You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Politics’ tag.
When the extremes meet, the center collapses. (TL;DR)
When the Horseshoe Hangs from the Scales explains why the far left and far right increasingly resemble each other—not in ideas, but in methods. Drawing on the metaphors of the scale and the horseshoe, this essay argues that both totalitarian idealism and populist reaction stem from the same metaphysical error: the rejection of objective reality. Only realism—humility before truth—can keep Western society from closing into a circle of coercion.
Political language often obscures more than it reveals. The familiar left–right spectrum suggests linear opposition—progressives facing conservatives across a straight divide. Yet history and experience show something stranger: as ideologies radicalize, their behavior begins to mirror one another. The further the extremes move from reality, the closer they become in method, rhetoric, and moral psychology.
In The Scales of Society (published yesterday), realism anchored the crossbar, and idealism dragged the pans downward into totalitarianism. The horseshoe adds a complementary image. Viewed from above, the scale’s pans curve toward each other like the ends of a bent spectrum. The metaphysical collapse becomes social convergence. Both metaphors describe a single process: when realism breaks, the poles of idealism meet in coercive symmetry.
The Geometry of Political Collapse
The horseshoe theory proposes that the political spectrum bends upon itself, bringing the far left and far right into proximity. Communism and fascism, though ideologically opposed, resemble one another in practice: one abolishes private property, the other subordinates it to the state; both demand absolute obedience. Each claims to redeem humanity through purity—of class or of nation—and each regards dissent as treason.
The scale explains why this happens: both extremes spring from idealism detached from reality. The horseshoe shows how it manifests: through behavioral and institutional mimicry. One describes the metaphysical axis, the other the social. Together they form a complete model of ideological deformation. The vertical collapse of realism generates the horizontal convergence of fanaticism.
From Difference to Sameness
Political polarization masquerades as difference, but when stripped of surface content, the ends often converge in identical impulses:
- Moral totalism. Each side claims moral monopoly—an absolute vision of justice or order that sanctifies any means.
- Friend–enemy logic. Politics becomes warfare. Dialogue is betrayal; neutrality, complicity.
- Collectivist ethics. The individual dissolves into the movement, valuable only as a vehicle for ideological ends.
- Epistemic closure. Truth is no longer discovered but declared; narrative replaces verification.
Arendt observed that totalitarian movements, regardless of ideology, replace empirical reality with “a fictitious world” sustained by propaganda. Popper saw the same pattern: the closed society begins when ideas become sacred and unfalsifiable. Whether draped in red flags or eagles, the architecture is the same.
What begins as opposition ends as resemblance. The revolutionary who abolishes hierarchy and the reactionary who enforces it both deny human limitation. Each demands transformation rather than reform, purity rather than compromise. The further they stray from realism, the more they mirror one another’s methods—purges, censorship, mythmaking, and ritual denunciation.
Convergence in the Contemporary West
The horseshoe is no relic of the twentieth century; its shape defines the present. In the West, the rhetoric of liberation and the rhetoric of restoration increasingly share an authoritarian grammar.
Cultural absolutism. On the progressive extreme, morality is redefined as the enforcement of inclusivity. Dissenting speech becomes “harm,” and linguistic deviation, “violence.” On the reactionary extreme, purity is national or moral rather than social, but the logic is the same: deviation equals corruption. Each side builds orthodoxy around identity.
Information control. The progressive insists on regulating “disinformation,” policing language for moral safety. The populist right responds with its own echo chambers, treating factual correction as conspiracy. Both distrust open discourse, substituting propaganda for persuasion. Truth is no longer common ground but a weapon.
Purity politics. Cancel culture and culture-war purges are functional twins. One excommunicates for heresy against equality, the other for heresy against tradition. Each side frames punishment as virtue, enforcing conformity by shame or exclusion. In both cases, moral capital accrues not from good deeds but from the public destruction of sinners.
The psychological mechanism is identical: belonging through denunciation. The horseshoe’s curve tightens as participants draw moral comfort from collective outrage. When opposing extremisms adopt the same tactics, the distance between them is illusion.
The Horseshoe Meets the Scale
The two metaphors illuminate one another. The scale shows the metaphysical error: idealism’s detachment from realism. The horseshoe shows the social consequence: the return of opposites through behavioral convergence. The result is not diversity of belief but monoculture of method.
Imagine the scales viewed from above: the crossbar of realism forms the straight backbone, but as the pans descend into idealism, they bend toward one another, forming the curve of the horseshoe. The more society abandons truth, the closer its extremes approach in both temperament and technique.
