Thank you for this review! What role does Mounk give to critical pedagogy? I ask because my grad school education covered many of the theorists Mounk argues by the 2010s helped social justice became popular on campuses. I would add that the driving vehicle of teacher training degrees like my two MAs at UMASS Boston (2012-15) and CSUSB (18-20) was seminars on Freirean critical pedagogy. Freire references these theorists yet made it all sound enobling and liberating. Students believe identity synthesis and oppression narratives second because professors and teachers do first, especially English professors. I’m not for required trainings, because I endured multiple, but this book should be as promoted as Kendi and DiAngelo have been. Erec Smith’s controversial (welcomed by me) Critique of Antiracism in Composition Studies details how disempowering identity synthesis/antiracism is to our writing students. Most in my discipline DO recite DiAngelo/Kendi and volumes of obscure theory that convince them they’re on the ‘right side’ of this identity synthesis history. Remaining in an echo chamber is close-mindedness. And it pervades most liberal and progressive professors in my 3 graduate degrees. It’s why I write about it on my Substack Project Luminas. It’s a suffocating scholarly silo. Sure, appeal to their noblest desires, and I do, but I won’t coddle professors out of their professional peer pressure. If we accept the premise they are reason-driven, then why didn’t they lead the rational charge against these harmful ideas all along?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Mounk does discuss critical pedagogy (and Freire specifically in passing a few times), but not as one of the main events in the progression of the identity synthesis. This was part of what I was getting at when I wrote that it was debatable whether figures like Gayatri Spivak were as important to the development of the identity synthesis as Mounk presents them to be. He seems to think Spivak and the other post colonial theorists were a critical stage of its evolution, while the emergence of critical pedagogy was an ancillary (but parallel) development. I think one could make a strong case for both versions.
I'd also say in regards to your situation that there likely are many more "true believers" in positions of power in academia compared to any other institution, so your calculation on the effectiveness of persuasion will be different.
Thanks for your understanding response, given my post does not acknowledge your post’s position that Spivak’s role is debatable. A point I agree with because Spivak’s strategic essentialism played a role in my recent PhD seminars, so I think a strong case for tracking both is warranted as you suggest.
I believe I’m one of the readers you wisely anticipate might find Mounk’s overtures to noble intentions tedious for a discipline that preaches intentions don’t matter. Your contention intrigued me because I want (and try) to reach them too, yet there is no robust English Studies framework for assessing the dehumanizing (or positive) impact of social justice inculcation on the millions of annual freshman writing students. I seek to theorize it and build it. As related texts by Haidt, Pluckrose, Murray, MacDonald, Lindsay, McWhorter, Rufo, and a host of others reach distinct audiences, this may open that liberal/progressive door. And to that potentiality I am sympathetic, if cynical given how compelled social justice beliefs and speech were for years and how rhetorically acceptable scapegoating my race and gender still is.
Facts, data, and logic lend a valid high ground but not necessarily a moral one. Their mistaken belief they have any sense of a moral high ground as progressive professors, and that we should appeal to their self righteousness as our moral betters, emerges in part from the identity trap, evinces what elitist appeal opens them to corrective measures, and must be renounced immediately. At an institution of higher learning and research, it’s a minimum requirement to acknowledge when one has ‘gone wrong’ and recalibrate theories and conclusions likewise. That is a trustworthy scholarly ethic worthy of being called moral. If Mounk’s message catalyzes an abdication of their mental image as anointed knowers...then eureka.
Until then, can one of their own really help open the trap without stroking ego? Guess I’ll have to read it. Many thanks for your encouraging book review!
Professors are not reason driven. They want to survive. To thrive. To not be shunned. Even if they originally disagree with the herd, they will convince themselves that the herd is right, because the alternative, cognitive dissonance, is too painful. I’m guessing you already knew this.
Tom Sparks Right, professors are as capable and inclined to irrational thought as anyone else (aka they are human). Like all of us, they should defend their specialized finite knowledge, though, unlike us, they expect their anointed knowledge be revered as irrefutable objective truth. For decades. As a result, personal beliefs and partisan preferences constitute much of canonized scholarship so they inevitably mistake analytical critique as personal attack. That’s also the ideological facade erected to protect their positions that some profs are more or less aware of than others. The personal is political...and professorial.
