OK, OK. I have been doing quite a lot of 'Poor me. People keep criticising me unfairly" lately. I should probably do some acknowledgement of fair criticisms.

OK, so you may have seen me say this lately.

https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1304049466408927233

I has noticed an inconsistency.

I have noticed that I get very irritated when people try to explain CSJ simplistically as an evolution & adaptation of Marxism because it seems really obvious that anything that so thoroughly neglects class cannot be Marxism!

However, I do explain CSJ as an evolution & adaptation of postmodernism & find it extremely irritating & pedantic when people say to me that it should seem really obvious that anything that is so thoroughly a metanarrative cannot be postmodernism!

So, while I still think it makes much more sense to understand CSJ as driven by the bastardisation & reification of a few core tenets of postmodernism (post-structuralism specifically), I will make more of a point of acknowledging this for people who are postmodernists.

Even though they shouldn't be postmodernists because it is silly & for fucks sake.

We do, however, trace the changes they often point out very clearly in the book & say Foucault would be spinning in his grave right now.

Also, some people have said, with various degrees of reasonableness, that the book is lacking because it looks at how the ideas changed within the scholarship over the last fifty years but pays very little attention to why.

I can defend that on one level because all books have to have a scope & this one was about the scholarship. However, should it ever require a second edition, we will add a chapter looking at the strongest arguments people have made for what enabled this to develop culturally.

Also, I really do quotetweet far too much & this can be both annoying & rude.

OK, that's three fair criticisms that have been made recently. That will have to do. Otherwise, I am pretty much perfect.