When realism—objective verification, moral humility, and factual accountability—fails, politics becomes a contest of myths. The question is no longer “what is true?” but “whose truth will rule?” In that struggle, the difference between revolutionary and reactionary becomes decorative. Both invoke moral crisis to justify compulsion; both see coercion as salvation.
Why the Center Cannot Hold Without Realism
Critics often lament the “vanishing center,” as if centrism itself could rescue political sanity. But moderation is not a position; it is a discipline—an adherence to external reality over internal fervor. The true counterweight to the horseshoe’s closure is not neutrality but realism.
Realism anchors discourse in verifiable truth: data, evidence, experience, and the acknowledgment of limits. It permits disagreement without dehumanization because it recognizes a shared world beyond ideology. Realism turns enemies into interlocutors by subjecting both to the same facts.
Idealism, by contrast, makes conflict existential. When truth depends on belief, contradiction becomes evil. The desire to perfect the world leads to the compulsion to perfect others, and the moral imagination becomes the tool of tyranny. Only realism—accepting that the world corrects us—keeps the curve of politics open rather than collapsing into a circle of extremism.
The Moral Psychology of the Horseshoe
The convergence of extremes is not merely institutional; it is psychological. Both sides attract personalities drawn to certainty, purity, and moral theater.
The late political theorist Eric Voegelin described this as “gnostic revolt”—the refusal to accept human limitation and the longing to recreate the world in one’s own image. Arendt called it “world alienation.” Each formulation captures the same impulse: the substitution of idea for reality. The horseshoe is the social geometry of that spiritual rebellion.
When entire populations internalize this mindset, societies lose the ability to distinguish moral conviction from metaphysical arrogance. Activists and autocrats alike begin to speak in the same register—of awakening, purity, and necessary sacrifice. The vocabulary of utopia is universal; only its symbols differ.
The Path Back to Reality
Escaping the horseshoe requires reattaching it to the scales—recovering realism as the crossbar that holds political difference in balance. This means restoring institutions that mediate between belief and fact: open science, free inquiry, due process, and honest journalism. It means accepting that error, not heresy, is the normal state of human reason.
Humility, not ideology, is the civic virtue realism demands. The realist admits uncertainty, revises judgment, and learns from failure. Such modesty is not weakness but strength—the discipline that prevents conviction from hardening into cruelty.
Conclusion: The Shape of Sanity
The geometry of political life reflects our metaphysics. When truth stands above us, the scales stay level and the horseshoe remains open. When truth becomes a tool of power, the scales tilt, and the horseshoe closes into a circle—opposites united in coercion.
The West’s present turbulence is not a clash of left and right but a crisis of realism. Both sides, in their extremes, are tempted by the same illusion: that belief can replace being, that will can dictate truth.
If freedom is to endure, it will not be because one ideology triumphs but because reality reasserts itself—quietly, stubbornly, as the only ground capable of bearing the weight of difference.
References
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951.
- Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: J. Dodsley, 1790.
- Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage, 2012.
- Lukianoff, Greg & Haidt, Jonathan. The Coddling of the American Mind. New York: Penguin, 2018.
- Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge, 1945.
- Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
- Ortega y Gasset, José. The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W.W. Norton, 1932.
(TL;DR) Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics remains one of the clearest guides to our modern disorder. It teaches that when politics cuts itself off from transcendent truth, ideology fills the void—and history descends into Gnostic fantasy. Voegelin’s remedy is not new revolution but ancient remembrance: the recovery of the soul’s openness to reality.
Eric Voegelin (1901–1985) was an Austrian-American political philosopher who sought to diagnose the spiritual derangements of modernity. In his 1952 classic The New Science of Politics—first delivered as the Walgreen Lectures at the University of Chicago—Voegelin proposed that politics cannot be understood as a merely empirical or procedural science. Power, institutions, and law arise from a deeper spiritual ground: humanity’s participation in transcendent order. When societies lose awareness of that participation, they fall into ideological dreams that promise salvation through human effort alone. The book is therefore both a critique of modernity and a call to recover the classical and Christian understanding of political reality (Voegelin 1952, 1–26).
1. The Loss of Representational Truth
Every stable society, Voegelin argued, “represents” its members within a larger order of being. In ancient civilizations and medieval Christendom, political authority symbolized this participation through myth, ritual, and law that acknowledged a reality beyond human control. The ruler was not a god but a mediator between the temporal and the eternal.
