Money does not theorize, but it certainly has a lot to say. This week, left intellectual Twitter was roiled — that is, some posters were amused, and others outraged — by the news that famed feminist theorist Judith Butler had given money to Kamala Harris’s late presidential campaign. Sure, it’s a bit of silly gossip – who among us is above such catty pleasures? And compared to the campaign contributions of the super-rich, or the fossil fuel industry, what do misguided checks written by Berkeley professors matter? But political contributions are a telling window on the world of ideas itself; intellectuals often theorize a radical game, but when it comes to their politics on material matters of life and death, there may be less than meets the eye.

In the 1990s, Butler was so iconic there was even a fanzine dedicated to her (Judy!). At the time, many Marxist intellectuals distrusted postmodern critical theory as a flight into the purely “cultural” realm, away from the material. Yet others thought — and this columnist agreed — that Butler’s insights on gender as performance had value, and were hardly incompatible with a Marxist or Gramscian analysis. I still think so, and Butler is an admirable defender of academic freedom and of the rights of Palestinians. But the Kamala Harris donation suggests that the grouchy old-school Marxists were probably right all along to note a lack of materialism grounding her politics. Sad!

Donna Haraway, another postmodern feminist theorist — who, like Butler, was best known in the 1990s but still widely read — also made donations to Harris this year. Haraway has written about how cyborgs will bring us closer to a more socialist, genderless, raceless, peaceful world — but since the cyborgs aren’t here yet, apparently a racist, neoliberal carceral feminist regime will do. It’s as if the postmodern academics are determined to prove that the anti-intellectuals and the old-fashioned Marxist dudes are right.