Social Justice Usage
Source: Delgado, Richard. Critical Race Theory, Third Edition. NYU Press. Kindle Edition, p. 3.
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
…
Source: Thompson, Sherwood. Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition, p. 65.
Critical race theory (CRT) is a scholarly and political approach to examining race that leads to a consequential analysis and profound understanding of racism. It argues, as a starting point, that the axis of American social life is fundamentally constructed in race. As a result, the economic, political, and historical relationships and arrangements that social actors have to institutions and social processes are all race based. CRT also argues that, as a whole, this idea has been purposefully ignored, subdued, and marginalized in both the dominant and public discourse and that there are serious repercussions that arise from this structural blindness (Mills, 1997, p. 153)…. One of the important tenets of CRT is the assertion that race is socially constructed, yet it denotes explicitly and implicitly how power is used and appropriated in society.
New Discourses Commentary
Critical race Theory is a Critical Theory of race. It distinguishes itself explicitly from previous approaches to race and racism, such as the liberal ones characterizing the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s (but not the Black Power movement—see also, black liberationism). For example, in the introduction to the textbook Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, critical race Theory is characterized explicitly in these terms:
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. (p. 3, emphasis added)
A few salient points stand out in this paragraph. First, critical race Theory is centrally concerned with power, which it holds in higher regard than truth (indeed, it holds the postmodernist position that claims to truth are assertions of power by specific means). Second, it distinguishes itself from “traditional” civil rights and instead favors identity politics (in the radical sense). Third, it is not interested in progress but revolution. Fourth, it calls into question “the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” That positions critical race Theory as explicitly anti-Western and, in the narrower context in which it arose and mostly applies, anti-American. Critical race Theory favors equity over equality, where equity specifically refers to a particular understanding of social equity theory and not a more generalist notion of fairness. Indeed, it explicitly characterizes the idea of (racial) equality as a kind of conspiracy theory that leads people, especially people of color (double especially BIPOC), to accept the status quo and their systemically oppressed state of affairs (see also, internalized dominance, internalized oppression, and internalized racism, i.e., false consciousness).
Critical race Theory began in critical legal studies in frustration that the legal wins over institutional racism in the 1960s did not more quickly succeed in ending racism (see also, cultural racism and new racism) or repairing disparate outcomes by race (see also, equity). It draws significant input from black scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, ranging from Frederick Douglass to W. E. B. Du Bois as well as black feminists from the latter part of the 20th century, including bell hooks, Patricia Collins, and, most notably, Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined the term together with her mentor, Derrick Bell of Harvard Law. The postcolonial French psychoanalyst Frantz Fanon was also a significant influence. There are, of course, many kernels of truth within critical race Theory, or that critical race Theory is built upon, but there is little reason to accept that its analysis is serious or rigorous and less reason to believe that its recommended solutions can ameliorate rather than inflame racial issues in society.
As can be observed in the examples (above and below), critical race Theory begins with a cynical view that race is the predominant structural element of American (and other) societies, and that all analyses of race must incorporate systemic power, which is to say systemic racism. This, it insists, is everywhere, ordinary, permanent, and mostly (and badly) hidden, a kind of racism that is just beneath the surface (see also, code, mask, internalized dominance, internalized oppression, and internalized racism). Indeed, it tends to proceed from Derrick Bell’s assumption that racism has a permanence to it (or, sometimes, is permanent) and thus is not overcome and does not end but instead changes forms to something more subtle and harder to find. A consequence of this belief is that racism does not improve in society or stay the same but actually gets worse by virtue of staying roughly the same while becoming more insidious. One duty of the critical race Theorist is to expose this hidden racism wherever it can be found.
Critical race Theory begins with core presumptions such as that racism is ubiquitous in (American) society and its ordinary state of affairs (rather than an aberration from them). It therefore believes that all interactions across racial difference must account for the influences of structural racism. Under the first core presumption of critical race Theory, the question is not “did racism take place?” but “how did racism manifest in that situation?” for all social phenomena. That is, the racism is presumed to be present and in need of a critical race Theorist to find it and point it out. Critical race Theory does not just presume that society is fundamentally racist in its very structure, but also that it is intrinsically organized upon “anti-Blackness” in particular, leading to seemingly peculiar concepts like “brown privilege,” “brown complicity,” and “brown fragility” alongside the more obvious “white privilege,” “white complicity,” and “white fragility” upon which they are modeled. These posit that white and brown people have a vested interest in anti-Blackness because it affords them privilege, which makes them complicit in white supremacy and too emotionally fragile to cope with challenges to that social order. In other words, it is a conspiracy theory that everyone and, indeed, all of society (independently of the people in it, in a systemic sense) is organized against black people.
As a result of this line of thinking, all people within these systems must be aware of and engage their positionality relative to Theorized racial power dynamics intentionally and at all times (see also, intersectionality). As such, critical race Theory advocates increasing the social significance of racial categories in order to engage in identity politics (see also, identity-first and racism). An example of this assumption being put into action is the Black Lives Matter movement, which springs from the assumption that our police and criminal justice systems are wholly corrupted by systemic racism. Another would be the wide array of nominally “anti-racist” programs and trainings on offer (and mandate) throughout much of our society.
Critical race Theory stands apart from other kinds of Theory in that it is usually written quite clearly and has simple tenets. These include the central theme that racism is ordinary and permeates everything. It therefore needs to be uncovered and addressed using critical methods (see also, critical theory and mask). This is done in the form of Theory being applied to historical texts, societal representation, or current discourses. An example of the first includes Derrick Bell’s Interest-Convergence Thesis, in which he argues that advances have only been made for black people when it has been in white people’s interests to allow them. This is, in fact, listed among the core presuppositions of the Theory. This causes Bell to argue that progress of race relations is largely a myth. This is a radical and empirical (although interpreted with a specific ideological bias) approach to critical race Theory. The critical study of whiteness (see also, whiteness studies) is, in this sense, under the broad umbrella of critical race Theory.
One consequence of this view is that critical race Theory explicitly endorses historical revisionism, as it proceeds from the assumption that history was written by dominant (white) people who have, as a result of their privilege and its influences, not represented it accurately. A contemporary example of this effort is the 1619 Project, which was promoted by the New York Times starting in August 2019, with the explicit agenda of reframing the founding of the United States as a project in maintaining and exploiting slavery (see also, post-traumatic slavery syndrome).
A strongly postmodern approach to critical race Theory also exists, is currently dominant, and owes much to black feminists like bell hooks and Patricia Collins. These scholars sought to understand racism and its connection to gender by taking a “multi-layered” approach, which included some postmodern concepts about experiential knowledge(s) and multiple consciousness (see also, Matrix of Domination). The black feminist legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw was hugely influential as well (and is recognized along with Derrick Bell as the originator of critical race Theory).
Crenshaw is best known for her concept of “intersectionality,” which she describes as “a provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory.” Under intersectionality, race, gender, sexuality, and other matters of identity are seen as cultural constructs in keeping with postmodern cultural constructivism, but, in deviation from the radical deconstruction of earlier forms of postmodern thought, oppression on those grounds is seen as objectively real.
Because of its postmodern influence, “discourse analysis” is also strong within critical race Theory. This involves a highly interpretive approach to interactions between a white person and a person of color that begins with the assumption that a power imbalance will exist and racism will be present and the person of color will be more able to detect it (see also, position, standpoint epistemology, and close reading).
Another central tenet of critical race theory is the critique of liberalism. This comes as a shock to most American readers who mistakenly identify critical race Theory as something associated with liberals and liberalism, but CRT is openly an anti-liberal theoretical and political project. The liberal approach to anti-racism is to divest race categories of social significance and treat everyone equally. That is, race is to become largely irrelevant and we, as a society, come to see skin color as having no more significance to a person’s worth or abilities than their hair color. This is referred to by critical race Theorists as “colorblindness” and is deemed highly problematic (see also, racism-blindness). A liberal society aims to make sure that everybody is treated equally by ensuring that race, gender, or sexuality does not prevent anyone from accessing any opportunity and then evaluates each individual on their abilities. This is known as “meritocracy,” which is viewed as a highly problematic ideology white people use to maintain their cultural dominance and justify their own white supremacy.
Critical race Theorists reject colorblindness and meritocracy as myths and illusions that allow white people to perpetuate their own privilege by failing to see racism operating beneath the surface of systems (see also, white ignorance). Essentially, they see liberalism as the belief that equality, colorblindness, and meritocracy have already been achieved or enable white people to pretend it has or to be satisfied with a painfully slow incremental change, which is inadequate, while misleading people of color by hiding from them the realities of their oppression (see also, false consciousness).
Critical race Theorists therefore advocate not being colorblind or meritocratic. Instead, they recommend that we all focus on race and racism specifically at all times and prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring and other opportunities. In practice, this often means to run mandatory implicit bias tests and training in workplaces and ensure that more people of racial minorities are represented in any (prestigious) workplace that lacks them.
Related Terms
1619 Project; Antiracism; Bias; Black feminism; Black liberationism; Close reading; Code; Colorblind; Critical; Critical legal studies; Critical Theory; Deconstruction; Discourse; Discourse analysis; Dominant; Equality; Equity; Ethnic Studies; False consciousness; Gender; Identity; Identity-first; Identity politics; Ideology; Interest-convergence; Internalized dominance; Internalized oppression; Internalized racism; Intersectionality; Knowledge(s); Liberalism; Marginalize; Mask; Matrix of Domination; Meritocracy; Multiple-consciousness; Oppression; People of color; Position; Postcolonial Theory; Postmodern; Post-traumatic slavery syndrome; Power (systemic); Privilege; Problematic; Race; Racism (systemic); Racism-blindness; Radical; Representation; Revisionism; Sexuality; Social construction; Standpoint epistemology; Structural; Text; Theory; White; White ignorance; White supremacy; Whiteness; Whiteness studies
Additional Examples
Source: Payne Hiraldo, “The Role of Critical Race Theory in Higher Education,” Vermont Connection 31(7): 2010, p. 54.
CRT’s framework is comprised of the following five tenets: counter-storytelling; the permanence of racism; Whiteness as property; interest conversion; and the critique of liberalism.
…
Source: Cummings, André Douglas Pond. “A Furious Kinship: Critical Race Theory and the Hip-Hop Nation,” in Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean (eds). Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, Third Edition. NYU Press. Kindle Edition, p. 108.
CRT rests on several foundational pillars: First, racism is a relentless daily fact of life in American society, and the ideology of racism and white supremacy are ingrained in the political and legal structures so as to be nearly unrecognizable. Racism is a constant, not aberrant, occurrence in American society. “Because racism is an ingrained feature of our landscape, it appears ordinary and natural to persons in the culture.” Second, “as a form of oppositional scholarship, CRT challenges the experience of White European Americans as the normative standard” against which societal norms are measured. “CRT grounds its conceptual framework in the distinctive . . . experiences of people of color and racial oppression through the use of literary narrative knowledge and storytelling to challenge the existing social construction of race.” Third, CRT questions liberalism and the ability of a system of law built on it to create a just society. An interest convergence critique posits that white elites will tolerate or encourage racial advances for blacks only when such advances also promote white self-interest. Fourth, CRT seeks to expose the flaws in the color-blind view of everyday social relations and the administration of law by positing that ending discrimination and racism through legal means has not occurred because of the contradiction between a professed belief in equality and justice and a societal willingness to tolerate and accept racial inequality and inequity.
Revision date: 11/14/20
17 comments
@Joe Smith
That people react badly to being told that they’re irredeemably racist and they they need to spend their entire lives ‘doing the work’, in the service of hateful black radicals, doesn’t make CRT true or useful. People also react badly to Scientology, but that doesn’t mean that body thetans or Xenu exist.
These supposedly racist ‘systems’ are typically just assertions in relation to an observed difference in outcome, usually as part of a data-set that has not been appropriately disaggregated for other factors. If blacks are working less hard than East Asians, then the ‘systemic racism’ would be the groups doing less well than their peers making accusations of racism to gain things they haven’t earned, and institutions giving in to their demands out of fear.