Beginning in the twelfth century, however, the monk Joachim of Fiore reimagined history as a self-unfolding divine drama in which humanity itself would bring about the final age of perfection. With this shift, Western consciousness began to “immanentize the eschaton”—to relocate ultimate meaning inside history rather than in its transcendent source. Out of this inversion grew the modern ideologies of progress (Comte, Hegel), revolution (Marx), and race (National Socialism), each promising earthly redemption through planning and will (Voegelin 1952, 107–132).
For Voegelin, the loss of representational truth meant that governments no longer reflected humanity’s place in divine order but instead projected utopian images of what they wished reality to be. Politics ceased to be the articulation of truth and became the engineering of salvation.
2. Gnosticism as the Modern Disease
Voegelin identified the inner structure of these movements as Gnostic. Ancient Gnostics sought hidden knowledge that would liberate the soul from an evil world; their modern successors, he said, sought knowledge that would liberate humanity from history itself. “The essence of modernity,” Voegelin wrote, “is the growth of Gnostic speculation” (1952, 166).
He listed six recurrent traits of the Gnostic attitude:
- Dissatisfaction with the world as it is.
- Conviction that its evils are remediable.
- Belief in salvation through human action.
- Assumption that history follows a knowable course.
- Faith in a vanguard who possess the saving knowledge.
- Readiness to use coercion to realize the dream.
From medieval millenarian sects to twentieth-century totalitarian states, these traits form a single continuum of spiritual rebellion: the attempt to perfect existence by abolishing its limits.
3. The Open Soul and the Pathologies of Closure
Against the Gnostic impulse stands the open soul—the philosophical disposition that accepts the “metaxy,” or the in-between nature of human existence. We live neither wholly in transcendence nor wholly in immanence, but within the tension between them. The philosopher’s task is not to resolve that tension through fantasy or reduction but to dwell within it in faith and reason.
Political science, therefore, must be noetic—concerned with insight into the structure of reality—not merely empirical. A society’s symbols, institutions, and laws can be judged by how faithfully they articulate humanity’s participation in divine order. Disorder, Voegelin warned, begins not with bad policy but with pneumopathology—a sickness of the spirit that refuses reality’s truth. “The order of history,” he wrote, “emerges from the history of order in the soul.”
Empirical data can measure economic growth or electoral results, but it cannot measure spiritual health. That requires awareness of being itself.
4. Liberalism’s Vulnerability and the Way of Recovery
Voegelin saw liberal democracies as historically successful yet spiritually precarious. By reducing political order to procedural legitimacy and rights management, liberalism risks drifting into the nihilism it opposes. When public life forgets its transcendent foundation, freedom degenerates into relativism, and pluralism becomes mere fragmentation.
Still, Voegelin’s outlook was not despairing. His proposed remedy was anamnesis—the recollective recovery of forgotten truth. This is not nostalgia but awakening: the rediscovery that human beings are participants in an order they did not create and cannot abolish. The recovery of the classic (Platonic-Aristotelian) and Christian understanding of existence offers the only durable antidote to ideological apocalypse (Voegelin 1952, 165–190).
To “keep open the soul,” as Voegelin put it, is to resist every movement that promises paradise through force or theory. The alternative is the descent into spiritual closure—an ever-recurring temptation of modernity.
5. Contemporary Resonance
Voegelin’s analysis remains uncannily prescient. Today’s ideological battles—whether framed around identity, technology, or climate—often echo the same Gnostic pattern: discontent with the world as it is, belief that perfection lies just one policy or re-education campaign away, and impatience with reality’s resistance. The post-modern conviction that truth is socially constructed continues the old dream of remaking existence through will and language.
Voegelin’s warning cuts through our century as clearly as it did the last: when politics replaces truth with narrative and transcendence with activism, society repeats the ancient heresy in secular form. The cure, as ever, is humility before what is—the recognition that order is discovered, not invented.
References
Voegelin, Eric. 1952. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hughes, Glenn. 2003. Transcendence and History: The Search for Ultimacy from Ancient Societies to Postmodernity. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Sandoz, Ellis. 1981. The Voegelinian Revolution: A Biographical Introduction. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Glossary of Key Terms
Anamnesis – Recollective recovery of forgotten truth about being.
Gnosticism – Revolt against the tension of existence through claims to saving knowledge that masters reality.
Immanentize the eschaton – To locate final meaning and salvation within history rather than beyond it.
Metaxy – The “in-between” condition of human existence, suspended between immanence and transcendence.
Noetic – Pertaining to intellectual or spiritual insight into reality’s order.
Pneumopathology – Spiritual sickness of the soul that closes itself to transcendent reality.
Representation – The symbolic and political articulation of a society’s participation in transcendent order.