Fascinating and depressing to read verification that your teacher training was based on Freire. Thanks for highlighting the role of Critical Pedagogy in indoctrinating malleable minds of Ed students who presumably are in it not for the money but because they want to make a difference. Tragic that they found recycled Marxism so compelling, but zealous teachers can have that effect.
Hi Lynn P., Freire’s presence fascinates me too. I’ve wondered what about my discipline encouraged acceptance of his recycled Marxism, as you deftly put it. I’ve seen Critical Pedagogy function as a vehicle for belief, not unlike religion, especially since he mixes it with Brazilian Roman Catholicism into his own liberation theology. In one interview, Freire said Marxism is a practical way for him to enact his Christian ideals. And, students also see CP as a way to Believe and do Good for the oppressed, conscientization, a spiritual way to change and heal human relations ‘alienated’ via capitalistic material conditions (and systemic patriarchal gender sins as postmodernist queer theory puts it). A potent brew of zealous irrationality.
What we're seeing on the left today, is the end result of identity politics, pure Tribalism. The validity and acceptance of grievances are determined not by an ethical code, but by your group's ranking on progressive's victim matrix.
Palestinians rank higher than Jews, therefore Palestinians aren't required to meet the same ethical standards for their actions. Thr slaughter of thousands, rape, pillaging, the beheading of infants, burning people alive, and kidnapping hundreds are all excusable simply because the people committing those atrocities are Palestinians.
Do we really want to return to a tribal world, without equality, and where ethics are entirely relative?
Set Foucault aside. Start your study of 'identity' with Ted Allen's 'The Invention of the White Race' (Verso), the 'white race' ranking number one among many others here in the USA. If you think there is such a thing as 'the white race' and you're in it, the enemy has a little cop in your head designed to keep you down and under control. There's more, of course, but start here.
I hope this book does convince some of the illiberal left to come back to sanity but I read a review in The New Republic this weekend (I'm not going to dignify it with a link) that could be summarized as a little kid on a playground yelling "nunh-uh!" while arguing over who cheated at tag. I'm not hopeful.
All you need to do is look at what is being taught in ethnic studies about the Israel/Palestinian History to understand the disturbing reaction to October 7th.
no it highlights divisions in culture! culture is different from race. (seeing people that laugh and celebrate suffering is a different culture) - the diversity we didn't want.
Please, inform yourself. Where in Hamas charter do they call for a genocide. Interestingly, you keep ignoring the ongoing genocide (have you counted the numbers?) and infanticide being committed by the Zionists, while insisting the genocide of the Israelis is happening, which isn't. Really, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
You think left-wing people support Palestine because of the "identity synthesis"? That's a historically untenable claim imo, which should be clear just from how recent the ID synthesis is, compared to longstanding left-wing pro-Palestine position. I think its good that people like Mounk are writing books like this (Appiah's book is better), but don't fall into trap of blaming everything on identity politics, where that in turn is taken as just like some irrational complex of ideas. A lot of people have, in addition, political and humanitarian views!
Hi Justin, I tried to be very clear that I was referring to leftist support for Hamas and for the terror attacks last month, not support for the Palestinians in general. I think that is a crucial distinction.
I don’t even believe that the identity synthesis explains ALL of the pro-Hamas sentiment we’re seeing from Western leftists. I do think that it effectively explains why this support is no longer on the fringe.
The "zealous irrationality" is stunning. Perhaps (some) students, used to being over protected and rewarded for participation, identify with the oppressed when they find themselves unable to compete in a complex, rapidly changing world. They are like baby birds being fed by their radical professors.
"Some readers might find it tedious for Mounk to reiterate every few pages the noble motivations of the proponents of the identity synthesis, the real problems of racism and intolerance that were widespread in the United States for most of our history and still exist today, or his criticisms of Republican political figures like Donald Trump or Ron Desantis."
Mr. Slover understands that Mr. Mounk's conspicuously objective stance is intended to make his message palatable to Democrats and perhaps even progressives. Only time will tell whether Mr. Mounk's strategy succeeded.
There's another reason for Mr. Mounk's tempered approach that has little to do with reaching skeptical audiences and everything to do with protecting his reputation. While he has given a new name to the "ideology that seeks to place group identities like race, ethnicity, sex, and gender 'at the center of social, cultural, and political life', ” he is not entirely a pioneer in this field. Mr. Mounk was preceded here by such notorious figures as the sex-obsessed Commie hunter James Lindsay and the academic arriviste and Ron DeSantis hatchet man Christopher Rufo. Who wouldn't go to great lengths to distance themselves from such dodgy company?
