Revision as of 09:03, 29 September 2021 editDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,962 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:38, 15 December 2021 edit undoSennalen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,089 edits →Misrepresented sources: new sectionTag: RevertedNext edit → | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:I think this has been accidentally posted on the wrong talk page. It should go to ] talk page like NewImpartial said above. ] (]) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) | :I think this has been accidentally posted on the wrong talk page. It should go to ] talk page like NewImpartial said above. ] (]) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) | ||
== Misrepresented sources == | |||
The lede ends {{Blockquote|text=However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the ], a highly influential discourse on the ] without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.<ref>Jamin, Jérôme. "Cultural Marxism: A Survey." Religion Compass 12, no. 1-2 (2018): e12258.</ref><ref>Jamin, Jérôme. "Cultural marxism and the radical right." In The post-war Anglo-American far right: A special relationship of hate, pp. 84-103. Palgrave Pivot, London, 2014.</ref>}} | |||
I have examined the sources given and can emphatically say that the claims fail verification. Jérôme's identifies the origins of the conspiracy theory in concrete citations to actual works of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree on the facts. The most relevant parts from the conclusion of "Cultural Marxism: A Survey" for discussion: | |||
{{Blockquote|text=Even if this led us to observe two different groups with a different atti-tude regarding what is the truth: the opening discussion also stressed elements of continuity between both sides, and stated it was not our goal to say where and when some authors cross the border from one side to the other, from what is supposed to be real and serious academic work and what is more about interpretation and speculation. This is important because, first, the power of conspiracy theories rest upon the use of some unquestionable facts (in “conspiracy thinking,” an unquestionable fact is something you can verify by yourself). And, second, because the case of “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory illustrates using an unquestionable fact and how this continuity works between both sides. When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a con-spiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School. Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look | |||
at descriptions of what they wanted to do: conducting research or changing deeply the culture of the West? Were they working for political science or were they engaging with a hidden political agenda? Were they working for the academic community or obeying foreign secret services? | |||
And for the same reasons, interpretations change if we look at what they have done: did they succeed? What has been the real impact of their project? Can we locate this on campuses and academic discourses, or on culture in gen-eral? Such interpretations also change again if we look at what they knew of their own influence: were they really aware of what they were doing? Were they overtaken by the success of their works on their students and readers? Were they themselves manipulated by foreign forces? Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions. These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story.}} | |||
It is very clear from this that the current lede text cannot stand, but I'd welcome input on how exactly it should change. | |||
] (]) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:38, 15 December 2021
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Marxist cultural analysis be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
I hope someone else will set up this Talk page appropriately, and add appropriate projects and notices. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd really appreciate if someone could set up this Talk page with appropriate notices and projects; I don't know how to do it! Not that I "created" the article - just the Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
More recent developments section
I recognize that this edit removed - along with lots of dreck and misleading claims - some relevant sources. I don't have any problem with the section being expanded and some of the sources added back in, with the proviso that misleading claims (such as the use made of Jameson, 2007, which made a complete hash of the source) and COATRACK elements (such as the prior discussion of media literacy) be avoided. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Section on the conspiracy theory
We have a section on the conspiracy theory, which has its own article. I am troubled by the assumption of anti-Semitism. Now, as far as I can tell there is no definitive version of the theory about (there is no shadowy organisation organising it!) so there would have to be a solid, fundamental element to call it that. There are Anti-Semites who cling to the theory; all conspiracies attract them. However anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism is a serious charge and so we are accusing a lot of people.
If we take the Holocaust Memorial Trust's definition of Anti-Semitism, what element of the concept is within that? As far as I can see, no element of the theory (if I understand it correctly) has any reference to Jewish people. Anti-Semites will have their own version and mix it up with bits of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion fraud, but that's just them.
If you disagree, can you set out what the theory actually states and show there is an element that necessarily includes an accusation against Jewish people or any race or culture come to that?
