Quotessence
Home / Topics / Critical Theory Quotes

Critical Theory Quotes

Browse 25 quotes about Critical Theory.

Critical Theory Quotes

“The more we live as 'free individuals' . . . the more we are effectively non-free, caught within the existing frame of possibilities--we have to be impelled or disturbed into freedom. . . . This paradox thoroughly pervades the form of subjectivity that characterizes 'permissive' liberal society. Since permissiveness and free choice are elevated into a supreme value, social control and domination can no longer appear as infringing on subjects' freedom: they have to appear as (and be sustained by) individuals experiencing themselves as free. There is a multitude of forms of this appearing of un-freedom in the guise of its opposite: in being deprived of universal healthcare, we are told that we are being given a new freedom of choice (to choose our healthcare provider); when we can no longer rely on long-term employment and are compelled to search for a new precarious job every couple of years, we are told that we are being given the opportunity to reinvent ourselves and discover our creative potential; when we have to pay for the education of our children, we are told that we are now able to become 'entrepreneurs of the self," acting like a capitalist freely choosing how to invest the resources he possesses (or has borrowed). In education, health, travel . . . we are constantly bombarded by imposed 'free choices'; forced to make decisions for which we are mostly not qualified (or do not possess enough information), we increasingly experience our freedom as a burden that causes unbearable anxiety. Unable to break out of this vicious cycle alone, as isolated individuals--since the more we act freely the more we become enslaved by the system--we need to be 'awakened' from this 'dogmatic slumber' of fake freedom.”

“En réalité, j’ai l’impression que la structure fondamentale du désir se situe justement ici : il est propulsé par l’exigence de mettre à portée quelque chose qui ne l’est pas (encore). Et là se trouve peut-être la clé permettant de nous soustraire au jeu de l’accroissement sans limites auquel se livre la modernité et à son ambition de rendre tout et chacun disponible, de la priver de l’énergie de propulsion dont elle a besoin, de débrancher en quelque sorte sa « prise libineuse ». Ma thèse est que la structure fondamentale du désir humain est un désir de relation : nous voulons atteindre ou rendre atteignable quelque chose qui n’est pas « à notre disposition ». Ce quelque chose peut être, par exemple, une nouvelle guitare ou une tablette tactile, un lac ou un être aimé. Dans tous ces cas, le désir vise à entrer avec ce qui est désiré dans une relation responsive ; de placer la guitare, la personne ou le lac dans un rapport de réponse, ou d’entrer avec la tablette dans des relations responsives avec le monde. Mais dans chaque cas, je l’affirme, le désir s’éteint lorsqu’il n’y a plus rien à « découvrir » sur ou avec le vis-à-vis, si nous maîtrisons et contrôlons toutes ses propriétés, si nous en disposons totalement. Une fois de plus, nous pouvons donc aussi parler de « semi-disponibilité » : nous ne pouvons pas désirer une personne ou une guitare si nous ne savons strictement rien d’elle et si nous ne l’avons jamais vue. Dans la première dimension, l’objet du désir doit donc être au moins partiellement et temporairement disponible, sans quoi il renvoie à une « nostalgie sans nom », dans laquelle l’objet du désir est le désir lui-même. La disposition complète, dans la totalité des quatre dimensions, provoque en revanche l’extinction du désir : le jeu perd son objet, la musique son attrait, l’amour son ardeur. L’indisponibilité complète est dépourvue de sens au regard du désir, mais la disponibilité totale est sans attrait. Cela signifie qu’une relation réussie au monde vise à l’atteignabilité, pas à la disponibilité. Il faut qu’un vis-à-vis soit atteignable sous une forme quelconque, il doit être possible de nouer avec lui un rapport de réponse qui ne soit pas erratique, c’est-à-dire complètement fortuit, mais qui ne soit pas non plus entièrement contrôlable, et qui, à partir de cette structure même, enclenche l’interaction entre l’interpellation, l’efficacité personnelle et la transformation, permettant ainsi l’expérience de la vitalité.”

“The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd. Here we have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away. We have assigned clever pseudonyms to prevent recognition. Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel and think. Also because it’s nice to talk like everybody else, to say the sun rises, when everybody knows it’s only a manner of speaking. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. Each will know his own. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.”

“The ultimate form of dehumanization is not to reduce humans to the rank of animals, but to elevate animals to the rank of humans; the ultimate form of depersonalization is not to take away the personhood of subjects, but to give personhood to objects; and the ultimate form of demoralization is not to lower morality to the level of caprice, but to raise caprice to the level of morality.”

“By creating a false distinction between "good" and "bad" forms of animal exploitation and violence, the animal industry has convinced the public that there is nothing wrong with animal agriculture, per se, only with the way it is practiced. However, it isn't just the animal industry that has a stake in this. Capitalists and consumers, conservatives and liberals, small-scale farmers and corporate industrial farms alike all wish to re-"naturalize" animal husbandry as a permanent, benignant fixture of the human condition. The new hoax of "humane" meat is thus a convenience for all, a way to neutralize animal advocacy and to fend off the bad conscience of society." - The Humane Hoax”

“Like the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, postmodernism seeks to institutionalize dishonesty as a legitimate school of thought. The idea of truth as the ultimate goal of the intellectual is discarded. In its place, scholars are asked to pursue political objectives--so long as those political objectives are the 'correct' ones. Postmodernism is not fringe within the community of scholars. It is central. This tells us a great deal about the life of the mind today. Peruse any university course catalogue, and you find names like Foucault, Derrida, and Barthes. Scour the footnotes of scholarly books and journals and a similar story unfolds. With the primacy of philosophies--postmodernism, Critical Theory, and even the right-leaning Straussianism--that exalt dishonesty in the service of supposedly noble causes, is it at all surprising that liars like Alfred Kinsey, Rigoberta Menchu, Alger Hiss, and Margaret Sanger have achieved a venerated status among the intellectuals?”

“Kritisk teori forstår seg selv som et bindeledd mellom teori og praksis. En verdsliggjøring av filosofien - rettere sagt en praksisfilosofi, praxis, hvor samfunnskritikk skal føre frem til frigjørende politisk handling.”

“Another anti-theoretical stratagem is to claim that in order to launch some fundamental critique of our culture, we would need to be standing at some Archimedean point beyond it. What this fails to see is that reflecting critically on our situation is part of our situation. It is a feature of the peculiar way we belong to the world. It is not some impossible light-in-the-refrigerator attempt to scrutinize ourselves when we are not there. Curving back on ourselves is as natural to us as it is to cosmic space or a wave of the sea. It does not entail jumping out of our own skin. Without such self-monitoring we would not have survived as a species.”

“The two most far-reaching critical theories at the beginning of the latest phase of industrial society were those of Marx and Freud. Marx showed the moving powers and the conflicts in the social-historical process. Freud aimed at the critical uncovering of the inner conflicts. Both worked for the liberation of man, even though Marx's concept was more comprehensive and less time-bound than Freud's.”

“I hope any poem I've ever written could stand on its own and not need to be a part of biography, critical theory or cultural studies. I don't want to give a poetry reading and have to provide the story behind the poem in order for it to make sense to an audience. I certainly don't want the poem to require a critical intermediary - a "spokescritic." I want my poems to be independently meaningful moments of power for a good reader. And that's the expectation I initially bring to other poets' writing.”