Perhaps you have noticed a growing number of references –
both pro and con - to “Critical Race Theory.”
The term is now a point of much contention and a divisive political
identifier in our current cultural moment.
“Are you for it or against it?” goes the question, and pre-existing
battle lines are then put in place, depending on who asks and how you answer.
What is lost in the fog of culture war, is any understanding
of what Critical Race Theory – or as I prefer: Critical Theory Applied to Race
– really is and what it means. Even
worse, what I encounter in most conversations, and have even read in our local
newspaper, is inadequate to the point of being either unhelpful or dishonest.
So I want to give some background and substance to the
question: What is “Critical Theory?” and what would it mean for matters of race
in the United States?
Why Me? Because I
believe I first encountered Critical Theory while a college student in the
‘70’s. I was a Sociology major and
interested in Social Theory, so read A LOT – think “more than I can clearly
remember” – of obtuse 19th and 20th century social theorists. I clearly recall encountering and engaging
theologies based on Critical Theory at a mainline seminary in the ‘70’s as
well. I passed my classes back then and
moved on to the next seasons of life.
Oddly, now some 5 decades later, I am running into Critical Theory
again.
So, on to the question.
There is a History Here
In his 1867 book Das Kapital, Karl Marx had envisioned a
“classless society” as the determined outcome of conflict between the economic
Owners (Bourgeoisie) and the Workers (Proletariat). By the late 1920’s that result was difficult
to hang on to. The "classless
society" that Karl Marx considered “scientifically inevitable” was nowhere
to be seen. In fact, the Bolshevik
Revolution had begun in 1917 in Russia with Marxist rhetoric but soon proved to
be more brutal and totalitarian than the system it replaced. In the United States, the Workers seemed more
interested in getting their “piece of the ownership pie” than in overthrowing
the Owner class. In Germany, the Nazis
were growing in power and influence. It
was time for Marxists to rethink their view of reality.
That rethinking had begun in Italy when Mussolini's fascists
imprisoned a young leader of the Communist Part of Italy. His name was Antonio Gramsci. Out of his Prison Notebooks, came a new
thought: perhaps the focus of oppression was not economic classes - Marx's
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - but with other groups representing different
aspects of a culture. The spotlight
shifted from economic class to culture groups.
The ideas were picked up by the so-called “Frankfurt School”
in Germany. It was in 1934, with the
Nazis consolidating their power in Germany, that director Max Horkeimer,
relocated the school to the safer setting of New York City and Columbia
University where Critical Theory continued to be developed. Horkeimer’s books Eclipse of Reason (1947)
and Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) are considered important and
representative.
To Be Noted: Critical Theory has been around for quite a
while and was began as an effort to improve on Marx’s predictions. It was “a social theory focusing on
critiquing and changing society,” (from Max Horkheimer- Wikipedia. See also Critical theory - Wikipedia) as opposed to “Traditional Theory” which was oriented only toward
understanding or explaining society.
Revolution and Replacement have been a part of Critical Theory from its
very roots.
Karl Marx’s Social Theory
Love him or hate him, Karl Marx has ended up being one of
the most influential thinkers in the past several centuries. His story, thought and impact are beyond the
scope of even a long blog like this, but let me point out some aspects of
“Marxism” that I believe were carried over directly into Critical Theory.
Remember: Critical Theory began with Marx’s framework of
thought.
Central Points Of Marxism:
Completely Atheistic – Marx – and all who followed on from
him – sought to explain human society apart from the existence of God. This is typically couched as being
“scientific,” but because Marxism is an all-encompassing theory that cannot be
tested and replicated it is not scientific in terms of the Scientific
Method. (See below) For this reason, many critics of Marxism
consider it to function as a form of religion.
History Is Determined – Central to understanding Marx is the
concept of “Dialectical Materialism.”
The materialism is the atheistic component. The dialectical is an idea that Marx borrowed
and developed from GWF Hegel. Hegel
contended that human society develops from its current state – Thesis – when a
counter movement arises – Antithesis – and then resolves through conflict to a new
state of Synthesis. Don’t get lost in
the details here. Dig into this some
more if you like, (Dialectical Materialism - Wikipedia as a start.) but focus on this: Apart from God, society
changes through group conflict – ie. Thesis vs. Antithesis – that resolves –
ie. Synthesis – and then continues.
