【推文】James Lindsay - I used to give a three-part definition of critical theory

這是 James Lindsay 最近寫的長推文串

連結

• 原推文 - x.com/conceptualjame...

• Thread Reader App版本（一頁版本） - threadreaderapp.com/...

原文及個人翻譯

（圖片不翻譯）

I used to give a three-part definition of critical theory, or critical consciousness, so Woke, derived from Max Horkheimer, who created the critical theory:

1) utopian concept of society
2) critical attitude towards everything opposing that concept
3) activist duty for 1 & 2 🧵

我過去曾以三部分來定義批判性理論，或批判性意識，即「Woke」（覺醒文化）的概念，這源自於創造了批判性理論的Max Horkheimer：

1. 社會的烏托邦概念

2. 對所有反對該概念的事物持批判性態度

3. 對1和2的行動主義責任

The question really is how can we tell "Woke Right" from people who want to save our country. The equally hard question from five years ago was how do we tell "Woke (Left)" from people who just have a socially progressive left agenda? It's hard, but these criteria are key.

真正的問題是如何區分「覺醒的右翼」和那些真正想拯救國家的人。五年前同樣困難的問題是如何區分「覺醒的左翼」和那些只是持有社會進步左翼議程的人？這很困難，但這些標準是關鍵。

1) Holding a utopian standard for society is key to Woke thinking. Woke people "know" how society should be, and everyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow deficient: morally, intellectually, psychologically, etc. No clear utopian vision need be articulated, to be clear.

Wokes rarely have a clear utopian vision except that it will be a world absent all the problems we currently face, and it will be that way because (Woke, superior) people like them hold power and enforce the required standards and "virtues" on everyone, which will make it work.

(1) 持有社會烏托邦標準是「覺醒」思維的核心。「覺醒」的人「知道」社會應該是什麼樣子，而不同意他們的人在某種程度上都是有缺點的：道德上、智力上、心理上等。需要明確的是，不需要明確闡述烏托邦願景。

「覺醒」的人很少有明確的烏托邦願景，除了它將是一個沒有我們目前面臨的所有問題的世界。這將是這樣，因為（像他們這樣的「覺醒」和優越的人）掌握權力，並向每個人強加所需的標準和「美德」，這將使社會運作。

Secondary to this utopian standard for society under their power are historicist beliefs that construe history as inexorably moving in a particular direction, usually some concept of justice, and enemies of the vision being in the way and holding it back.

Also secondary to this utopian vision is the entitlement relationship to power. The Woke are awake, Erwacht, Elect, and they obviously are therefore natural betters to the sleeping people who labor under false (not-Woke) consciousness, thus they must rule.

Tertiary from there, we see not just an entitlement to power but also a confidence (like the con in con man) that when they, the Woke, hold and enforce their power, we'll be on track to utopia, even if the beginning is rough. They're Woke and ruling, so it'll work out.

Derivative from that is the conspiratorial victimhood mentality that history and its enemies have conspired to keep them, the Woke, away from power because obviously the status quo must maintain itself for the ruling enemy class. It's all a contrivance again the poor Wokes.

次要的是，在他們權力下的社會烏托邦標準伴隨著歷史主義信仰，認為歷史不可避免地朝著特定方向前進，通常是一種正義的概念，而敵人們阻礙並拖延了這一進程。

同樣次要的是，對權力的佔有權。「覺醒」的人已經覺醒，他們是被選中的，是精英，顯然因此他們是比沉睡的、受著虛假（非「覺醒」）意識束縛的人們更優越的，所以他們必須統治。

從這裡延伸出，我們看到不僅是對權力的佔有權，還有一種自信（就像騙子的騙術），當他們，「覺醒」的人，掌握並執行權力時，我們將走向烏托邦，即使開始可能很艱難。他們是「覺醒」的，在統治，所以一切都會好起來的。

由此衍生出一種陰謀性的受害者心態，認為歷史及其敵人密謀阻止「覺醒」的人獲得權力，因為顯然現狀必須被維持以保護正在統治的敵人階級。這一切都是為了對付可憐的「覺醒」的人。

2) Downstream from that, therefore, Wokes hold a critical disposition towards everything in society that doesn't move toward their utopian concept for society, in the sense of a ruthless criticism of everything and everyone outside of their political aspirations and vision.

