“Unlike traditional approaches to civil rights, which favor incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory calls into question the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law.”
From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first edition (2001), by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, p. 3.
“Crits [Critical Race Theorists] are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights.”
From Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first edition (2001), by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, p. 23.
Critical Race Theorists describe Critical Race Theory as a movement (which is strange for a theory of society) designed to reinvent the relationships between race, racism, and power in society. To do this, they begin with the assumption that race is socially constructed and racism is systemic. This means that they view racial categories as social and political fictions that have been imposed by white people on people of color, especially blacks, and that the “system” upon which all of society operates on every level unjustly produces “racist” outcomes that favor whites (and minority races that adhere to “whiteness”) at the expense of people of color, especially Latinos and, even more especially, blacks. Because racism is a property of the system, which includes everything from policy to behavioral norms to manners of speech to what we consider true, racism persists even if no individual or institution acts in a racist way or holds any racist beliefs. It is the way society operates that is racist, as can be determined by the fact that there are statistical differences in average outcomes by racial category.
Critical Race Theory proceeds upon a number of dubious assumptions and by means of a variety of questionable methods, including:
- Racism is ordinary: Critical Race Theory holds that “racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society,” thus the question in Critical Race Theory is not “did racism take place?” but “how did racism manifest in this situation?” Thus, racism is relevant to all interactions and everything else that happens according to Critical Race Theory, and it is everyone’s duty to investigate, expose, and “disrupt” this racism once identified.
- Immanence of racism: As a corollary to the above, racism is believed to be immanent in society, which means hidden just below the surface and everywhere, always, according to Critical Race Theory. Therefore, all acts of racism are not to be understood as isolated incidents by individuals or institutions but as specific manifestations of a pervasive system that defines society. (This is why justice is not achieved by finding a police officer guilty; the system must be remade instead.)
- Interest convergence: Critical Race Theory holds that dominant racial groups (whites) will not help more oppressed racial groups (blacks, in particular) unless it is also in their own self-interest to do so. Therefore, racism does not go away but is just reproduced in new ways, usually ways that hide it more successfully and require more work to identify in the future (through Critical Race Theory). Therefore, racism doesn’t get better and, in a sense, gets worse over time because it gets harder to identify and call out.
- Motivated ignorance: Dominant racial groups (whites) are positioned as benefiting from the system of racism Critical Race Theory assumes pervades everything and therefore have little to no motivation to challenge or change it. Instead, they have motivation to intentionally ignore racism (“willful ignorance”) , to maintain it, and to rationalize it as justified (say, by claiming success is the result of merit). Refusal to “interrogate” one’s own “white complicity” in the racist system is often treated as a character flaw (e.g., “white fragility”) and a feature of white privilege. This trait, together with the above, gives racism a permanence, according to Critical Race Theory.
- Structural determinism: Critical Race Theory holds that the systems of oppression in society determine one’s outcomes in life. Therefore, people of color (especially blacks) are positioned by the allegedly white supremacist system to be kept down, and it is the deterministic power of those power structures (rather than individual traits like character or merit) that determine success or failure in life.
- Authentic racial experiences (engaging positionality): Critical Race Theory holds that systemic racism creates identifiable racial experiences for members of all racial groups. Further, Critical Race Theory is the only social theory in existence that properly understands how one’s racial social position with respect to these power dynamics can be rightly understood. Therefore, members of each racial category have an authentic racial experience as determined by Critical Race Theory that describes their lived experience within an allegedly white supremacist and systemically racist system that is, especially, “anti-Black.” When these perspectives are put forth by a member of the relevant racial category, they cannot be questioned. When a contradictory perspective is put forth by a member of the relevant racial category, that person is said to have some form of false consciousness, such as “internalized racism” or a cynical desire to “act white” for personal gain.
- Unique voice of color: Corollary to the above, Critical Race Theory holds that critically conscious (Woke / Critical Race Theorist) members of minority racial groups possess a unique voice of color that speaks to the lived experience of systemic oppression by race, as Critical Race Theory defines it. This is another tool for asserting that Critical Race Theorists cannot be doubted in their declarations of their experience “as a” member of a particular race.
- Identity politics: Critical Race Theory is unabashedly involved in identity politics in the sense of creating special interest groups and political coalitions out of racial identity groups. This tends to take the form of a small number of Critical Race Theory activists speaking for certain racial “communities,” using the points above as justification.
- Impact over intent: Critical Race Theory holds that if a (critically conscious) member of a minoritized racial group has experienced racism in some word or deed, then that’s the correct explanation for what happened, and it cannot be questioned. This empowers hypersensitivity and a victimhood-seeking frame.
- Anti-liberalism: As can be read in the quotes at the top of the page, Critical Race Theory holds that the philosophy of liberalism is, in fact, a racist system because it creates conditions under which existing inequities (inequalities in outcomes) increase while misleading people to believe that things are more fair than they are.
- Narrative and counterstorytelling: Critical Race Theory favors the telling of stories, especially stories that challenge prevailing wisdom or reject established knowledge (usually resting in lived experience and/or statistical exceptions and outliers) as a means of challenging and rejecting facts in favor of politically useful statements and beliefs. Narrative is considered superior to careful, rigorous methodologies, which are believed to have been established from within the “white racial frame,” for example, and that therefore uphold white supremacy, either intentionally or unintentionally.
- Revisionist history: Critical Race Theorists believe it is their obligation to rewrite history to tell it from the perspective of Critical Race Theory (even if factually inaccurate—because of the reliance on narratives and counterstories) rather than fact-based or official history, which is deemed to have been written from within the “white racial frame,” which is believed to uphold systemic racism and white supremacy. This is the role of the 1619 Project.
- Intersectionality: All forms of oppression by all forms of identity are linked into one broad, pervasive “Matrix of Domination,” thus necessitating solidarity across all forms of oppression.
48 comments
This is a great article. I would find it useful if each section had a supporting quote and reference from a CRT text.
I believe, we should have the focus on getting rid of cultural marxism in education!
To get the progressives and especially the lgbt people out of the universities but first and foremost out of kindergartens, primary and secondary schools where they start the indoctrination of children!
Thanks for writing this, James.
A slight digression, but you mentioned the 1619 project.
According to wikipedia that project….
“aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative.”
I see a problem here. Slavery is to be vilified and “contributions of black Americans” are to be praised.
But slavery FACILITATED black contribution in America (in part at least).
Without slavery there possibly wouldn’t be any black people in America to contribute in the first place.
That’s the problem with trying to reinvent history to fit a nice (overly)simple predetermined narrative.
Real life is ALWAYS more complicated than that.
…”Real life is ALWAYS more complicated than that.”
Boy, ain’t that the truth.
I see you’re using logic @equalist. As you know that’s a form of racist white supremacy. Sure if you use **logic** it’s nonsense to suggest at the same time that slavery is to be vilified but contributions of blacks that are facilitated by slavery is to be praised. But far be it from us to resort to the methods of racist white supremacy.
Am I missing something? Is this two page overview really just a list of bullet points?
I still don’t get it. sounds like fighting racism with more racism.
Ba-zinga!
Exactly, in order to overcome one category of hegemonic power, then have to create more dominant hegemonic power – in a nutshell it is sophisticated bullying
CRT is undoubtedly built on the combination of Marxist theory, especially Marcuse’s analysis of Marxism and the need to suppress dissent, and the absolutely false vision of America spelled out by Zinn. Far too many people have been “educated” on this terrible hogwash
You say terrible hogwash. I’ll add to it: tribal hogwash.
An overview of CRT is not complete without explaining its Marxist structure and history. Marxism as an economic model failed miserably during the 20th century, with disastrous results. As a workaround, leftist intellectuals decided the Marxist revolution they desired would best be accomplished if the Marxist model of oppressor/oppressed=revolution would best be accomplished by applying it to the civil rights movement in the U.S. Hence they came up with the intersectionality scale of oppression where the more victim identities you have (ie race, gender, etc), the greater your oppression. Jordan Peterson discusses this in depth in his online lectures.
Agree! I think it is vital that CRT’s connection to Marxism should be emphasized in fighting against it.
You are so right! It seems that academics shy away from using the terms Marxist and communist as descriptors, even when they’re accurate. I suspect this is because they cling to the idea that Marxism is a useful method of analysis. It is not
There are still those of us who lived through the Cold War and remember the reality of Marxist regimes with great disdain. I have several Hungarian friends who despise this invidious ideology even more than I do This crap needs to be called out for what it is!
WOKE MARXISM
WOKE COMMUNISM
I don’t give a damn what academics think, in fact I suggest we round up those behind this insurrection against the USA and the teachings of Dr MLK Jr and give them a simple choice
Prosecution for treason and then imprisonment
Or an alternative, be stripped of tenure and benefits and deported to Venezuela where they can enjoy the lifestyle they’re promoting
A radical yet effective solution to this problem
James
I have to assure you in no uncertain terms, that those friends of yours are right to the last letter. There is no doubt in my mind that the CSJT which was exported to the US by the fleeing philosophers and academics from Europe, escaping the war, done more damage to humanity than any other pernicious ideology ever created in the name of helping the weak and disposessed. None of which philosophies ever achieved but mayhem and distraction created nothing but desperation and corpses built cemeteries and drew tears.
There certainly is a massive space between
“prosecute them for treason” and
“and then imprisonment”.
And this commenter fills that space with both a presumption of guilt
and a
presumption that a jury/court would actually find them (who, precisely, is them anyway, in this instance ?) guilty.
The first presumption is, blatantly obviously, completely against a fundamental premise of both American values and the system of law.
The second presumption is ridiculous as to how the legal system actually works.
I would be interested in reading an educated, and informative piece on the links (or, not the links) between CT, CRT, SJW, & BLM. What their similarities, or not are.
I don’t trust the BLM ‘movement’ yet all the people I know think it’s great. I read through their statements, but still don’t have a good grasp on why I do not trust it, other than some little neo-marxist Influence on some of the founders, and maybe my suspicions are not logical?
CRT is a stupid theory, created by the stupid for their stupid followers. This country is suffering from a contagion of stupidity.
Pretty much nailed it.
Cannot wait until Western Civilization falls, just to see these academicucks begging for food because RCT is not useful to grow crops or farming crickets.
That is a very sordid, destructive thing to wish for. Not good!
“intent doesn’t matter, only impact”:
White people cannot ever use the N-Word under any circumstances. Their intent doesn’t matter, just the harmful impact of having uttered the word. It is taboo. Even the term ‘N-Word’ is damaging.
Black people can freely use the N-Word, because Black people mean no harm by it, they have good intent.
Um, yeah, right.
The best defense is a good offense. The intent of CRT is a good offense. 20 years ago, racial preferences were under attack. CRT is the offense for the institutionalized racism of preferences for politically favored groups. The reason for the success of CRT is the political advantage perceived by Democrats. Certain parts of the voting block, particularly suburban women, find favor with CRT and other Democrat socialism appeals. CRT provides the foundation for reparations. Reparations have been provided for 50 years through racial preferences. African Americans now hold 18% of government positions, far beyond their prevalence in the population. Most (all) medical and law schools as well as many other academic programs have deeply ingrained systems of racial/ethnic preferences. For example, the University of Colorado medical school has two admission tracks, one for politically favored groups (about 30%) and the other for everyone else (70%). Corporations are now focusing on explicit racial preferences as indicated by United’s diversity goal of 50%. Ad producers have begun featuring African Americans in prominent roles in almost every new commercial. CRT combined with the violence/destruction of BLM/Antifah and political control by Democrats, will possibly lead to an ingrained system of perpetual reparations and one party rule by Democrats.
So true. Has anyone else noticed that Blacks are in the vast majority of TV ads recently? Talk about overrepresentation, just like in pro sports. I swear, if an alien from outer space happened to tune into a TV station in the U.S. they would get the impression that the U.S. population is 80-90% Black.
“…if an alien from outer space happened to tune into a TV station in the U.S. they would get the impression that the U.S. population is 80-90% Black.”
That already happened!
But it wasn’t aliens from space tuning in to U.S . tv; it was Russians. Someone polled Russians about 20 years ago asking how many blacks do you think are in the US population and every single Russian answered ‘at least 50%’!
