ideas. The Social Justice Movement is willing to target anyone, according to the authors, because they believe power is exercised on every level of society—a working-class person making an insensitive joke, an academic writing a paper with ideas contrary to the Social Justice Movement, a celebrity making a controversial work of art, and so on. Targets of these attacks may face real-world consequences, losing jobs, being socially alienated, or even receiving threats.
(Shortform note: In academia, fixed doctrines and cliques are nothing new, with many disciplines attacking or censoring dissenting scholars on all sorts of political or even apolitical questions. Fields as diverse as astronomy, linguistics, and psychoanalysis all have their own histories of bitter rivalries, personal grudges, attempts to repress controversial ideas, and insider-outsider mentalities. Therefore, the Social Justice Movement’s anti-free speech tendencies could be symptomatic of a larger problem within academia instead of something unique to the field.)
Part 4: Why Society Should Return to Liberalism
After outlining historical shifts in social justice scholarship and how they led to the Social Justice Movement’s current beliefs, Pluckrose and Lindsay shift to explain why liberalism is preferable for addressing social inequality. They argue that capitalism and democracy—the two cornerstones of liberalism—are self-correcting institutions because they welcome criticism through rational debate and give the people tools (political and economic participation) to address social problems. This process of consistent improvement is preferable to the Social Justice Movement, which the authors say aims to shut down rational debate in favor of their own fixed doctrines.
(Shortform note: While Pluckrose and Lindsay view capitalism and democracy as stable, self-improving institutions, some liberal scholars argue they’re relatively fragile and require consistent intervention to function correctly. For example, liberal economist John Maynard Keynes studied the boom-bust cycles of capitalism and concluded for the greatest overall human well-being, governments must supplement the free market with social programs. In addition, many liberal scholars in works like Why Nations Fail and Making Democracy Work argue democracy is very fragile and requires precise circumstances to remain successful.)
To demonstrate why this is the case, Pluckrose and Lindsay show how freedom of speech and belief in science make liberalism better for addressing inequality than the Social Justice Movement:
Freedom of Expression
The authors argue liberalism’s emphasis on free and open debate among rational individuals is an excellent way to address social inequality. Freedom of speech and expression allows ideas contrary to dominant narratives to circulate freely and gain traction based on merit, and leads to societal shifts when enough people conclude the status quo is unjust. In addition, emphasis on free and open rational debate encourages people to empathize and cooperate to find common ground—including with disadvantaged groups—helping people address their biases and work together to fight social inequality.
(Shortform note: Instead of just permitting rational, open debate, professor of philosophy Michael Sandel (Justice) argues the government should encourage it through public works and community projects. By encouraging people of all backgrounds to work together toward common goals and spend time with one another, Sandel explains, society will develop a greater sense of common purpose and respect. This will then enable more productive conversations around political issues since people who respect one another will be less likely to close themselves off to each other’s ideas or use divisive rhetoric.)
Belief in Science
Pluckrose and Lindsay also argue that liberalism’s strong belief in science allows it to challenge dominant narratives and address biases. Since the scientific method relies on evidence-based theories that are rigorously challenged and updated, it enables people to catch and correct their own mistakes—including mistakes resulting from bias. This also means the scientific community is willing to challenge dominant narratives provided there’s evidence to disprove them. The authors suggest evidence-based refutations of dominant narratives are far more convincing to the average person compared to deconstruction or policing language. Therefore, a philosophy based on science is better for getting people to fight social inequality.
(Shortform note: Some philosophers and politicians argue that technical and scientific expertise and knowledge should be the basis of all government decisions. These technocrats on the left and right alike believe rational, scientific thought is the best way to organize society—informing how to address inequality, make the economy more efficient, or even navigate matters of war and peace. Technocrats use logic similar to Pluckrose and Lindsay’s to suggest their system of government is ideal, arguing the scientific method allows the government to get past petty politics and address problems rationally.)
Want to learn the rest of Cynical Theories in 21 minutes?
Unlock the full book summary of Cynical Theories by signing up for Shortform.
Shortform summaries help you learn 10x faster by:
- Being 100% comprehensive: you learn the most important points in the book
- Cutting out the fluff: you don't spend your time wondering what the author's point is.
- Interactive exercises: apply the book's ideas to your own life with our educators' guidance.
Here's a preview of the rest of Shortform's Cynical Theories PDF summary:
What Our Readers Say
This is the best summary of Cynical Theories I've ever read. I learned all the main points in just 20 minutes.
Learn more about our summaries →Why are Shortform Summaries the Best?
We're the most efficient way to learn the most useful ideas from a book.
Cuts Out the Fluff
Ever feel a book rambles on, giving anecdotes that aren't useful? Often get frustrated by an author who doesn't get to the point?
We cut out the fluff, keeping only the most useful examples and ideas. We also re-organize books for clarity, putting the most important principles first, so you can learn faster.
Always Comprehensive
Other summaries give you just a highlight of some of the ideas in a book. We find these too vague to be satisfying.
At Shortform, we want to cover every point worth knowing in the book. Learn nuances, key examples, and critical details on how to apply the ideas.
3 Different Levels of Detail
You want different levels of detail at different times. That's why every book is summarized in three lengths:
1) Paragraph to get the gist
2) 1-page summary, to get the main takeaways
3) Full comprehensive summary and analysis, containing every useful point and example