(2) 因此，下游的「覺醒」的人對社會中一切不朝著他們烏托邦社會概念前進的事物持批判性態度，這意味著對他們政治抱負和願景之外的一切和所有人進行無情的批評。

That is, Wokes adopt a critical theory of reality, which allows them to identify and call out everything that stands between themselves and power, which is the way they believe their utopian standard will manifest. Again, they don't need to know what utopia looks like for this.

也就是說，「覺醒」的人採用了一種對現實的批判性理論，這讓他們能夠識別並指出一切阻礙他們獲得權力（他們認為這是他們烏托邦標準實現的道路）的事物。再次強調，他們不需要知道烏托邦的具體樣貌就能這樣做。

Critical theories are wholly negative pursuits that believe themselves to "become positive" by virtue of their purge of un-Woke evils. As Horkheimer had it, they don't need to know what an ideal society looks like, only what it doesn't look like, which they can then criticize.

That means that a trait of Woke thinking is that through enough negative, you will get a positive, but of course only through accepting their critique and their claim on control of those undesired elements that comes with it.

Secondary to this trait of Woke is the friend/enemy distinction in politics. Those who aid the utopian concept and its agents are the good guys, and those who don't are enemies, not just of the cadre, but of the people at large and of history itself, which they alone comprehend.

批判性理論是完全負面的追求，相信通過清除非「覺醒」的邪惡，它們可以「變得積極」。正如Horkheimer所說，他們不需要知道理想社會是什麼樣子，只需要知道它不應該是什麼樣子，然後進行批評。

這意味著「覺醒」思維的一個特點是，通過足夠的負面批評，你會得到積極的結果，但當然，這只能通過接受他們的批評以及隨之而來的對那些不希望看到的元素的控制權的聲稱才能實現。

「覺醒」的次要特點是政治中的朋友/敵人區分。那些幫助烏托邦概念及其代理人的人是好人，而那些不幫助的人則是敵人，不僅是對群體的敵人，也是對人民和歷史本身的敵人，而他們獨自理解歷史。

3) Woke thinking always combines theory and praxis (activism), so there's a requirement to do activism (pursuant to 1 and 2) that moves society toward utopia and away from "enemy" positions. It's not enough to be awake, Wokes must act to direct history in its intended direction.

Combining the corollaries of 1 & 2 with this demand for social and political activism arrives at an entitled attitude where the ends justifying the means comes in. The only Woke ethic is that whatever moves the world towards the Woke standard is ethical; nothing else is.

「覺醒」思維總是將理論與實踐（激進主義）結合，因此有必要進行激進主義（根據1和2）以推動社會走向烏托邦，遠離「敵人」的立場。僅僅清醒是不夠的，「覺醒」的人必須採取行動，引導歷史朝著預期的方向前進。

將1和2的推論與這種社會和政治激進主義的要求相結合，就產生了一种理所當然的態度，其中「目的能正當化手段」的原則被接受。唯一的「覺醒」道德標準是，任何能讓世界朝向「Woke」標準前進的行為都是道德的；其他一切都不是。

Thus lying, smearing, character assassination, cancelling, propaganda, and eventually political violence are all on the table for the Woke because all are ethical under any Woke ethics. Limiting principles are lifted from Wokes and applied ruthlessly to enemies.

Downstream from this is the two-tiered society that reads like "for my enemies, the law; for my friends, everything" that we associate with all corrupt regimes. They justify this view through the entitlement complex that is ultimately what it means to be Woke in the first place.

因此，說謊、抹黑、人格暗殺、取消、宣傳，最終甚至是政治暴力，都對「覺醒」的人開放，因為在任何「覺醒」的道德標準下，這些行為都是道德的。限制原則從「覺醒」的人那裡被無視，並被無情地應用於他們的敵人。

由此產生的是兩個層次的社會，就像「對我的敵人，是法律；對我的朋友，是所有東西」一樣，這讓我們想起了所有腐敗的政權。他們通過最終的權利複雜性來證明這種觀點，而這種權利複雜性正是成為「覺醒」的最初意義。