INTELLECTUAL CONFESSION NO.1 - Contra Critical Theory - Against the Intellectuals

"If negative dialectics calls for the self-reflection of thinking, the tangible implication is that if thinking is to be true—if it is to be true today, in any case— it must also be a thinking against itself." Adorno, Negative Dialectics, Meditation on Metaphysics, After Auschwitz


The present form is one I feel I've been reduced to, precisely because I find a tragic deficit in the discourse-ability of intellectuals. Too many of them are psychologically defensive, desperately trying to hold onto, as opposed to transcend, the theory they comprehend, which gives them a sense of safety and authority. Commitment to these needs consumes their intellectual energy and cancels out the prospect of multiplying intellectual power. This is a pit that no intellectual is immune from.

I find it utterly shocking that so many theorists have fallen into the trap of worshiping theory, which is to say, they are blind to its irrelevance and abstraction. Theory matters, but at some point it reaches a level of abstraction that negates its tangible value. When this happens the theorist is doing little more than playing academic games.

I believe the worship of theory results from an insecure need for authority and validation. This is something the juvenile ego craves. The worshiper of theory cannot see himself, he fails to realize that he's merely conforming to an intellectual emphasis, he lacks the ability to stand outside this emphasis, to ask the question of value in terms of raw, existential relevance. Take, for example, the problem of class struggle, here theorists propose to solve the problem through quantity, which is to say, unifying those who are exploited by class oppression.* These theorists fallaciously assume that unification, in and of itself, will automatically result in qualitative social transformation. The lack of quality, in such a unity, will ultimately, as it has done many times throughout history, result in tyranny.  

In order to achieve qualitative social transformation, one must be able to achieve quality, within the psychological domain of the individual. This is because class struggle has a psychological impact on society, which results in the loss of individual quality. In order to achieve a quality revolution, individual quality must be optimized and restored. Critical Theorists and Marxists know nothing about this process, it properly belongs to the vital domain of psychology.

 Critical theorists, though they wouldn't admit it, tend to presuppose that social quality is a matter of knowledge, when in fact, it's a matter of the individual's maturation process within the social environment, and this makes it a property of psychological reclamation. This presupposition exposes a fatal flaw in Critical Theory, it condemns it to the realm of idealism. Qualitative human development, which has been clarified through the field of developmental psychology, is axiomatic to knowledge itself. This is because the ability to comprehend, as well as act at a high level, requires psychological maturity, which is a property that is fostered by stable social conditions.

I find it utterly shocking that theorists fail to recognize the superior value of psychology when it comes to concrete social transformation. Talking to a Critical Theorist is similar to talking with an Analytical Philosopher, both are concerned with their own pedantic abstractions, which is to say, they spend their time on issues that have little bearing on social development. In so many instances, theory has become a mark of elitist inheritance, comprehension of its esoteric premisses (more often than not) proves that one has lived a privilege existence, sheltered from the hardships of class oppression. What drives its emphasis is the academic ego, an entity that has little concern for existential quality or relevance, but strives for social and self-validation, to bask in the affirmation of its own brilliance, seeking praise among the specialized conceit of its peers, often succumbing to the authority of institutional fundamentalism. This is a great lament to me, as I have so often tried to converse with intellectuals, only to find them chasing vain shadows, arrogant and self-inflated, unconcerned about achieving qualitative solutions to real world problems. They want to prove their superior memory, parading their recall of irrelevant details of history and eccentric academic concepts, but so few have the motive of driving knowledge toward concrete solutions. They work to protect the theory that gives them feelings of safety, authority and institutional recognition. They neither ask the question of relevance, nor scrutinize the abstract nature of their emphasis. I do not understand this, my desire as a thinker, is to use thought to continually expand the concrete power of thought itself. I am not interested in being the founder or originator of anything, I am interested in validating and discovering knowledge that produces substantial social transformation in the direction of intelligence. Why waste energy reinventing the wheel when you can use it to travel a further distance? I do not want to defend that which serves my juvenile, psychological needs, I want to defend that which is necessary for quality; my desire is to expand knowledge, not protect self-serving premisses.

