According to the article " Ideology-Based Investigations, Myths, and Blind Spots in Academia and Society"Despite the growing engagement of disabled and queer researchers and social actors in environmental and climate justice, their voices are rarely considered in research and action on ecological transition." This statement, taken from a project funded by a prestigious European Union grant[1], illustrates the growing paradox of contemporary research: a science that is supposedly emancipated, but often rooted in ideological frameworks that compromise scientific rigor. By “ideological research,” I mean any study that deviates from the foundations of the rigorous scientific method, where hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. These studies, although often presented under a veneer of scientificity, are in reality based on biased philosophical or legal frameworks. On the left, they are anchored in postmodern theories or “critical” theories, notably in concepts such as systemic oppression or intersectionality. On the right, they feed on mythological interpretations of history, past and present. These biased narratives coming from the left are called “progressive myths” by the American philosopher Michael Huemer.[2], but it seems to us equally necessary to recognize the existence of "reactionary myths" emanating from the right.
These two narratives, although distinct, rest on a common foundation: a simplistic binary between oppressor and oppressed (on the left) or a narrative of idealized domination (on the right). In Western academic institutions, particularly in the United States and Europe, the oppressor-oppressed model takes an extreme turn, fueled by ideological theoretical frameworks devoid of any scientific rigor. This binary model is thus promoted by higher education institutions and national and international funding agencies; it has penetrated many areas of the private sector (including cultural institutions). In the United States, this model has reached a critical point, while it continues to spread and take root in Europe, including in the prestigious grants of the European Research Council (ERC). The WEIRD project mentioned at the beginning of our article is a striking example. Let us take up what the coordinator of this ERC-funded project explains: Despite the growing engagement of disabled and queer scholars and social actors in environmental and climate justice, their voices are rarely taken into account in research and action on ecological transition. Using a transdisciplinary approach, this project aims to understand and redefine the often overlooked contributions of disability and queer theory scholarship, as well as societal initiatives around sustainability, towards new theories, methodologies and ethics of transformation for just and emancipatory sustainability. WEIRD will: (1) overcome the fragmentation of disability and queer theory scholarship around sustainability; (2) explain how societal initiatives related to disability and queer theory contribute to just sustainability transformations by subverting ableist and cis/heteronormative social norms; (3) develop new emancipatory theories of sustainability transformations that are based on subversive social norms; (4) generate new transformative methodologies in sustainability science; and (5) redefine transformative justice for sustainability and the ethics of sustainability science[3].
These few lines contain all the buzzwords and jargon specific to critical studies and this type of research (critical disability theory, queer theory, climate justice, emancipatory sustainability, subversion of ableist and cis/heteronormative social norms, etc.). This queer/ableist ideological framework leads to self-fulfilling outcomes and confirmation biases. Queer theory, for example, does not meet the standards of a sound scientific theory. According to an accepted definition of the term, queer is “anything that is at odds with the normal, the dominant, the legitimate. There is nothing specific to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without essence. “Queer,” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative[4]. » This concept thus aims to destroy the notion of normality, which is incompatible with physiology, biology, evolution and psychology. What is more, Joseph Henrich, professor at Harvard University, has already made WEIRD (strange, in English) the acronym for "Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic[5] "The work of this academic represents a remarkable scientific contribution, based on methodological rigor and solid quantitative data.
By combining anthropology, economics and evolutionary theory, Henrich sheds light on the psychological singularity of Western populations. Therefore, using this acronym to associate it with a project rooted in “social justice”, incompatible with solid scientific research, is a form of intellectual dishonesty. The funding of projects such as WEIRD by an ERC grant thus demonstrates the extent of the ideological influence that has infiltrated European institutions, to the detriment of the principles of rigorous scientific thought. Mythological readings of the past and present are rare in contemporary academia, while they are diffuse within authoritarian societies such as Russia. Authoritarian regimes justify their expansionist and repressive policies by inventing a mythological past. Putin's Russia is a striking example of this with the idea that Ukraine and Russia have always been historically united and that Muscovy and Tsarist Russia are the heirs of Kievan Rus'.[6]. The rigorous analyses of the American historian Timothy Snyder thoroughly refute all the claims of Putin and his supporters.[7]In far-right circles, the "Christian nationalist" movement[8] » adopts a similar rhetoric in glorifying a fascist past, with theorists such as the jurist Carl Schmitt. These reactionary myths present a real danger, having served in the past fascist and totalitarian regimes to legitimize aggressive military expansionism and domineering aspirations. Their re-emergence is deeply worrying. It is imperative to combat them and denounce them vigorously because they pose a serious threat to the very foundations of any open society.
Moreover, remarkable and courageous individuals are not exempt from ideological biases. Consider Timothy Snyder and Anne Applebaum (center-left), or Douglas Murray and Gad Saad (moderate conservative right): all defend the ideas of democracy and open society, opposing authoritarianism in all its forms. Snyder's analyses[9] and Applebaum[10] on historical events, including what is happening in Ukraine and Russia, have much merit, as does their defense of justice and freedom. However, they remain blind to the failures of the left, to the penetration of woke discourse and censorship (cancel culture) in the academic world and today society as a whole. One can only note this inconsistency on the part of two intellectuals claiming to be heirs of the rationalist tradition of the Enlightenment, a tradition incompatible with woke claims.
Douglas Murray is a notable British writer and journalist who advocates the idea of an open society from a more conservative perspective.[11]. Hostile towards theocracies and religious fundamentalism, he is as fervent a critic of the woke movement as a defender of Israel. He issues well-founded criticisms of the American Democratic Party without, however, embracing the camp of authoritarianism. Gad Saad[12], meanwhile, is a professor at Concordia University in Montreal and now a prolific YouTuber. He shares the same political vision as Douglas Murray (vehement criticism of wokeness, hostility to religious fundamentalism, defense of Israel). Some of Saad's positions nevertheless seem excessive due to his alignment with the hardest positions of the Republicans and his wholesale rejection of all ideas, even reasonable ones, of the Democrats. These are some examples of blind spots on the part of intelligent and well-intentioned individuals. Ultimately, it takes very little to overcome these blind spots: we must find the courage to assert moral clarity and resolutely oppose all ideas or ideologies that exalt lies and post-truth. This requires real consistency in the defense of the truth, in the face of attacks from all political horizons, whether it is the invention of a mythified past or the fantasy of a utopian future.