Poland’s ascent to a $1 trillion economy in September 2025 marks a remarkable transformation. Emerging from the wreckage of Soviet control, Poland has become one of Europe’s fastest-growing economies over the past three decades. With GDP growth projected at 3.2 percent for 2025, unemployment near 3 percent (harmonized), and inflation moderating to 2.8 percent in August, it demonstrates resilience and steady progress.
Canada, with a nominal GDP of roughly $2.39 trillion, is richer in absolute terms but faces weaker dynamics: growth forecasts of just 1.2 percent, unemployment climbing to 7.1 percent in August, and persistent concerns over productivity and rising public debt. The contrast raises an important question: which elements of Poland’s success can Canada responsibly adapt to its own very different circumstances?
1. Manufacturing Capacity and Industrial Resilience
Poland’s economy has benefited from retaining a strong industrial base, especially in automotive, machinery, and technology supply chains closely integrated with Germany. This foundation has provided steady export growth and employment, while limiting excessive reliance on fragile overseas supply chains.
Canada, by contrast, has seen its manufacturing share of GDP shrink over decades as industries relocated or hollowed out. While Canada cannot replicate Poland’s role as a mid-cost hub inside the EU, it could adapt the principle: incentivize the repatriation or expansion of high-value sectors (e.g., EV manufacturing, critical minerals processing, aerospace). Strategic tax credits, infrastructure investment, and streamlined permitting could restore resilience and provide middle-class employment.
Lesson for Canada: industrial renewal need not mean autarky, but building domestic capacity in key sectors reduces vulnerability to shocks — as Poland’s stability during recent European crises shows.
2. Immigration Policy and Integration Capacity
Poland has pursued a relatively selective immigration system, prioritizing labor market fit and manageable inflows. While Poland remains relatively homogeneous (Eurostat estimates about 98% ethnic Polish in 2022), its policy has focused on ensuring newcomers integrate into economic and cultural life. The result has been high employment among migrants and limited social disruption compared with some Western European peers.
Canada, by contrast, accepts large inflows — even after scaling back targets to 395,000 permanent residents in 2025 — and faces housing pressures and uneven integration outcomes. Canada’s homicide rate (2.27 per 100,000 in 2022) is higher than Poland’s (0.68), though crime is shaped by many factors beyond immigration. Still, rapid population growth without infrastructure, housing, and language capacity has heightened social strains.
Lesson for Canada: immigration policy should balance humanitarian goals with absorptive capacity. Emphasizing labor alignment, regional settlement, and language proficiency — as Poland has done — would help ensure inflows strengthen productivity while minimizing stress on housing and services.
3. Cultural Continuity and Heritage as Assets
Poland has paired modernization with deliberate protection of its cultural identity. The restoration of Kraków and Warsaw not only preserves heritage but fuels a thriving tourism sector. National traditions, rooted in Catholicism for many Poles, have also informed family policy (e.g., child benefits) and provided a sense of cohesion during rapid economic change.
Canada’s pluralism differs fundamentally, and it cannot — and should not — mimic Poland’s religious or cultural model. Yet Canada can still learn from the broader principle: treating heritage and shared narratives as economic and social assets rather than obstacles. Investments in Indigenous landmarks, Francophone culture, and historic architecture could enrich tourism, foster pride, and strengthen cohesion. Likewise, family-supportive policies (parental leave, child benefits, flexible work arrangements) are essential as Canada faces declining fertility and an aging workforce.
Lesson for Canada: cultural preservation and demographic support are not nostalgic luxuries — they can reinforce economic stability and social cohesion.
4. Fiscal Prudence and Monetary Autonomy
Poland’s choice to retain the zloty rather than adopt the euro preserved monetary flexibility. Combined with relatively conservative fiscal policies (public debt at about 49% of GDP in 2024, well below EU ceilings), this has allowed Poland to respond to crises with agility while maintaining competitiveness.
Canada already benefits from its own currency, but fiscal expansion has pushed federal debt above 65% of GDP. While Canada’s wealth affords greater borrowing room, long-term sustainability requires discipline. Poland’s experience suggests that debt caps, counter-cyclical saving, and careful monetary coordination can preserve resilience without stifling growth.
Lesson for Canada: fiscal credibility is itself an economic asset. Setting clearer debt-to-GDP targets and enforcing discipline would strengthen Canada’s ability to weather global volatility.
Conclusion
Poland’s trajectory is not without challenges. It faces demographic decline, reliance on EU subsidies, and governance controversies that Canada would not wish to replicate. But its achievements underscore a vital truth: prosperity need not mean sacrificing resilience, identity, or cohesion.
