I guess we have somewhat different perspectives on critical theory, then. I don't put much stock in whether something is "establishment" or not. In addition to being literally a logical fallacy (if used in reasoning), I don't find that characterization particularly informative outside of a quite narrow set of circumstances due to the diversity of what is established.

It's much more important to me what the actual arguments are, and how those arguments are epistemologically grounded.

But I understand your perspective (and use of terminology) better now--thank you!