But you have linked to a paywalled article. Much of the academic literature on critical theory and critical discourse analysis is paywalled. This approach favors a select few - predominantly academics at institutions with sufficient library budgets to afford the subscription fees - who dispense supposed wisdom from their privileged and structurally protected position as guardians of academic progress.

By embracing this increasingly outmoded model - in contrast to the life sciences which have moved rapidly towards prepublication and open access journals - critical theory researchers hypocritically demonstrate that while they may purport to gain a deeper understanding of power structures and inequity, they are perfectly happy to blindly embrace a system that exalts their status. The pretense of meaningful deconstruction providing missing epistemic value serves as a foil to those who would deem the endeavor misguided, and the shelter afforded by specialized and inaccessible journals discourages critical evaluation of the accuracy of any significant results or of the fundamental tenets of the endeavor. This dual shielding perpetuates their presumed hegemony over all other academic fields: possessed of both noble goals and rare insights, where others wallow in bias while pretending to objectivity.

Indeed, it seems that the study of critical theory has become what it seeks to surpass, and even if it were to acknowledge its own limitations, its tenets prevent it from accepting a superior source of knowledge and accuracy.

No?