When asked why, they all replied ‘because 50% of Americans shown on USA television are black’.
50% was 20 years ago; today Russians would probably answer 80-90%!
@ James Lindsay
Thanks for writing this! This is a wonderful distillation of Critical Theory. I love it because I can send a link to someone who can then quickly read this and understand. I’d love to see something similar on Post-Modernism since that’s the other side of the sword cutting up society. As you’ve said before, it’s not clear if it’s Critical Theorists that adopted Post-Modernism or Post-Moderns that adopted the tools of Critical Theory but to have a 2 page description of both would be super useful.
I’ll second your comments on a postmodernism overview. That would be very helpful.
This two pager was great and helpful, as others have said. My feeling about critical race theory — “this too shall pass.” Yes, it is extreme, but liberalism wasn’t making progress fast enough. There is too much racism, prejudice, poverty, and wealth inequality in this country. What do you think about Jane Meyer ‘Dark Money’, Adam Cohen ‘Supreme Inequality’? When a situation is extremely unfair, a very strong movement needs to come along, which itself may not be ideal. Examples — : On a social media account for parents in my town, the discussion was school time taken up to discuss racism (a lot). The whole span of opinions was discussed. One that stood out on the side of allowing the school to hold these anti-racism meeting was: “Racism is a national emergency. Something needs to be done. We’re grateful children are being exposed to these ideas.”
To add to my prior comment — I’m grateful that people like you exist, James Lindsay, to point out the problems with anti-racism rhetoric — even though I believe that anti-racism and wokism are necessary to challenge and change current inequalities. The fact that you and others were there all along labeling the problems can help a return to a middle ground once some lasting reduction in racist attitudes has occurred.
There won’t be a reduction in racist attitudes because – I’m sure you’ve noticed – certain activists have carved out a huge space in society in which it is de facto acceptable for dark-skinned people to accuse light-skinned people of racism all day long without (a) evidence (b) falling foul of defamation law.
CRT sees racism everywhere, 24/7/365. That will never, can never, reduce racism. And as James has pointed out. it isn’t designed to reduce racism. It’s designed for political ends. It’s designed to catapult people into power over other people so that society can be dismantled and rebuilt with new people in charge, WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE BALLOT BOX.
CSJ/CRT does not address inequalities.
I’m not convinced you’ve read what James writes, or the texts of the CRT movement.
The woman to whom you are addressing your comment is a textbook example of the type described by another commenter:
“Certain parts of the voting block, particularly suburban women, find favor with CRT and other Democrat socialism appeals. ”
Why? This woman’s comments show why.
As long as these self-righteous, bloated ego, puffed up, strut and crow Nanny-bully suburban women keep gatekeeping and shame-shun-scolding so they can pride-bask in the false morality of their facebook take downs, this whole mess can end only in violence. These women ARE the problem. I am sick to death of them. Stop being polite to them. Confront them and their self-serving “pussyhat” bullshit!
The goal of CRT and the activists who employ it is to reinstate a regime of legal and cultural Jim Crow or perhaps actual slavery but with Blacks in the role of oppressor and everyone else in the role of the oppressed. There are many useful idiots who don’t understand this and you seem to be one of them.
The over-use of ‘national emergency’ has already made it cease to be a meaningful phrase.
Good point.
Might I suggest that you reorient your worldview by studying some actual history based on the objective historical record rather than the false Narratives of the NY Times 1619 project, which is simply an Orwellian fiction, an ideological contrivance fabricated from Lies
Please get a grip on reality because if you truly believe that there’s been no progress from the liberal Civil Rights movement then I’m afraid you’ve lost the plot
James
It seems to me that part of the problem with the more modern concept of systemic/structural/institutional racism is that it has migrated away from the original Stokely Carmichael definition of institutional racism. In this original definition, he observed that even if one replaced the entire NYPD of the time with living, breathing Black Angels, institutional racism would still exist because of conditions and circumstances of the African Americans they were policing, as well as the Law, itself.