For Canada, the actionable lessons are clear:
-
rebuild key industries,
-
align immigration with integration capacity,
-
invest in heritage and families,
-
and re-anchor fiscal policy in prudence.
Adapted to Canadian realities, these reforms could help lift growth closer to 3 percent, reduce unemployment, and restore a sense of national momentum.
References
-
International Monetary Fund (IMF). World Economic Outlook Database, October 2025.
-
Statistics Canada. Labour Force Survey, August 2025.
-
Eurostat. Population Structure and Migration Statistics, 2022–2025.
-
OECD. Economic Outlook: Poland and Canada, 2025.
-
World Bank. World Development Indicators, 2024–2025.
-
UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Homicide Statistics, 2022.
-
National Bank of Poland. Annual Report, 2024.
-
Government of Canada. Immigration Levels Plan 2025–2027.
Frantz Fanon’s seminal work, The Wretched of the Earth, provides a framework for understanding decolonization as a radical, often violent, restructuring of society, which some activists in Canada have adopted to challenge the foundations of Western civilization. Fanon argues that decolonization is inherently disruptive, stating, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder” (Fanon, 1963, p. 36). In the Canadian context, this rhetoric is echoed in calls to dismantle institutions, reject Eurocentric histories, and prioritize Indigenous frameworks over established systems. A recent example is the controversy surrounding the Ontario Grade 9 Math Curriculum, where the inclusion of anti-racism and decolonization language—such as claims that mathematics has been used to “normalize racism”—led to significant backlash and eventual removal of such content (Global News, 2021). While presented as a pursuit of justice, this approach often amplifies societal fractures, pitting Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups against one another. By framing Canada’s history solely as a colonial oppression narrative, activists risk fostering resentment and division, undermining the shared societal cohesion necessary for a functioning democracy. This strategy aligns with Fanon’s vision of upending the status quo but ignores the complexities of Canada’s multicultural fabric, where reconciliation and cooperation have been attempted through dialogue and policy, however imperfectly.
The activist push for decolonization in Canada, inspired by Fanon’s ideas, often employs a rhetoric of moral absolutism that vilifies Western institutions while ignoring their contributions to global stability and progress. Fanon writes, “The colonial world is a Manichaean world” (Fanon, 1963, p. 41), casting the colonizer and colonized in stark, irreconcilable opposition. In Canada, this binary is reflected in demands to erase symbols of Western heritage—such as statues of historical figures or traditional educational curricula—in favor of an exclusively Indigenous narrative. For instance, Ryan McMahon’s 12-step guide to decolonizing Canada proposes radical changes, including the return of land to Indigenous peoples and reallocating 50% of natural resource export revenues to Indigenous nations (CBC Radio, 2017). Such proposals, while framed as reconciliation, can be seen as divisive and impractical by many Canadians, fostering a sense of cultural erasure among non-Indigenous Canadians while creating unrealistic expectations of systemic overhaul. By framing decolonization as a zero-sum conflict, activists inadvertently sow discord, weakening the social contract that binds diverse communities. Instead of fostering unity, this tactic mirrors Fanon’s call for a radical break, which may destabilize the very society it seeks to reform, playing into a broader narrative of internal collapse rather than constructive change.
Ultimately, the application of Fanon’s decolonization framework in Canada serves as a divisive tool that threatens the stability of Western societies by prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic coexistence. Fanon asserts, “For the colonized, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the colonizer” (Fanon, 1963, p. 93), a statement that implies destruction as a prerequisite for renewal. In Canada, this translates into activist strategies that reject compromise, demanding sweeping societal transformations without acknowledging the complexities of a nation built on diverse contributions. A historical example is the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, where concerns over Indigenous land rights led to a 10-year moratorium on the project, delaying economic development and highlighting how decolonization efforts can significantly impact community relations and national progress (Berger, 1977). By weaponizing decolonization to vilify Western values, these efforts risk eroding the democratic principles—freedom, rule of law, and pluralism—that have enabled Canada’s relative stability. Rather than unifying society around shared goals, this approach fuels polarization, aligning with a broader agenda to dismantle Western institutions from within under the guise of justice, leaving little room for reconciliation or mutual progress.
