InThe Conversation,Russell Blackford (Metamagician3000), Wikipedia editor and Lecturer in Philosophy at theUniversity of Newcastle,writes about the phrase "cultural Marxism" and his involvement in the related discussion on Wikipedia. Last December, Wikipedia's article on cultural Marxismwas deleted following a contentious debate that spilled over ontoUser talk:Jimbo Wales after Wales reopened a closed discussion on the article's fate. The term is now a redirect to a section of the article on the Frankfurt School of philosophy called "conspiracy theory".
Dr. Blackford writes that the phrase has been embraced by a number of "right-wing ideologues", including the terroristAnders Breivik, which use it to refer to "a concerted effort by an elite...to destroy Western morality and civilization." (Indeed, a number of right-wing blogs and message boards angrily denounced the December deletion, referring to it as "censorship".) However, Blackford explains that much of what is labeled "cultural Marxism" is often "nothing more than left-wing cultural criticism".
Blackford also discusses scholarly uses of the phrase, but distinguishes it from its ideological use. This use, he writes, "bears only a slight resemblance to the grand, semi-conspiratorial, civilization-wrecking ideology described by Breivik and others." He traces this use as far back as 1973, to the sociologist and philosopher Trent Schroyer's bookThe Critique of Domination. However, academic use of this term does not appear to have been consistent. Blackford notes "Its meaning remains somewhat unclear and contested, but there is at least some commonality of understanding."
On Wikipedia, Blackford writes, "polemicists" have denied these "legitimate uses" of the phrase. According to him, there is an "intransigent, vehement, and (to date) successful opposition from some well-entrenched Wikipedia editors to the existence of any 'cultural Marxism' article." He believes this is a sign of larger issues with the encyclopedia, which "has itself become a site for culture wars, with editors representing rival political tribes frequently attempting to impose their respective narratives as the official version of one or another cultural controversy." Because of this, "its articles have little credibility when it comes to explaining contemporary cultural and political controversies."
Another Wikipedia editor who frequently writes about cultural topics, Mark Bernstein (MarkBernstein), dissented from Blackford's viewpoint. Dr. Bernstein told theSignpost "as Prof. Blackford observes, contemporary right-wing extremists have latched on to the phrase to mean something entirely different from what Blackford’s earlier sources intended — and the early sources never used the term very extensively or to great effect." He notes that none of the varied uses of the term "have gained much traction or proven to be particularly helpful outside the originators’ immediate circle."
Bernstein supports the deletion of the article, writing that "An encyclopedia doesn't require a page for every phrase, slogan, or term of art ever proposed, and the project always has to balance the cost of creating and maintaining a page against its benefit." In this case, Wikipedia is "facing an onslaught from organized extremists who want to exploit its pages for their own purposes", and should delete "at least for now, a page that was never essential or indeed particularly useful". He adds that the article can be added again "if monographs and journals in the coming years find the term useful". (July 27)