The battle against conspiracy theories is a serious one, and flailing about won't help. Hogweard (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- This question has been thoroughly answered at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and in that article as it currently stands. There is no need to do the WP:OR proposed by Hogweard. However, we are not supposed per policy to rely on the references in other articles for claims that could be questioned (like this one), so one of the best references on the antisemitic character of the conspiracy should be added to this article as well. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I will have a look over at that one. Hogweard (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Clarificarion Needed
Does this page seek to be about Marxist Cultural Analysis, a rather broad term which could span anywhere from post-modernist positions to Orthodox radical African revolutionary Marxism, to variants on fascist communist theory, which is impossibly broad for a Misplaced Pages page - or does this page seek to recreate content that's been forbidden elsewhere. It seems to be re-creating a lot of SALTED content about Cultural Marxism. This is far too pointed and specific for such a title. This page in it's current incarnation could very easily be nominated at Articles For Deletion. That is perhaps the correct course of action, I don't see how it's not a rather broad WP:CONTENTFORK and it should probably be completely transformed into a general portal (although one for MarxismSocialism already exists), or (and this appears more likely) completely pruned. 59.102.45.178 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure what the creator's intent was, but the curren t version of this article is not about "Cultural Marxism" and is sourced with material about Gramscian Marxism, the Birmingham School, the Frankfurt school, and Marxist Humanism insofar as those have contributes to the article's topic, Marxist cultural analysis. To my knowledge, the reliable sources on this topic do not typically include Bolshevik or Constructivist or Stalinist or Situationist or Maoist approaches to culture, although these are all valid topics and could be construed as potentially in scope as Marxist analyses. But this article follows the approaches taken, since the "cultural turn" of the 1930s to 1960s, by the main line of secondary sources AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...and there in lays the problem, because Bolsheviks, Constructivists, Stalinists, Situationalists, and Maoists have all participated in Marxist Cultural Analysis too. So if that's the topic they should be included. Likewise, if the topic is actually Western Marxist Cultural Analysis, then it should be merged into Western Marxism (which already lists the Frankfurt School as its prominent thinkers). So none of the content here seems apropo. It's content looking for a page, rather than a page looking for content IMHO. 59.102.45.178 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I for one would not recommend that, first, because the Western Marxism article is terrible (I had actually forgotten how bad it was until reviewing it just now) and second, because the scope of the two articles is necessarily different. This article follows the literature on which it is based in excluding the Marxisms developed in Communist states, but follows the same literature in emphasizing the Birmingham School and other humanist Marxists that are not notably related to Korsch and Lucacs-inspired "Western Marxism". So this article includes tendencies that Western Marxism does not, and perhaps more fundamentally, it excludes most of what Western Marxism actually features: on one hand, the political parties of Western Europe, and their intellectuals, and on another that huge body of Western Marxist intellectual work that was concerned with such themes as epistemology, philosophy of history, material history, political organization, technology, labour and urbanism - rather than cultural analysis, which is after all a fairly narrow field. So Marxist cultural analysis differs from Western Marxism through both inclusion and exclusion - which should not be surprising since it is a different topic altogether, even if certain figures or groups are held in common. Newimpartial (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I included material in fields with which I am more familiar. There are presumably other fields of thought, beyond the western schools quoted. There is certainly room for expansion by those with a knowledge of other schools of thought. The basic field of Marxism (with which I disagree, incidentally) has many outgrowths of analytical theory in economics, politics, culture, sociology, history etc, and all deserve articles, as do opposing theories. Hogweard (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I for one would not recommend that, first, because the Western Marxism article is terrible (I had actually forgotten how bad it was until reviewing it just now) and second, because the scope of the two articles is necessarily different. This article follows the literature on which it is based in excluding the Marxisms developed in Communist states, but follows the same literature in emphasizing the Birmingham School and other humanist Marxists that are not notably related to Korsch and Lucacs-inspired "Western Marxism". So this article includes tendencies that Western Marxism does not, and perhaps more fundamentally, it excludes most of what Western Marxism actually features: on one hand, the political parties of Western Europe, and their intellectuals, and on another that huge body of Western Marxist intellectual work that was concerned with such themes as epistemology, philosophy of history, material history, political organization, technology, labour and urbanism - rather than cultural analysis, which is after all a fairly narrow field. So Marxist cultural analysis differs from Western Marxism through both inclusion and exclusion - which should not be surprising since it is a different topic altogether, even if certain figures or groups are held in common. Newimpartial (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...and there in lays the problem, because Bolsheviks, Constructivists, Stalinists, Situationalists, and Maoists have all participated in Marxist Cultural Analysis too. So if that's the topic they should be included. Likewise, if the topic is actually Western Marxist Cultural Analysis, then it should be merged into Western Marxism (which already lists the Frankfurt School as its prominent thinkers). So none of the content here seems apropo. It's content looking for a page, rather than a page looking for content IMHO. 59.102.45.178 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Are these authors within the scope of this article?
