Why bother with consistency if you have already determined that truth is not restricted by facts but is constructed and personal? Certain school boards are treating knowledge as opinion and certain opinions as protected, even in contradiction to the facts. In the postmodern world of make-believe, everything is political--i.e., the management of power in regard to special interest groups. Even a value, like free speech, is politicised. Thus, its value lies in the use to which it can be put towards political aims (i.e., the desires of a group). In the following two scenarios, the two school boards are both postmodern in their views and yet contradict each other. The contradictions are of no concern to postmodern school boards, however, because the laws of logic, like facts, are no longer applicable to arguments that are concerned only with the use to which a value (like free speech) can be employed in favour of a particular group.
Postmodern School Board A: 'Children, you must not wear a T-shirt that states that there are only two genders.'
Responder: 'What about free speech?'
Postmodern School Board A: 'We are not interested in free speech, only offenses to our protected groups. We are concerned only about your disturbing the emotions of our protected groups' imagined identities. We, too, imagine that they must be offended by your T-shirt and opposed to your free speech. Your free speech is offensive, so take off the shirt.'
Responder: 'On the same grounds, may I ask you to remove your rainbow shirts?'
Postmodern School Board A: 'Of course not. Your group is not protected and therefore has no free speech.'
...
Postmodern School Board B: 'Parents, we support free speech. We are placing sexually explicit and sexually perverted books in your children's school library. This is free speech, and we will speak freely to your children without your consent. If you oppose us, you are in favour of banning books.'
Responder: 'Your role is to teach our children mathematics, reading, science, history, and so forth. It is not to form them morally--really, immorally--against our' wishes as parents. You are overstepping your role. Your free speech undermines parental rights and is thoroughly perverted.'
Postmodern School Board B: 'Frankly, your children belong to us, and you are terrorists.'
Responder: 'Since you are now for free speech and understand it to be used unconditionally without age restrictions or content, would you also include in the school library a book describing ways to commit suicide, how to traffic girls into prostitution, or ways to break into houses? Or would you ban such books?'
Postmodern School Board B: 'We might. Free speech is not a universal value. It neither belongs to everyone nor does it apply to anyone. It is our speech, and it applies only to what we wish. If and when we approve of suicide, prostitution, and theft, then our freedom of speech might include such books. But only when we say so. For now, free speech means our right to pervert your children with sexually explicit and aberrant material in the school library.'
...
Logically, these two examples of postmodern school boards contradict each other. However, inasmuch as they are postmodern, logical contradictions and the denial of facts are of no consequence. The political perspective provides the only consistency. Power is used to privilege certain social groups and suppress others. For any still trying to figure out what 'Critical Theory' is, this is it.
Comments