The End of Modernism, Matthias Gisslar's attempt at a new non-leftist social theory, brings Critical Woke Studies and classical sociology together in conversation
Thank you for taking your time to read my book and write about it.
For those who read this, Eric was one of the first to follow me when I appeared on Twitter in the beginning of this year. You know what they say about how people treat those from whom they have nothing to expect. Eric showed real interest in a new voice and was also one of the first to follow me on X.
I think our minds met on two questions. First, that something was off with Haidt's explanation that fragility explained cancel culture. Second, that the long march and law as culture explanations out there failed to address the demand side and the more broadly modern and western nature of the ideas that underpin identity politics.
I will be reading Taboo, but I will probably not do a normal review of this kind. What I will do is the same as in my book, that is test my own framework and the full set of extant explanations against what is new, in terms of theory and data in Eric's work. This means going both broader and more in detail.
What I have done in my book is canvassing of previous research and theoretical induction, as a first iteration towards understanding where we are and how we got there. This means taking as broad as possible an approach to explanations, before starting the process of adding more data in order to discern which explanations turn out to carry the most weight. I hope that Taboo will help catapult that process forward.
I should also mention that I am an historically oriented anthropologist, without any systematic training in the sociological tradition or literature. What anthropologists are specialised in is the concept of culture, while their command of sociological theory probably varies individually.
Since I have not really zeroed in on what the explanations are for the situation we are in, I am very far from suggesting an action plan. My plan is instead to continue with a number of topics that I identified in the book, which require more specialised literature to pursue further.
Eric seems to be involved in many places. A thought for the long run is that there should be a network of European researchers who are interested in both explaining the situation we are in and finding a solution to the crisis of the social sciences, which, in my view, has been left unresolved since the 1990s.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that the 1990s were an exception to your 30 year leftism cycles? That's when political correctness exploded. In fact, it was at its worst 1989~1991, exactly three decades before the events of 2020. It seems like it would fit your model beautifully.
I have not really developed a theory about thirty year cycles. It is just an observation in passing in a chapter about the political anthropology of the far left.
I realised that if the general strike in the 1900s was added and if the reaction to the French revolution and the victory of neo-liberalism in the 1990s were deducted there was a complete series.
The reason that I do not have a theory is that I have no idea what the mechanism would be. Also, theories of this kind often require running rough shod over details. For example 1848 and 1871 are nominally three decades apart but in reality just 23 years.
My direct answer to your question is that the 1990s are not generally recognised as a strong or dramatic period for the far left.
There is also Kaufmann's argument that political correctness does not necessarily have to do with the far left but rather a certain liberal sensitivity. Only later did the far left develop more extreme and aggressive views on speech as violence, etc. (Which comes from postmodernism in combination with speech act theory).
The way I personally remember the 1990s, is close to Kaufmann's argument. It was a relatively mainstream and predictable development to the fact that universities were becoming more diverse. Really not that different from male shop workers having to take down pin up calenders when women started to enter traditionally male workplaces.
Of course, some on the left exaggerated and were probably mainly interested in harassing conservatives, but the changes they demanded were not wrong per se. Nobody today would argue that we should go back to 1980s-style stereotyping, slurs, sexism, etc.
This would perhaps be the best answer. The thirty year cycle is based on periods with ideas that have both had a strong component of traditional socialism and have been so far left that they ended up on the wrong side of history.
Thank you for taking your time to read my book and write about it.
For those who read this, Eric was one of the first to follow me when I appeared on Twitter in the beginning of this year. You know what they say about how people treat those from whom they have nothing to expect. Eric showed real interest in a new voice and was also one of the first to follow me on X.
I think our minds met on two questions. First, that something was off with Haidt's explanation that fragility explained cancel culture. Second, that the long march and law as culture explanations out there failed to address the demand side and the more broadly modern and western nature of the ideas that underpin identity politics.
I will be reading Taboo, but I will probably not do a normal review of this kind. What I will do is the same as in my book, that is test my own framework and the full set of extant explanations against what is new, in terms of theory and data in Eric's work. This means going both broader and more in detail.
What I have done in my book is canvassing of previous research and theoretical induction, as a first iteration towards understanding where we are and how we got there. This means taking as broad as possible an approach to explanations, before starting the process of adding more data in order to discern which explanations turn out to carry the most weight. I hope that Taboo will help catapult that process forward.
I should also mention that I am an historically oriented anthropologist, without any systematic training in the sociological tradition or literature. What anthropologists are specialised in is the concept of culture, while their command of sociological theory probably varies individually.
Since I have not really zeroed in on what the explanations are for the situation we are in, I am very far from suggesting an action plan. My plan is instead to continue with a number of topics that I identified in the book, which require more specialised literature to pursue further.
Eric seems to be involved in many places. A thought for the long run is that there should be a network of European researchers who are interested in both explaining the situation we are in and finding a solution to the crisis of the social sciences, which, in my view, has been left unresolved since the 1990s.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that the 1990s were an exception to your 30 year leftism cycles? That's when political correctness exploded. In fact, it was at its worst 1989~1991, exactly three decades before the events of 2020. It seems like it would fit your model beautifully.
I have not really developed a theory about thirty year cycles. It is just an observation in passing in a chapter about the political anthropology of the far left.
I realised that if the general strike in the 1900s was added and if the reaction to the French revolution and the victory of neo-liberalism in the 1990s were deducted there was a complete series.
The reason that I do not have a theory is that I have no idea what the mechanism would be. Also, theories of this kind often require running rough shod over details. For example 1848 and 1871 are nominally three decades apart but in reality just 23 years.
My direct answer to your question is that the 1990s are not generally recognised as a strong or dramatic period for the far left.
There is also Kaufmann's argument that political correctness does not necessarily have to do with the far left but rather a certain liberal sensitivity. Only later did the far left develop more extreme and aggressive views on speech as violence, etc. (Which comes from postmodernism in combination with speech act theory).
The way I personally remember the 1990s, is close to Kaufmann's argument. It was a relatively mainstream and predictable development to the fact that universities were becoming more diverse. Really not that different from male shop workers having to take down pin up calenders when women started to enter traditionally male workplaces.
Of course, some on the left exaggerated and were probably mainly interested in harassing conservatives, but the changes they demanded were not wrong per se. Nobody today would argue that we should go back to 1980s-style stereotyping, slurs, sexism, etc.
This would perhaps be the best answer. The thirty year cycle is based on periods with ideas that have both had a strong component of traditional socialism and have been so far left that they ended up on the wrong side of history.