From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle
Liberty, Liberally Volume II - Issue VI
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN JANUARY 22,2022 If you’re like me, you’ve likely never used the word ‘problematization’ before in your life. In fact, I’ve only read it, and only in critical theory literature. Here’s a definition:
This n-gram graph shows us that this word never showed itself in the vernacular until the late 1970’s. So, this word was made up recently. Critical theorists tend to appropriate language for their own usage, bending it into new and nuanced meanings. You’d be forgiven, as a lame layman, for not knowing what it means. However, the woke warriors know what it means, if they’ve read the literature of the last four decades regarding critical theory. To problematize something is to make it into a problem in your own mind. It only means to look ‘critically’ at the scenario, situation or circumstance. To problematize is to develop a theory, critically. See how that works? Critical theories simply problematize reality. Under our liberal constitution, with Liberty of the individual beneath its boughs, each individual is treated equally without regard for race, religion or other factors. The critical theorists have theorized, by problematizing, that the constitution is an ironic proof against itself. They see as a ‘problem’ that the constitution did not provide instantaneous Liberty for all people, despite its clear mandate that we are all equal. It’s important to remember that when ‘probelmatizing’ something, you are not looking for redeeming characteristics. You are not considering the positive, but the negative - and on purpose. The premise of ‘problematizing’ is that you are making something into a problem, in order to find the solution. There is no balance to this form of ‘inquiry’, and it’s the ethics equivalent of the Inquisition.
June 2022
Problematizing assumes a problem, even when there isn’t one. The Liberal philosophy, as expressed in all of our founding documents, was not instantaneous, but that, too, is inherent to the constitutional system of individual Liberty. It left it up to the People, that they could choose to do good, and implement Liberal philosophy into reality through their own, individual behaviors. The world that existed prior to our declaration of Liberty (Liberty from the authoritarian monarchs that ruled that world) was not confident in the consciences of the common People. In fact, it assumed just the opposite. It assumed that the People were a problem, that needed a solution a ruler to rule them. It took time for the ideas of Liberty, once guaranteed under the Law, to affect the culture. Keep in mind, culture is not the enemy of Liberty, it is the consequence of Liberty. But under the kings, culture was by dictate, authored by whichever authoritarian wore the crown. Liberalism suggested that each individual had been given a crown of their own Will, a conscience, and that this ought to be freed from fiefdom and allowed to pursue its own fulfillment. Liberalism suggested that the untapped potential of the People would be ignited if only we were free. Liberal philosophers didn’t think it would happen overnight, because this new form of governance that they were suggesting was NOT authoritarian. Culture shouldn’t be dictated from above, according to these free thinkers. They thought that the culture should accumulate, as a result of the free enterprise of each individual... and that takes time. Re: CRT The framers of the founding documents knew that the institutions of slavery would come to an end at some later date, and they spoke of exactly that. They recognized the painful irony of this awful juxtaposition: free men with slaves of their own.
By Joshua Fryfogle The serpent, the servant of the court of the king He offers all options, exposes all things The king on his throne, his character brings With it his limits, his signets and rings Because of his status - subservient state The serpent must serve, and with no debate Making the monarch aware, and then wait For the king to determine his own will and fate The servant, the serpent, he serves the king well His children, however, they’ve given him hell The servant knows, too, as their actions do tell The children don’t know of the kingdom that fell Back when the king was a little one, too When the kingdom was guarded by the serpent so true And his father, the martyr, whose heart was run through By his sons and his daughters who plotted the coup The servant, the serpent, he saw with his eyes And told the king all, the truth and their lies The king had his counsel, but the king would devise And the servant would listen, as the serpent was wise The serpent, the servant, he still has his bite The children aren’t worthy, yet one day their might Will be in the Kingship, the Sonship, the Right To rule over children and serpents alike... With wisdom
“It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.” - George Washington
Now, the Liberal outlook, from the perspective of a Liberal, is to look at the good and the bad. To have free and open public discourse, allowing all interested individuals to engage the debate, and afford to all the ability to make a case for consensus. While there is certainly an expectation of critical thinking on the part of the Free individual in a Liberal society, that is in stark contract to critical theory wherein ‘problematizing’ is inherently, intentionally biased.
“Negro Slavery is an evil of Colossal magnitude, and I am utterly averse to the admission of Slavery into the Missouri Territories.” - John Adams ARTICLE CONTINUES ON PG.
Liberty, Liberally
2
www.LibertyLiberally.com
www.LibertyLiberally.com From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle