Your criticism makes sense to me. Perhaps SM is trying to appeal to those--Critical Theory people notably--who reject all forms of "liberalism." If you think about how modern European intellectual history is often taught at elite universities--with the focus on critical theory since Marx and the negation of all liberalisms. Is it possible SM is trying to bring radicals toward the center by sacrificing some modes of liberalism in order to consecrate others from a far left perspective?
Thanks for the comment, Dan. It's an interesting idea, but I don't read him that way. Have you seen my original piece? Happy to send you a pdf if you haven't.
Yes, it was a shot in the dark. Pls send your other review, and then I will get to the book itself. Dan
Your criticism makes sense to me. Perhaps SM is trying to appeal to those--Critical Theory people notably--who reject all forms of "liberalism." If you think about how modern European intellectual history is often taught at elite universities--with the focus on critical theory since Marx and the negation of all liberalisms. Is it possible SM is trying to bring radicals toward the center by sacrificing some modes of liberalism in order to consecrate others from a far left perspective?
Thanks for the comment, Dan. It's an interesting idea, but I don't read him that way. Have you seen my original piece? Happy to send you a pdf if you haven't.