I get the impression that post-modernists make two moves with regard to what I call frameworks of interpretation.
1. Let us agree that no framework of interpretation can be demonstrated conclusively to be correct.
2. Let us proceed to rely on a framework of interpretation that explains all social phenomena in terms of the concepts of race, gender, privilege, and power.
The first proposition denies that there can be such a thing as science. I disagree when it comes to the natural sciences. As I see it, using the atomic theory to interpret chemical reactions, using Newton’s laws to interpret the behavior of large bodies, and using evolution to interpret the characteristics of plants and animals is valuable enough that we can treat those frameworks as truth.
However, I agree when it comes to social phenomena. I would say that economics, sociology, social psychology, and the study of politics are disciplines, but not sciences. They are disciplines in that it is better to be informed about the literature than to be uninformed about it, but they are not sciences, because there are relatively few propositions that can be tested conclusively.
But proceeding to (2) is a brave swindle. With (1), you have said that you believe in disarmament. With (2), you have brandished your favorite pistol.
If students were alert to the swindle, they would demand that the post-modernists recognize that the race-gender-privilege-power framework is just one imperfect framework among many that might be used. It should have to contend on a level playing field with other frameworks.
In my new book, I elaborate on the concept of frameworks of interpretation.