I hope they read it and it persuades some. While choosing the topics that seem most readily agreed-upon by both sides and reaching out respectfully to school board members, they sadly double down. I have 2 school board members and 1 principal that have defended highlighting sex workers to our kids (as young as 6th grade) during school. Because a sex worker is Latina or someone who fought for transgender rights and who has had a difficult life and overcome some adversity does not justify highlighting them to students. There are so many others with these qualities or identities who are not sex workers! But no, they do not see it. "We need students to know ALL our history," they say.
No. No we don't. They can learn about sex work as adults, not from their teachers as sympathetic heroes.
The relationship between religious ideology and historical complexity is anything but simple, and it is disappointing when this nuance is overlooked. It is important to recognise that one should not blindly support groups that disregard basic human rights. Hamas' actions in Gaza, for example, show a disturbing disregard for these values. It is known for calling for martyrdom, even among children, and has shown little respect for the diverse needs and rights of Gaza's citizens, including women and LGBTQ+ people.
The tragedy is that Gaza was on the brink of peace and progress, potentially sidelining groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers. However, Hamas, driven by a quest for power and control rather than a genuine commitment to the dignity and freedom of all people, continues to undermine these efforts. They misuse the language of human rights for their own ends and put their power above the welfare of their people. This approach has a devastating impact on vulnerable groups and hinders the development of a peaceful, inclusive society in Gaza
e.pierce is one of those trolls who labels anyone who disagrees with his Elders of the Protocols of Zion Jewish global conspiracy narrative a “conspiracy theorist”. He’s not worth responding to, and your objective facts won’t enter his subjective “truth”. It’s alarming how many of these nutcases re coming out of the woodwork. 🤦♂️
Thank you for this review! What role does Mounk give to critical pedagogy? I ask because my grad school education covered many of the theorists Mounk argues by the 2010s helped social justice became popular on campuses. I would add that the driving vehicle of teacher training degrees like my two MAs at UMASS Boston (2012-15) and CSUSB (18-20) was seminars on Freirean critical pedagogy. Freire references these theorists yet made it all sound enobling and liberating. Students believe identity synthesis and oppression narratives second because professors and teachers do first, especially English professors. I’m not for required trainings, because I endured multiple, but this book should be as promoted as Kendi and DiAngelo have been. Erec Smith’s controversial (welcomed by me) Critique of Antiracism in Composition Studies details how disempowering identity synthesis/antiracism is to our writing students. Most in my discipline DO recite DiAngelo/Kendi and volumes of obscure theory that convince them they’re on the ‘right side’ of this identity synthesis history. Remaining in an echo chamber is close-mindedness. And it pervades most liberal and progressive professors in my 3 graduate degrees. It’s why I write about it on my Substack Project Luminas. It’s a suffocating scholarly silo. Sure, appeal to their noblest desires, and I do, but I won’t coddle professors out of their professional peer pressure. If we accept the premise they are reason-driven, then why didn’t they lead the rational charge against these harmful ideas all along?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Mounk does discuss critical pedagogy (and Freire specifically in passing a few times), but not as one of the main events in the progression of the identity synthesis. This was part of what I was getting at when I wrote that it was debatable whether figures like Gayatri Spivak were as important to the development of the identity synthesis as Mounk presents them to be. He seems to think Spivak and the other post colonial theorists were a critical stage of its evolution, while the emergence of critical pedagogy was an ancillary (but parallel) development. I think one could make a strong case for both versions.
I'd also say in regards to your situation that there likely are many more "true believers" in positions of power in academia compared to any other institution, so your calculation on the effectiveness of persuasion will be different.
Please ban the commenter named "e.pierce."
Thanks for your understanding response, given my post does not acknowledge your post’s position that Spivak’s role is debatable. A point I agree with because Spivak’s strategic essentialism played a role in my recent PhD seminars, so I think a strong case for tracking both is warranted as you suggest.
I believe I’m one of the readers you wisely anticipate might find Mounk’s overtures to noble intentions tedious for a discipline that preaches intentions don’t matter. Your contention intrigued me because I want (and try) to reach them too, yet there is no robust English Studies framework for assessing the dehumanizing (or positive) impact of social justice inculcation on the millions of annual freshman writing students. I seek to theorize it and build it. As related texts by Haidt, Pluckrose, Murray, MacDonald, Lindsay, McWhorter, Rufo, and a host of others reach distinct audiences, this may open that liberal/progressive door. And to that potentiality I am sympathetic, if cynical given how compelled social justice beliefs and speech were for years and how rhetorically acceptable scapegoating my race and gender still is.