Key Citations
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
- Ontario removes anti-racism text from math curriculum preamble
- Ryan McMahon’s 12-step guide to decolonizing Canada
- Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry
- Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Proposals
- Decolonization at BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
- Catholic church north of Edmonton destroyed in fire
- School curriculum in Canada disputes view of math as objective
In this series, we’ve explored the oppressor/oppressed lens—a framework that divides society into those with power (oppressors) and those without (oppressed). The first post traced its roots to the Combahee River Collective, Paulo Freire, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, showing how intersectionality and class consciousness shaped a tool for naming systemic injustice, though Freire’s ideological focus sidelined factual learning. The second post examined its modern applications through Judith Butler’s fluid view of power, Robin DiAngelo’s struggle session-like workshops, and John McWhorter’s critique of its dogmatic turn. While the lens has illuminated real harms, it often oversimplifies morality, fosters division, and stifles dialogue. In this final post, we’ll dig into its deepest limitations with insights from Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Jonathan Haidt, bell hooks, and Joe L. Kincheloe. Then, we’ll propose a more nuanced moral framework for navigating our complex world.
The Lens’s Fatal Flaws
The oppressor/oppressed lens promises clarity: identify the oppressor, uplift the oppressed, and justice follows. But in practice, it falters as a universal moral guide. It reduces people to group identities, suppresses critical inquiry, and fuels tribalism, leaving little room for the messy realities of human experience. Five thinkers help us see why—and point toward a better way.
Peter Boghossian: Stifling Inquiry
Peter Boghossian, in How to Have Impossible Conversations (2019), argues that the oppressor/oppressed lens creates ideological echo chambers where questioning is taboo. He describes how labeling someone an “oppressor” based on identity—like race or gender—shuts down dialogue, as dissent is framed as defending privilege. For example, in a college seminar, a student questioning a claim about systemic racism might be silenced with accusations of “fragility,” echoing DiAngelo’s tactics. Boghossian emphasizes that true critical thinking requires open inquiry, not moral litmus tests. The lens’s binary framing discourages this, turning discussions into battles over who’s “right” rather than what’s true. By prioritizing ideology over evidence, it undermines the very understanding it seeks to foster.
James Lindsay: Ideological Rigidity
James Lindsay, through his work in Cynical Theories (2020) and on New Discourses (https://newdiscourses.com/), argues that the oppressor/oppressed lens, rooted in critical theory, imposes a power-obsessed worldview that distorts reality and suppresses dialogue. He contends that the lens reduces every issue—from education to science—to a battle between oppressors and oppressed, deeming “oppressed” perspectives inherently valid and “oppressor” ones suspect. For example, Lindsay cites school restorative justice programs, which often prioritize systemic oppression narratives over individual accountability, leading to increased classroom disruption (New Discourses Podcast, Ep. 160). On X, a scientific study might be dismissed as “colonial” if it challenges the lens, ignoring empirical evidence. Lindsay warns that this creates a moral absolutism where questioning the lens is equated with upholding oppression, stifling reason and fostering division. Like Freire’s class consciousness, this rigid ideology prioritizes narrative over nuance, limiting our ability to address complex problems.
Jonathan Haidt: Moral Tribalism
Jonathan Haidt, in The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) and The Righteous Mind (2012), shows how the lens fuels moral tribalism—dividing society into “us” (the oppressed or their allies) and “them” (the oppressors). He argues that it amplifies cognitive distortions, like catastrophizing, where minor slights are seen as existential threats. For example, a workplace disagreements might escalate into accusations of “oppression” if framed through the lens, as seen in DiAngelo-inspired DEI sessions. Haidt’s research on moral foundations suggests humans value not just fairness (the lens’s focus) but also loyalty, care, and liberty. By fixating on oppression, the lens neglects these other values, alienating people who might otherwise support justice. This tribalism turns potential allies into enemies, undermining collective progress.
bell hooks: Division Over Solidarity
bell hooks, in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (1984), critiques the oppressor/oppressed lens for fostering division rather than solidarity. She argues that pitting groups against each other—men vs. women, white vs. Black—reinforces hierarchies rather than dismantling them. For hooks, true liberation requires love and mutual understanding, not just naming oppressors. For instance, a feminist movement that vilifies all men as oppressors, as the lens might encourage, alienates male allies and ignores how class or race complicates gender dynamics. hooks’ vision of a “beloved community” emphasizes shared humanity over binary conflict, offering a moral framework that transcends the lens’s zero-sum approach.
Joe L. Kincheloe: Contextual Complexity
Joe L. Kincheloe, in Critical Constructivism: A Primer (2005), offers a nuanced alternative to the oppressor/oppressed lens by emphasizing that knowledge and power are co-constructed through social, cultural, and historical contexts. Building on social constructivism, Kincheloe argues that truth is negotiated through critical dialogue and evidence, not merely a function of power, rejecting the radical relativism that can accompany postmodern interpretations. He advocates empowering students to analyze their realities collaboratively, questioning how power shapes knowledge without reducing issues to a binary of oppressors vs. oppressed. For example, a teacher might guide students to investigate how local economic policies impact their community, fostering shared inquiry that considers multiple perspectives and real-world consequences. Kincheloe critiques universalizing frameworks like the oppressor/oppressed lens for ignoring local nuances and individual agency. By promoting a critical consciousness rooted in contextual, evidence-based analysis, he supports a moral framework that values complexity and collaboration over ideological absolutes.