Groups and conflict are central to society and history.
Groups Are More Important Than Persons – People identified
as groups are central to Marxism and carried directly over to Critical
Theory. For Marx, the groups were
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat – the economic groups of Owners and Workers. Early Critical Theorists sorted people into
different groups than just economic, but maintained the central focus on groups
of people rather than on individual persons.
When applied to matters of race, this means that a person who is white
is characterized by Whiteness without regard to what they do, decide or think.
Conflict Between Groups Is Reality – Across the breadth of
society, Critical Theory will always identify two general groups: Oppressor and
Oppressed – that is to say, “Those with power” and “Those without power.” With regard to race, it is White (Oppressor)
vs Non-White (Oppressed). With regard to
sexual orientation it is Straight (Oppressor) vs Gay (Oppressor). Feminist Critical Theory identifies Men
(Oppressor) vs Women (Oppressed). And so
on and on and on. Because the two groups
are opposed, there must be conflict.
Social Theory Not Social Science – A Brief Detour
The Scientific Method is an approach to understanding things
based on a process of Observation ⇒ Leading to an Explanatory Hypothesis ⇒ That
can be tested. If the test of the
hypothesis is “successful” and can be repeated multiple times, then our
observation is considered to be true – or at least reliable. Chemistry, astronomy, physics and the like
proceed in this way.
With “social matters” that same process – Observation ⇒ Explanatory Hypothesis ⇒ Test and Replicate – happens as well. A simplistic example: I observe that people
seem to buy more shiny cars than dirty cars.
My hypothesis is that people have a preference for shiny cars over dirty
cars. I test it by trying to sell
several of the same cars, sometimes those cars are clean and shiny, other times
those same cars are left dirty. If,
after a number of attempts to sell several cars – sometimes shiny and sometimes
dirty – I find that people would rather buy the same car when it is shiny as
opposed to when it is dirty, then my hypothesis is considered true. Social Science tells car dealerships to keep
their inventory of cars for sale clean and shiny.
By Contrast, Social Theory is an overarching explanation
about society as a whole that encompasses a lot of things. Any given Social Theory though is so big and
encompassing that it cannot be tested and replicated as a whole. Portions or components might be broken out
and tested, but not the entire all-encompassing Theory itself.
An example from a different field: Charles Darwin developed
a Theory of Evolution that used Natural Selection as a means to explain how
lower forms of animals – like slugs – become higher forms of animals – like
people. Darwin could test a hypothesis
about how Finches on the Galapagos Islands varied from one species of finch to
another, but 1) he could not test his hypothesis as it applied to change from
slug to human and 2) we have seen over time that there are observations about
the difference between slugs and humans that cannot be explained by natural
selection. That is the difference
between the Science of Species Variation and the Theory of Evolution.
Here’s Why That Matters With Critical Theory: Critical
Theory can be applied to all sorts of social matters and it may even appear to
explain some aspects of those matters.
But there are two shortcomings as a Theory: 1) Critical Theory as a
whole cannot be tested and replicated, and 2) It will seek to ignore (shall we
say erase or cancel?) matters that it cannot explain.
To Be Noted: Critical Theory is Theory and not Social
Science. All-encompassing Theories can
be helpful in many ways when they are engaged as theories. They are dangerous when they are treated as
if they were established Science. As
pointed out: such theories cannot be effectively tested and replicated as a
whole, and they will seek to ignore or destroy what they cannot explain.
Critical Theory Applied to Race – And Other Matters
Thus far, I have attempted to make the case that Critical
Theory has a history that is both extensive and Marxist in its roots. That is the Critical part. I have also sketched out the difference
between working Theory and proven Science.
That is the Theory part.
In our current cultural moment, I would say that classic
Critical Theory is being applied to a wide variety of issues: Critical Theory
applied to issues of race is called Critical Race Theory. Critical Theory applied to issues of sexual
orientation is called Queer Theory.