The more conception uses implicit or unconscious bias as a battering ram into the conscience and guilt of the children of wealthy white liberals. It also offers them an easy way to assuage said guilt by becoming an ally. This is not to say that implicit bias is not a factor, we see it with things such as affinity bias in hiring, but when one weighs the work of Dr Raj Chetty with his work on social mobility, and the fact that the proportion of fathers in a community in which a child grows up, as the single strongest correlation to upward social mobility, as well as how their absence correlates with violent crime, then it easy to see far more likely culprits exist for a large majority of systemic disparities.
Recently I placed an article on my substack, discussing race and AI, with a view to uncovering what I’ve taken to calling statistical hegemony, which might have pervaded banking, financial and insurance systems in the period between the end of redlining and the advent of AI. They won’t debate us, but they might just listen to alternate theories of a crime, for the simple reason that it supports their hopes and ambitions for a just society. We need to get this shit out of our culture though- recently I heard a young woman on the radio here in the UK insisting that the higher rate of deaths amongst Black British women giving birth was because the staff in the hospital were trying to kill Black people.
Here is my substack:
https://geary.substack.com/p/statistical-hegemony-and-towards
Does this place have a forum, or is it just comments?
It’s a joke.
At first they couldn’t decide whether they meant systematic or systemic.
They can’t tell the difference between tenets and tenants.
They don’t give a fig for history.
They openly admit to revisionist history and story-telling.
They should be laughed out of town. They’re con artists.
I agree with you.
“they might just *listen* to alternate theories of a crime, for the simple reason that it supports their hopes and ambitions for a just society.”
Most of these folks care nothing for a just society.
Instead, they wallow in their hate of Deplorables.
Trying to get them to listen to alternate theories, or anything sounding remotely empathetic toward Deplorables, is wasting your time.
Moreover, engaging with them gives them the option, to misrepresent your drift, on social media etc.
For a glimpse at how these folks operate, e.g. in systematic trashing of innocent folks, see Greenwald yesterday, at https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-left-continues-to-destroy-itself .
“Impact over intent” is such an inconsistent “principle” of theirs. They will happily justify their own policies’ harmful impacts with “good intentions”, and even declare that policies with positive impact are racist if implemented by the wrong people. Overall, they seem to prefer intent over impact, but they will abuse the notion of impact to enhance their rhetoric.
Very helpful. Thank you.
“Impact over intent:… if a (critically conscious) member of a minoritized racial group has experienced racism…”
“has experienced racism” here should be “claims to have experienced racism”
100% agree re the change to “claims to have experienced racism.”
“Impact over intent:… if a (critically conscious) member of a minoritized racial group has experienced racism…”
CRT rejects objectivity as oppressive “whiteness”, so it undermines the rational mental processing of those who embrace it. As a result, they are less likely to interpret their experiences accurately.
Suppose a critically thinking (as opposed to Critically Theorizing) Person of Color is seated at a remote booth in a crowded restaurant – the last space available on this busy evening. The POC sits there for ten minutes and no one comes to serve her. She waves her hand and no one seems to see. After a half-hour, after some of the crowd has gone, a server finally notices her just as she stands up to leave.
As this now very annoyed customer is a critical thinker, she’ll consider the fact that the place was very busy and that the last table available when she arrived was in an out-of-the-way corner. It may cross her mind that racism could be involved, but considering the circumstances of busyness and location, she rejects that as the least likely explanation.
But if she’s living on the premise of CRT that racism is involved in everything, she will seek and find the racism, whether it’s there or not. Ignoring the fact of the hyper-busyness of the time that she arrived, and not bothering to notice that she got the last available table, she may conclude that being tucked into a corner as well as being ignored is because she’s black. (I’m white, and this same thing happened to me and my white mom.)
So the *experience* of the Person of Color in this situation will depend *on how keenly she observes and how objectively she analyses what has happened to her.*
If her ideology tells her that racism is everywhere and objective analysis is a tool of “whiteness”, then this experience will go into her growing pile of oppressive racist experiences. The objective person will just be annoyed and write it off as one of those things that happens to human beings sometimes.
More likely “believes they’ve experienced racism”.
Calling it a ‘claim’ leaves the option that they’re intentionally misleading which I don’t think, as a whole, will be the case. Yes there will always be individuals who lie about their experiences (with anything) but the ideological basis associated here is not to lie, but to believe something that isn’t true.