A Better Way Forward
The oppressor/oppressed lens has illuminated systemic wrongs, from Maya’s workplace barriers to the interlocking oppressions Crenshaw described. But as Boghossian, Lindsay, Haidt, hooks, and Kincheloe show, it falls short as a moral compass. It stifles inquiry, rigidifies thought, fuels tribalism, divides communities, and oversimplifies power. So, what’s the alternative?
A more nuanced moral framework starts with three principles:
- Context Over Categories: Instead of judging people by group identities, consider their actions and circumstances. A white worker struggling with poverty isn’t inherently an “oppressor,” just as a wealthy person of color isn’t automatically “oppressed.” Context, as Kincheloe’s critical constructivism and Butler’s performativity suggest, reveals the fluidity of power.
- Dialogue Over Dogma: Following Boghossian and hooks, prioritize open conversation over moral litmus tests. Ask questions, listen, and assume good faith, even when views differ. This builds bridges, not walls.
- Shared Humanity Over Tribalism: Inspired by hooks and Haidt, focus on common values—care, fairness, resilience—rather than pitting groups against each other. Solutions to injustice come from collaboration, not zero-sum battles.
In practice, this might look like a workplace addressing Maya’s barriers by examining hiring data and fostering inclusive policies, not just hosting struggle sessions. Or an X discussion where users debate ideas with evidence, not identity-based accusations. This framework doesn’t ignore systemic issues—it builds on the lens’s insights—but approaches them with humility, curiosity, and a commitment to unity.
Closing Thoughts
The oppressor/oppressed lens gave voice to the marginalized, but it’s not the whole story. Its binary moralism, as we’ve seen, often divides more than it heals. By embracing context, dialogue, and shared humanity, we can move toward a morality that honors complexity and fosters progress. What do you think of this approach? Share your thoughts in the comments—I’d love to hear how you navigate these issues.
Sources: Peter Boghossian’s How to Have Impossible Conversations (2019), James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose’s Cynical Theories (2020), New Discourses (https://newdiscourses.com/), Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) and The Righteous Mind (2012), bell hooks’ Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (1984), Joe L. Kincheloe’s Critical Constructivism: A Primer (2005, p. 23).
Epilogue: Reflecting on Truth and a Path Forward
This series has unpacked the oppressor/oppressed lens, a framework that shapes how we view justice and morality. We traced its roots to intersectionality and class consciousness, explored its modern misuses—from struggle sessions to dogmatic cancellations—and critiqued its limitations with insights on power, tribalism, and solidarity. The lens reveals systemic wrongs, like Maya’s workplace barriers, but its binary moralism often fuels division over dialogue.
We proposed a better way: a moral framework of context over categories, dialogue over dogma, and shared humanity over tribalism. This approach tackles injustice with nuance—think workplaces analyzing hiring data, not just moral confessions, or X debates grounded in evidence, not accusations. It honors complexity while fostering progress.
Why explore these ideas? For me, it’s about pursuing objective truth and working across divides—the only way forward, in my view. The lens’s ideology, from rigid narratives to tribal pile-ons, obscures truth and fractures us. I’m driven to seek truth through reason, as Kincheloe’s critical constructivism urges, and to bridge gaps, as hooks’ beloved community envisions. Truth and unity require tough conversations, not moral absolutes.
I invite you to reflect: How does the lens shape your world? Can we collaborate across divides? Try applying context and dialogue in your next discussion—whether at work or online. Share your thoughts in the comments. Let’s build a path forward together.
Postmodernity and the Absence of Objective Truth
Postmodernity is a philosophical and cultural movement that fundamentally challenges the existence of a single, objective truth. Rather than viewing truth as a universal constant that everyone can agree upon, postmodernism argues that reality is constructed through a multitude of competing narratives. These narratives—stories shaped by language, culture, and power dynamics—offer different versions of what is “true,” depending on the perspective of the individual or group telling them. In this worldview, there is no grand, overarching narrative (often called a “metanarrative”) that can explain everything. Instead, truth becomes fragmented, subjective, and contingent on the context in which it is understood, emphasizing the diversity of human experience over a unified reality.