Critical Theory applied to women’s issues becomes Feminist Theory. Would “Critical Wolverine Theory” be used to
justify the conflict between the oppressed UofM football team and the
oppressing Buckeyes?
Let me close by pointing out six specific reservations I
have as a thoughtful Christian with applying Critical Theory to Race (as well
as other!) Issues.
Completely Atheistic – As John Calvin stated in the
first chapter of his Institutes, knowledge of God and knowledge of humanity are
intertwined. What you believe about one
affects what you will believe about the other.
I believe every attempt to understand, explain or remedy the human
condition necessarily involves commitments of some sort regarding
divinity. God exists or doesn’t. Human society is accountable to something
greater than itself or it isn’t. As a
result, I am convinced that any attempt to explain or direct humans and human
society that leaves God out is flawed from the beginning.
Groups Matter And Persons Do Not – I think the
Scriptures are “Both/And” on this, and not “Only One” as Critical Theory and
its derivatives are. Social groups –
families, tribes, nations – are important with regard to history, influence and
life. But individual persons have
responsibility and impact. Persons are
certainly influenced by their group identities, but they can also resist,
influence and change them. The Us/Them
binary is so embedded in Marxism and the generations of thought following, that
there is no ground of shared humanity between the competing groups. As a result, there is never a hope of the
“two (however the groups are defined) becoming one.” There is as well, a blindness to the shared
problem that impacts members of each group and leads to the “oppressed”
becoming “oppressors” when circumstances are different.
Conflict – I understand that there is plenty of
conflict between people in the world and in the Bible. The Scripture though is the story of
reconciliation, first between the Triune God and His Creation – humans as
groups AND as individuals – that then makes possible reconciliation between
social groups as well as individuals.
Too often I hear Critical Theory influenced movements shout “Justice”
while their non-verbals shriek “Revenge!”
In the Gospel of God’s Grace, I hear the call to costly
reconciliation. That is because conflict
is how their system works, not a result of brokenness that needs to be dealt with
and overcome. When those movements talk
about “being on the right side of history,” they mean the side that wins the
impersonal dialectic. The Good News that
I point to is that history does in fact have a “right side” and it is moving to
that endpoint – but it is moved by a personal God Who is loving, just and good
Who paid the price of our/my brokenness Himself.
Has Been Tested (And Failed!) – Who has space to name
the history of failed – by that I mean inhumane and oppressive as well as
murderous – movements based on Marxist theory: Soviet Union, Communist Block
nations, Maoist China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. The usual response by American Socialists is
that the wrong people were in charge and “you can trust us to do better.” I’m
not buying it. Marxism as a grand Social
Theory is a proven failure and destructive of human flourishing and social
justice. Critical Theory simply alters
the categories, but has the same failures built in.
Cancels Conflicting Observations – Grand Theories can
give an explanation to some things, observations and observers who notice
things that do not fit are ignored, resisted or crushed. Remember Galileo and his observation of the
solar system with the telescope?
Ironically, the CRT-based “1619 Project” view of American history wants
to leave out stories of white Americans who resisted chattel slavery in much
the same way that American Nationalist history ignores the inhumane treatment
of enslaved persons. History is not a story
that we are free to edit. It is “His-Story.” The people of the God-Who-Is-Grace-and-Truth
recognize that every person’s story deserves to be heard, and not just the
stories that benefit my agenda.
Passed off as Science rather than Theory – While
there might be scientifically Observed - Hypothesized - Tested and Replicated
pieces that fit, Critical Theory itself is a worldview that functions to
explain all of social reality – not unlike a “religion” actually. That carries over to all the “intersectional”
areas it is applied to. Have the conversation
about different worldviews if you like, but don’t practice the deception of
calling a worldview “science” to elevate it out of the conversation. And don’t teach my second-grader based on
your worldview while telling me it is science even when it is contrary to my
worldview.