Facts, data, and logic lend a valid high ground but not necessarily a moral one. Their mistaken belief they have any sense of a moral high ground as progressive professors, and that we should appeal to their self righteousness as our moral betters, emerges in part from the identity trap, evinces what elitist appeal opens them to corrective measures, and must be renounced immediately. At an institution of higher learning and research, it’s a minimum requirement to acknowledge when one has ‘gone wrong’ and recalibrate theories and conclusions likewise. That is a trustworthy scholarly ethic worthy of being called moral. If Mounk’s message catalyzes an abdication of their mental image as anointed knowers...then eureka.
Until then, can one of their own really help open the trap without stroking ego? Guess I’ll have to read it. Many thanks for your encouraging book review!
Professors are not reason driven. They want to survive. To thrive. To not be shunned. Even if they originally disagree with the herd, they will convince themselves that the herd is right, because the alternative, cognitive dissonance, is too painful. I’m guessing you already knew this.
Tom Sparks Right, professors are as capable and inclined to irrational thought as anyone else (aka they are human). Like all of us, they should defend their specialized finite knowledge, though, unlike us, they expect their anointed knowledge be revered as irrefutable objective truth. For decades. As a result, personal beliefs and partisan preferences constitute much of canonized scholarship so they inevitably mistake analytical critique as personal attack. That’s also the ideological facade erected to protect their positions that some profs are more or less aware of than others. The personal is political...and professorial.
Fascinating and depressing to read verification that your teacher training was based on Freire. Thanks for highlighting the role of Critical Pedagogy in indoctrinating malleable minds of Ed students who presumably are in it not for the money but because they want to make a difference. Tragic that they found recycled Marxism so compelling, but zealous teachers can have that effect.
Hi Lynn P., Freire’s presence fascinates me too. I’ve wondered what about my discipline encouraged acceptance of his recycled Marxism, as you deftly put it. I’ve seen Critical Pedagogy function as a vehicle for belief, not unlike religion, especially since he mixes it with Brazilian Roman Catholicism into his own liberation theology. In one interview, Freire said Marxism is a practical way for him to enact his Christian ideals. And, students also see CP as a way to Believe and do Good for the oppressed, conscientization, a spiritual way to change and heal human relations ‘alienated’ via capitalistic material conditions (and systemic patriarchal gender sins as postmodernist queer theory puts it). A potent brew of zealous irrationality.
What we're seeing on the left today, is the end result of identity politics, pure Tribalism. The validity and acceptance of grievances are determined not by an ethical code, but by your group's ranking on progressive's victim matrix.
Palestinians rank higher than Jews, therefore Palestinians aren't required to meet the same ethical standards for their actions. Thr slaughter of thousands, rape, pillaging, the beheading of infants, burning people alive, and kidnapping hundreds are all excusable simply because the people committing those atrocities are Palestinians.
Do we really want to return to a tribal world, without equality, and where ethics are entirely relative?
Set Foucault aside. Start your study of 'identity' with Ted Allen's 'The Invention of the White Race' (Verso), the 'white race' ranking number one among many others here in the USA. If you think there is such a thing as 'the white race' and you're in it, the enemy has a little cop in your head designed to keep you down and under control. There's more, of course, but start here.
I hope this book does convince some of the illiberal left to come back to sanity but I read a review in The New Republic this weekend (I'm not going to dignify it with a link) that could be summarized as a little kid on a playground yelling "nunh-uh!" while arguing over who cheated at tag. I'm not hopeful.
Just finished this book last week and agree it was one of the best on the subject.
All you need to do is look at what is being taught in ethnic studies about the Israel/Palestinian History to understand the disturbing reaction to October 7th.
https://teachpalestine.org/
'highlights the deep divisions in our society.'
no it highlights divisions in culture! culture is different from race. (seeing people that laugh and celebrate suffering is a different culture) - the diversity we didn't want.