Another thing that drives individuals to abstraction, is their desire to evade psychological pain. In this sense ideas become a way of evading the emotional sphere, which is to say, they assist in the survival of pathology. To get lost in the details of the idealistic realm, that which floats above life, has long been a way for man to cope with his existential terror. This has chiefly been the function of religion, but this psychological defense mechanism is not confined to crude mythology, it also applies to the abstractions of philosophy, or just abstraction in general.

The problem is that social pathology, like individual pathology, is hardly ever conscious of itself. It's destructive actions are carried out in automation, a defense mechanism of survival, as the ego seeks to shelter itself from pain. In order to counter it one must first become conscious of it, one must have the ability to confront it, and the psychological knowledge to know how to change it. The tools of psychology work in the service of self-regulation, thus social pacification, social stability, thereby increasing the individual's capacity to cultivate intelligence, and hence, quality. The social benefits are the fruits of a more stable civilization.             

Psychology goes out into the world and transforms social dysregulation into social function. This is because it actually targets the effects of class struggle, which can be accurately described as the inheritance of complex trauma, or psychopathology in general. Class struggle affects individuals, but how does it affect them? It creates impoverished material conditions, which lead to impoverished psychological conditions. (This is no more true than in the case of education). A fact of class struggle is that it creates trauma which gets passed down from generation to generation. This is the real explanation as to why democratic movements fail, they fail when the individuals, who are vital to their quality, are lacking quality themselves.

Psychology is a kind of master science because knowledge cannot function humanely, maturely, intelligently, without the aid of a humane psychology -- healthy psychology is the axiom of healthy function, it is the true force behind qualitative existence. However, the psychologists have not yet caught up to the reality of class struggle, and the role it plays in impairing mental health, while critical theorists, have not yet caught up to the advances in psychology, and the role these discoveries must play, when it comes to transforming society.** The two have need of each other.

How can it be that so many intellectuals spend their mental life striving for social validation as opposed to social quality? Is this, not itself, explained by psychology? Many intellectuals are authoritarians, which is to say, they like to occupy a place of authority. This is a psychological problem, it results from a defect in the self as well as an inability to discern value. (One of the intellectual's tragic defects, is that he longs to see himself as an intellectual, and thus labors to propagate this self-image).

No intellectual will tell you that they fear discourse, but this is precisely the fear of those intellectuals who are motivated by authority, and it's also why their theory, never rises to the high level of revolutionary praxis or dialectical comprehension. What are these kind of intellectuals seeking? The answer is, feelings of authority, social validation, praise, fame, respect, academic approval, peer acknowledgement, intellectual affirmation. These are the wrong motivations. Authority is inferior as a psychological disposition of inquiry, and guarantees, that those moved by it, will stop their inquiry when they achieve the consummation of this feeling, or when the inquiry threatens to extinguish this feeling. 

Courage is required for the realization of quality thought, but there is another requirement, one must be capable of suffering! People love the comfort of delusion and use it to evade the discomfort of truth. History teaches us that society persecutes those who have the courage to seek and defend the truth.

To be an intellectual is to be both alienated and isolated. One should not be deluded about the reclusive environment to which one is sequestered, if one dares to engage in vigorous and courageous thinking. Thought segregates the thinker from those who fear it.
 


   
NOTES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



* "Combating White Nationalism: Lessons from Marx," Andrew Kliman 2017. In this paper Kliman suggests that Marx's technique to keep on uniting workers is the solution to the problems we face in society. It amounts to a tautology for blank unity.


**Here there are two major areas of development, the study and treatment of complex trauma, and the earth shattering discovery of Attachment Theory, which may, in fact, be the greatest discovery of our species. Knowledge of these two areas completely alters the entire foundation of man's knowledge of himself and his world. Both these discoveries promise to bring sweeping transformations to critical theory.


-
-
-