{"id":13840,"date":"2026-10-05T00:56:57","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T04:56:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/parmaks.com\/Resources\/getting-critical-seths-blog\/"},"modified":"2026-10-05T00:56:57","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T04:56:57","slug":"getting-critical-seths-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/parmaks.com\/Resources\/getting-critical-seths-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Getting critical | Seth’s Blog"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Profit<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

\n

I\u2019d heard a lot about critical theory but didn\u2019t really understand what was being talked about. The Frankfurt School of the 1930s wasn\u2019t really a school. It was philosophers and academics who were arguing with each other about how the world actually works \u2014 and about why people keep accepting arrangements that hurt them. And like many things called \u2018theories\u2019, it\u2019s easy to be confused about what\u2019s actually being said.<\/p>\n

Their core insight: most of what we call \u201cnormal\u201d was designed by someone, for a reason, and that reason might not be your reason.<\/em><\/p>\n

Traditional science tries to describe the world as it is. Critical theory asks: \u201cwho benefits from the world being described that way?\u201d<\/p>\n

When an economist says \u201cthe market determines wages,\u201d that sounds neutral. But it isn\u2019t. It\u2019s a choice about what to measure and what to ignore. It\u2019s a story. And stories can be told differently.<\/p>\n

Pioneers like Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse (followed and reworked by Habermas)\u2014 looked at modern industrial society and noticed that Reason, with a capital R, which was supposed to liberate us, had turned into a tool of control. The Enlightenment promised freedom. What we got instead was efficiency.<\/p>\n

They called it instrumental reason<\/strong>: the habit of thinking about how<\/em> to do things without ever asking whether<\/em> we should.<\/p>\n

\n

Reification: when the made-up becomes the inevitable<\/strong><\/p>\n

The word that unlocks the concept is reification<\/em>. Human social relations and systems appear as natural, thing-like and outside our control because we end up treating them as if they were rocks. Permanent. Objective. Not up for discussion.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s just how business works.\u201d
\u201cThat\u2019s just how things are.\u201d
\u201cYou can\u2019t fight human nature.\u201d<\/p>\n

Each of those sentences is a reification. Someone built a thing. Now they\u2019re insisting it can\u2019t be unbuilt.<\/p>\n

Critical theory\u2019s job is to thaw what has been frozen. To remind us that the rules we\u2019re following were written by someone, and can be rewritten.<\/p>\n

Systems are often invisible, and they hide behind normal. When in doubt, consider the system that we\u2019ve assumed is the only way.<\/p>\n

\n

The Frankfurt School wasn\u2019t just academic. They were trying to explain how otherwise reasonable people went along with war, consumerism and conformity.<\/p>\n

Their answer: the system shapes what feels obvious. What feels like common sense. What feels like \u201cjust being realistic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Which means the most important thing a marketer, a leader, a maker can do is ask: am I solving a real problem, or am I reinforcing a convenient story about what people are supposed to want?<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

When someone points at a system and describes the interests of those who supported it, two things can happen.<\/p>\n

The first: curiosity. Who built it? Why? What would a different version look like?<\/em><\/p>\n

The second: discomfort.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019ve organized your identity around the map being true \u2014 if your status, your choices, your self-image all depend on the current arrangement being natural and inevitable \u2014 then someone questioning the map isn\u2019t being philosophical.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re threatening you.<\/p>\n

The fact that your status feels threatened is a self-reflective tell. Of course it feels threatened. That\u2019s what the system wants you to feel.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe market rewards hard work\u201d isn\u2019t just an economic claim for a lot of people. It\u2019s a story about why they deserve what they have. Poke that story and you\u2019re not critiquing capitalism. You\u2019re telling them their success was partly luck, partly structural, partly the result of systems that excluded others.<\/p>\n

Most of the fury isn\u2019t intellectual. It\u2019s tribal.<\/p>\n

Critical theory became associated with universities and with certain political movements. So defending against it became a marker of identity for the other tribe. You\u2019re not critiquing the argument \u2014 you\u2019re signaling which team you\u2019re on.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s ironic, right? Because \u201cthis belief is really about status and belonging, not truth\u201d is exactly the kind of thing critical theory would say about the people attacking critical theory.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s tempting to announce that some questions aren\u2019t allowed.<\/p>\n

Those are usually the most important questions.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tOctober 4, 2026<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n