Please, inform yourself. Where in Hamas charter do they call for a genocide. Interestingly, you keep ignoring the ongoing genocide (have you counted the numbers?) and infanticide being committed by the Zionists, while insisting the genocide of the Israelis is happening, which isn't. Really, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
You think left-wing people support Palestine because of the "identity synthesis"? That's a historically untenable claim imo, which should be clear just from how recent the ID synthesis is, compared to longstanding left-wing pro-Palestine position. I think its good that people like Mounk are writing books like this (Appiah's book is better), but don't fall into trap of blaming everything on identity politics, where that in turn is taken as just like some irrational complex of ideas. A lot of people have, in addition, political and humanitarian views!
Hi Justin, I tried to be very clear that I was referring to leftist support for Hamas and for the terror attacks last month, not support for the Palestinians in general. I think that is a crucial distinction.
I don’t even believe that the identity synthesis explains ALL of the pro-Hamas sentiment we’re seeing from Western leftists. I do think that it effectively explains why this support is no longer on the fringe.
The "zealous irrationality" is stunning. Perhaps (some) students, used to being over protected and rewarded for participation, identify with the oppressed when they find themselves unable to compete in a complex, rapidly changing world. They are like baby birds being fed by their radical professors.
"Some readers might find it tedious for Mounk to reiterate every few pages the noble motivations of the proponents of the identity synthesis, the real problems of racism and intolerance that were widespread in the United States for most of our history and still exist today, or his criticisms of Republican political figures like Donald Trump or Ron Desantis."
Mr. Slover understands that Mr. Mounk's conspicuously objective stance is intended to make his message palatable to Democrats and perhaps even progressives. Only time will tell whether Mr. Mounk's strategy succeeded.
There's another reason for Mr. Mounk's tempered approach that has little to do with reaching skeptical audiences and everything to do with protecting his reputation. While he has given a new name to the "ideology that seeks to place group identities like race, ethnicity, sex, and gender 'at the center of social, cultural, and political life', ” he is not entirely a pioneer in this field. Mr. Mounk was preceded here by such notorious figures as the sex-obsessed Commie hunter James Lindsay and the academic arriviste and Ron DeSantis hatchet man Christopher Rufo. Who wouldn't go to great lengths to distance themselves from such dodgy company?
I hope they read it and it persuades some. While choosing the topics that seem most readily agreed-upon by both sides and reaching out respectfully to school board members, they sadly double down. I have 2 school board members and 1 principal that have defended highlighting sex workers to our kids (as young as 6th grade) during school. Because a sex worker is Latina or someone who fought for transgender rights and who has had a difficult life and overcome some adversity does not justify highlighting them to students. There are so many others with these qualities or identities who are not sex workers! But no, they do not see it. "We need students to know ALL our history," they say.
No. No we don't. They can learn about sex work as adults, not from their teachers as sympathetic heroes.
The relationship between religious ideology and historical complexity is anything but simple, and it is disappointing when this nuance is overlooked. It is important to recognise that one should not blindly support groups that disregard basic human rights. Hamas' actions in Gaza, for example, show a disturbing disregard for these values. It is known for calling for martyrdom, even among children, and has shown little respect for the diverse needs and rights of Gaza's citizens, including women and LGBTQ+ people.
The tragedy is that Gaza was on the brink of peace and progress, potentially sidelining groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers. However, Hamas, driven by a quest for power and control rather than a genuine commitment to the dignity and freedom of all people, continues to undermine these efforts. They misuse the language of human rights for their own ends and put their power above the welfare of their people. This approach has a devastating impact on vulnerable groups and hinders the development of a peaceful, inclusive society in Gaza
basic facts? there aren't any - its complicated and nuanced.
ideologue
A long as I believed in equal human rights
Seek first to understand, then to be understood
https://www.worlddata.info/asia/palestine/populationgrowth.php#:~:text=From%201990%20to%202022%20the,in%201991%20with%204.58%20percent.
"From 1990 to 2022 the population of Palestine increased from 1.98 million to 5.04 million people."
Israelis have not been very successful if their goal is ethnic cleansing.
e.pierce is one of those trolls who labels anyone who disagrees with his Elders of the Protocols of Zion Jewish global conspiracy narrative a “conspiracy theorist”. He’s not worth responding to, and your objective facts won’t enter his subjective “truth”. It’s alarming how many of these nutcases re coming out of the woodwork. 🤦♂️
🥰Oh sweet irony!
Somebody needs a nap😘
I hope you get the help you need.
End transmission.