Truth Denominations and Their Lenses
This rejection of a singular truth gives rise to what can be described as “truth denominations”—distinct groups or communities that each operate with their own set of beliefs and methods for determining what is true. Much like religious denominations differ in their doctrines, these truth denominations use unique “lenses” or interpretative frameworks to shape their understanding of the world. For instance, one group might rely heavily on scientific evidence and empirical data as the basis for truth, while another might prioritize personal experiences, cultural traditions, or spiritual insights. These lenses are not just passive filters; they actively construct the reality that each group accepts, meaning that truth varies widely between denominations. In a postmodern context, no single lens is deemed inherently superior—each is simply one of many valid ways to interpret existence.
Implications of a Pluralistic Truth Landscape
The result of this postmodern approach is a decentralized, pluralistic landscape where multiple truths coexist, each valid within its own narrative framework. This can lead to a form of relativism, where what is true for one person or community might not hold for another, depending on their chosen lens. While this perspective fosters diversity of thought and challenges rigid, dogmatic beliefs, it also complicates the idea of a shared reality. Societies must grapple with navigating these competing narratives without a common foundation, raising questions about coherence and cooperation. In a world of truth denominations, understanding and engaging with different perspectives becomes essential, as each group seeks legitimacy for its own version of reality amidst the absence of an absolute, unifying truth.
The Toxicity of Postmodernism to Classically Liberal Societies
The postmodern rejection of objective truth can be toxic to the classically liberal societies of the West, which depend on unifying objective truths to sustain their rational functioning. These societies, rooted in principles of individual liberty, reason, and the rule of law, have historically thrived by anchoring governance and social organization in a shared commitment to verifiable facts—evident in systems like the scientific method and evidence-based legal frameworks. Postmodernism’s elevation of subjective experiences and competing narratives undermines this bedrock, fracturing the common ground essential for rational discourse and democratic decision-making. This erosion fosters a fragmented society where truth claims compete without resolution, fueling polarization, identity politics, and a decline in social cohesion. Far from enriching these societies, postmodern relativism threatens the stability and prosperity enabled by reason and evidence, introducing a corrosive instability that jeopardizes the very foundations of Western liberal order.
The media in Canada often frames voting Conservative as a dangerous shift toward regressive policies, economic stagnation, and social division. This narrative frequently highlights fears of cuts to social programs, environmental neglect, and a rollback of progressive values, as seen in coverage of leaders like Pierre Poilievre or past figures like Stephen Harper. However, this portrayal overlooks key facts: Conservative governments have historically presided over economic growth—Harper’s tenure saw Canada weather the 2008 global financial crisis better than most G7 nations, with a GDP growth rate averaging 1.8% annually from 2006 to 2015, compared to the OECD average of 1.2%. Moreover, claims of slashed social programs are exaggerated; Harper’s government increased healthcare transfers to provinces by 6% annually, reaching $40.4 billion by 2015. The narrative also ignores that Conservative platforms often adapt to public sentiment—Poilievre, for instance, has emphasized affordability and housing, issues resonating with younger voters typically dismissed as outside the party’s base.
Beyond disputing the media’s alarmism, there’s a strong case for why switching governments every decade or so benefits Canada’s democracy. A prolonged grip by any single party—Liberal or otherwise—breeds complacency, entitlement, and policy stagnation. The Liberals, under Justin Trudeau since 2015, have faced criticism for unfulfilled promises (e.g., electoral reform) and scandals like SNC-Lavalin, suggesting a fatigue that sets in without fresh competition. Historical shifts bear this out: Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (1984–1993) broke a 20-year Liberal dominance, introducing the GST and NAFTA—policies initially vilified but later credited for economic stability. Similarly, Harper’s 2006 win ended 13 years of Liberal rule, forcing a recalibration of priorities like accountability (via the Federal Accountability Act). Regular turnover keeps governments responsive, preventing the calcification of power and ensuring policies reflect evolving public needs rather than entrenched agendas.
The media’s tendency to paint Conservative victories as a threat also dodges the reality that Canada’s system thrives on balance, not perpetual one-party rule. Voter turnout data supports this: elections with clear alternation potential—like 2006, when turnout hit 64.7% after years of Liberal governance—show higher engagement than landslides like 2015 (68.5%), where momentum favored Trudeau’s Liberals but later waned. A Conservative government, far from being a monolith of destruction, often acts as a corrective force, challenging orthodoxies (e.g., Harper’s focus on deficit reduction post-recession versus Liberal spending). Changing government every decade isn’t just healthy—it’s a safeguard against complacency, corruption, and the echo chamber of uninterrupted power, ensuring Canada remains dynamic rather than dogmatic.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…