Dang Shengyuan, who is Chinese and seems to be writing about the "Cultural Turn" period within the New Left: - and Douglas Keller who also discusses these things: . I'm asking because I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to include a Chinese perspective. 61.68.111.187 (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kellner I can speak to: he is not a significant contributor in this field. As far as Shengyuan, is their work discussed in other sources? If not, it would not be WP:DUE to include. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm, according to the Douglas Kellner page, he's the George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, but yeah, he seems to have focused on critical media literacy, although the page does state that he acted as editor of "Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse," which collected six volumes of the papers of the critical theorist Herbert Marcuse. - so you're right, he's a bit too far off topic.
- Dang Shengyuan is an academic of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, whilst they've collaborated on numerous papers, they don't seem to be commented on that often, or have any major distinct theories that can be encapsulated on this page. Or at least, not that I can see through the language barrier. So perhaps undue for now. 220.245.58.239 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, found these sources , many of which are on Jstor, so appear to have legitimacy. I'm particularly interested in the John Brenkman source . I'm aware that this page is specifically for the conspiracy theory aspects of the term "Cultural marxism" but that John Brenkman source seems to be the source for much of the salted content. Is it time to ask the question again? Should any of this appear on the current page? 220.245.58.239 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- No - I don't see any there, there. All of the RS listed seem to be referring to Marxist cultural analysis, rather than providing support for the
salted content
, that is, the claims on which the conspiracy theory bases itself. Does anyone else see something different in this "collection of evidence"? It looks basically like a google search result for the phrase "cultural Marxism", to me. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think this has been accidentally posted on the wrong talk page. It should go to Marxist cultural analysis talk page like NewImpartial said above. Mvbaron (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Misrepresented sources
The lede ends
However since the 1990s, this term has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a highly influential discourse on the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis.
I have examined the sources given and can emphatically say that the claims fail verification. Jérôme's identifies the origins of the conspiracy theory in concrete citations to actual works of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree on the facts. The most relevant parts from the conclusion of "Cultural Marxism: A Survey" for discussion:
Even if this led us to observe two different groups with a different atti-tude regarding what is the truth: the opening discussion also stressed elements of continuity between both sides, and stated it was not our goal to say where and when some authors cross the border from one side to the other, from what is supposed to be real and serious academic work and what is more about interpretation and speculation. This is important because, first, the power of conspiracy theories rest upon the use of some unquestionable facts (in “conspiracy thinking,” an unquestionable fact is something you can verify by yourself). And, second, because the case of “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory illustrates using an unquestionable fact and how this continuity works between both sides. When looking at the literature on Cultural Marxism as a piece of cultural studies, as a con-spiracy described by Lind and its followers, and as arguments used by Buchanan, Breivik, and other actors within their own agendas, we see a common ground made of unquestionable facts in terms of who did what and where, and for how long at the Frankfurt School. Nowhere do we see divergence of opinion about who Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse really were, when they have met and in which universities. But this changes if we look
at descriptions of what they wanted to do: conducting research or changing deeply the culture of the West? Were they working for political science or were they engaging with a hidden political agenda? Were they working for the academic community or obeying foreign secret services?
And for the same reasons, interpretations change if we look at what they have done: did they succeed? What has been the real impact of their project? Can we locate this on campuses and academic discourses, or on culture in gen-eral? Such interpretations also change again if we look at what they knew of their own influence: were they really aware of what they were doing? Were they overtaken by the success of their works on their students and readers? Were they themselves manipulated by foreign forces? Scholars and conspiracy theories differ significantly in their assessments of such questions. These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story.
It is very clear from this that the current lede text cannot stand, but I'd welcome input on how exactly it should change. Sennalen (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Jamin, Jérôme. "Cultural Marxism: A Survey." Religion Compass 12, no. 1-2 (2018): e12258.
- Jamin, Jérôme. "Cultural marxism and the radical right." In The post-war Anglo-American far right: A special relationship of hate, pp. 84-103. Palgrave Pivot, London, 2014.
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Economics articles
- Mid-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- Mid-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- B-Class Continental philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Continental philosophy articles
- Continental philosophy task force articles
- B-Class culture articles
- Mid-importance culture articles
- WikiProject Culture articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Mid-importance Anthropology articles
- Misplaced Pages requested images