In Conclusion
Because we can observe in history the poisonous roots
(Marxism) of Critical Theory and see how they continue to nourish the
developing vine (through aspects of group identity, conflict, atheism, etc.),
we should not be surprised by the poisonous fruit it is produced when applied
to various issues (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). And I will be direct: Critical Theory
proponents engage those challenging issues of our time from a worldview that is
both distinct and conflicting with a biblical and gospel-centered
worldview. Proponents of each will
understand those issues differently, offer different means for engaging them
and finally, arrive at different ends in resolving them. The two cannot be harmonized because they are
distinct and conflicting.
Simply read Why We Can’t Wait by Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
or One Blood by John Perkins and then read either White Fragility by Robin
DiAngelo or How To Be An Anti-Racist by Ibram X. Kendi and you can see how
these two distinct and competing worldviews play out for yourself. I find the contrast stark.
Addendum:
Since first putting my thoughts to writing, I have continued
to reflect and listen to conversations regarding Critical Race Theory. Of particular interest was a webinar
sponsored by Christianity Today magazine moderated by Russell Moore featuring
four believing academics of different racial backgrounds. I deeply appreciate the faith of each and
their first hand experience facing the sin of racism. I’m thankful that they clearly distanced
their own use of CRT from Marxism and bring the Gospel to the brokenness of the
world we share. CLICK HERE for the
resources and recording of the webinar. Christians
and Critical Race Theory | Christianity Today
My reservations with Critical Theory remain though, and it
still seems to me that poisonous aspects of Marxism – atheistic worldview,
group identity, group conflict and no vision for reconciliation – are “in the
DNA” and always present.
Let Me Say Clearly As Well
Broken People Create Broken Systems - For gospel-centered believers, it is simply a false
dichotomy to try and reduce racism to either acts of personal sin or systemic
oppression that transcends individuals.
Sadly, sin in all its forms covers both bases. The truth of the matter is that broken people
(sinners) not only commit personal acts of sin, but they also build systems or
social patters that are broken. For
example, “Jim Crow laws” develop at one time through the sinful choices of a
collection of sinful individuals. Two
generations later, all of the individuals have changed, and even if these
individuals have changed their mind about race, they continue to live with “Jim
Crow laws” until they change that system.
Individuals will find that sinful habits can easily continue by force of
habit and without specific choice.
The Gospel Is Sufficient Framework to Identify Sin – Both
Personal and Social – And Its Antidote - The best expressions of Critical Race Theory that I hear are
usually willing to distance themselves from Marxism directly and find in CRT an
“academic framework” for understanding and eradicating systems of racism. I’m for “understanding and eradicating
systems of racism.” I just do not find
CRT to be needed in order to do that. A
more robust and biblical view of sin – as both personal and systemic – with a
greater vision of the doctrine of Imago Dei and Great Commission to
bring the gospel to “every tribe and tongue and nation” would serve better to
understand and eradicate racism than CRT.
Rejecting Marxism Doesn’t Make Me Comfortable With The “Status
Quo” - I have real reservations about the influence of Marxism on
Critical Theory and the issues it gets applied to. My reservations with Marxism don’t make me
want to settle for the status quo regarding racism – personal or systemic – or any
other issue. I want to do away with
racism without replacing it with a new expression of sin and oppression.
Analysis that I found very helpful:
CLICK HERE for Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, Marxism and Biblical Ethics - This is one installment in a series curated by Ed Stetzer and Christianity Today magazine. The post is itself long and deep, but I found it very illuminating. Done by an English Professor from Liberty University with background in Soviet poets and Marxism! Imagine that!! Took effort, but was well worth the investment.
Finally . . .
It’s my guess that this conversation will continue. The larger culture seems willing to go far
down the path illuminated by Critical Theory in search of a solution to the
brokenness of our society, so God’s people will want to continue in prayer,
study, repentance and proclamation on the journey ahead. I hope to be part of that reflection as a
pastor in a local church invested in the real life questions and decisions of
ordinary believers.
As such, I’m willing to include you in the conversation and
reflection with me. Give in touch with
me through the Harderwyk Ministries office and let’s find a way have a
conversation – over coffee, over a meal, over the phone. Let’s keep praying, reflecting and talking.
