Vignettes

On “radical critique”

As a student of anthropology and at the same time – perhaps paradoxically, some might say – what many would consider a right wing political activist, the matter of “radical critique” is one with which I am all too familiar.

Let me at first answer the oft-neglected question of what a radical critique in fact is – is it whatever criticism leveled by radicals? A critique that is radical – innovative, harsh, fundamental – in itself? No, and yes. In an article about a book on Marx’s radical critique of capitalist society, I took note of the following

he clearly believed that the problems with capitalist society are deeply rooted in the sense that only a radical transformation of capitalism (i.e., its replacement by socialism) could eliminate or significantly reduce these problems. For these reasons, Marx can be thought of as offering a radical critique of capitalist society.

This is a workable definition seen in practice. As a the diligent reader will probably have noticed throughout this blog, unclear definitions tick me off, to be frank. Radical is of course derived from radix in Latin, meaning “root”. To eradicate - uproot, that is - is another derivate. A radical critique is thus a critique directed at the roots of an issue, as opposed to a minor or more superficial one. (Or it at least it will be for the duration of this entry).

The reason I’d like to share my thoughts on “radical critiques” is partly political and partly anthropological. I cannot help but notice the near-ubiquity of criticism found throughout anthropological literature. Anthropologists seem to be a polemical bunch. In one article, nationalism is being analyzed and thus - fought. In the next, it’s gender, power structures, globalization or the Danish welfare system. It seems that by analyzing, deconstructing and describing, they attempt to destroy, deride and expose weaknesses and faults. Let’s not get into the ugly field of professional ethics, but just take note of this. Exposing and discussing ambiguities, contradictions and exploring alternatives is what anthropologists do.

It hasn’t always been like this, nor is it as ubiquitous as this entry might suggest, but it is interesting none the less. At times, the seemingly very non-positivst articles of very esteemed, balanced academics will belie a.. certain scientistic pleasure of dissection. At times the anthropologist’s pen encrouches contempt, others proceed with their piece-by-piece analyses with a distinctly morbid fascination, but their aim is always the same: Exposition and exploration.

And the results? Well, published for a willing audience of other cultural lab-rat-torturers. Radical criticism is rarely as efficient as it would like to suggest. The rest of the world often has a hard time following their points and it would seem the the “inherent ambiguities” and “cracks and gaps” in global capital haven’t caused it to collapse in some Marxian apocalypse quite yet. Unless the movers and shakers of the world - be they politicians, union ring leaders… or whoever - grab hold of the academics’ ideas, they tend to slip away through the craps and gaps of the publics eye and into obscurity.

(Obvious exceptions: Marx, Foucault, Freud)

So, what does all this have to do with politics? An awful lot. Anthropologists tend to be radical leftists, so their critique of any given institution plays well into reconfirming their political ideas and arguing that “there are alternatives” to any given policy. This even has policy implications at times, I know. Therefore, radical criticism is something I as a rightist need to be well aware of - how do I recognize it, respond to it, criticize it one its own and on my terms and - ultimately - how do I use to my own purposes?

In a recent article, a right-leaning anthropologist suggested studying leftism anthropologically as a religious cult. While I’m sympathetic to this project -if for no other reason than the slightly colonial charm of studying our very own local savages - I also feel obliged to questio whether a conservative should engage in radical critique at all?

I’ve certainly indulged myself and offered - just to mention one thing - a rather radical critique of the Danish welfare system as a control-system, using superveillance and economic incentives to shape and discipline the population. I do believe that this is the case. Also, I believe that the welfare-ideology of our state masks the massive power exercised over us. The very word “welfare” - defined by dictionary.com as ” the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being:” has now become (in Danish) a euphemism for government confiscating and redistributing the citizens’ property as it sees fit - giving some away to family and neighbours of the victim, some to the victim itself and spending about half of it on a number of services ranging from politicians’ pay, healthcare, the Monarchy and defense. Not that I’m against any of those things - I’d just like to lift the veil and expose for you all what is in fact going on.

This little digression is an example of radical criticism levelled from the right instead of the left. It can be just a potent (or pointless), but I must admit to being a bit discomforted with it. Its vulgar, simplistic and negates historical realities and a whole score of other factors. It focuses on the “radix” of an issue and offers no means for improvement. That’s no way to do conduct politics. It just asks of us to one thing - eradicate the issue.

What do you do with dissection leftovers? Throw them out. This is a simple reasoning and, it would seem, one that pervades radically critical thought to a frightening degree.