Racial prejudice is a human universal, as one would expect from an evolved primate species. The issue is that we’ve slipped into a particularly silly cultural problem, where solidly middle class black academics can never be understood as being guilty. Kimberlé Crenshaw and her fellow travelers are not victims, they are perpetrators. People behaving ethically would not take a concept like ‘anti-racism’ and manipulate the terminology. Universalism does not involve making ethnocentric demands toward individuals who have done nothing to you, owe you nothing and are having their naiveté taken advantage of. Telling these people no, doesn’t make me a white supremacist and I don’t care what pejoratives they throw at me.
Your point on the lack of human progress is also simply untrue. Many of us remember a time where focusing on race was considered especially low-grade behavior. This is the society we’ll be aiming to return to. I would suggest that this will be accomplished by treating crits like neo-Nazis and removing them from institutions. If anyone gets caught making vexatious accusations of racism to attack people, or gain things they haven’t earned, then society should punish them.
I am not a scholar or teacher.
I am not necessarily up on all the terms used above, but I believe I have a pretty good understanding. From the descriptions and definitions here, I think there is a fair assessment of CRT from its promoters point of view.
This being equal to the extent of my own reading on the subject.
From this, and the comments, I find CRT to be correct. I find it to be valid and viable. The comments prove it’s premise, the reactions prove it’s worth. I’m white and fifty six years old. In my experience and in all obviousness, racism is still abundant and systemic. The fact that commenters feel threatened proves this fact. Don’t misunderstand the fear you feel from its existence. This is the proof. Those secure in their [ manhood, womanhood, societal place ( terms included for those who question their own validity without pressure from blacks)] wouldn’t fear an idea if it didn’t speak to some truth.
One would think, if one thought rationally, that after some enlightenment, that after much legislation, that after much turmoil and violence, upheaval and forced integration, that there might be some sort of change in the racism taught and passed down, generation after generation. But no.
Still there, still the same.
The same derogatives, the same rhetoric, the same policies, the same fear and hate. The hoods still in many closets. Not everyone, of course. But very many. These are the acknowledged ones. The rest of us are in denial. You may, and rightly so, say ” well I’m no racist “, and be correct. But after a hundred and sixty some years and not a whole lot of change, don’t you think a little more pressure is appropriate?
It’s the communist plan, or should I say Agenda 21. They want a civil war so they can call in the UN “peacekeepers” to take control. We are heavily infiltrated and reasoning won’t work. They have been indoctrinated too and are being paid off with our tax dollars. We need to stop the bussing which has become accepted as part of the system, It takes so much money from the schools to support it – vehicles, maintenance,, fuel etc. The huge Transportation department. Nothing left for the kids and teachers. We would do better to organize neighborhood schools and starve the monster.
Our school is very adamant on DEI initiatives and Social Emotional Learning – evident through the newsletters that are sent out, a survey that my 7th grader recently had to complete, some of the homework assignments I have seen. I cannot definitively say whether or not it has gotten out of hand and devolved into full blown CRT, but I fear that we are only a couple years away from it. Not sure if I have the skills to take on the school board and administration on my own, and I’m starting to feel a little frustrated by not really knowing how to properly bring awareness to the community. Suggestions?
i have been hearing that Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is just another name for CRT. Is this true?
Returned to this page after reading article titled Mississippi Gov Signs Law Limiting Race in Lessons, The Durango Herald, (3/15/22):
“The short title of Senate Bill 2113 says it would prohibit “critical race theory.” But the main text of the legislation does not mention or define the theory, and many supporters of the bill also have said they cannot define it.”
I think James might have an even more concise definition somewhere but for what it’s worth here’s what I got from the video in case anybody wants to copy and save it somewhere:
Critical Race Theory is the belief that fundamental organizing principle of society is racism, and that this racism was created by white people specifically to oppress people of other races, and that white people maintain that racism so that they can maintain their own advantage in society.
@James Sloey,
Seems to me that is exactly the point. These people wanted to foment chaos, and violence, not peace.
Thanks for this clarity. This brings up one question. What does proponents of CRT see as the end results if this was implemented In all the schools. I see only a reversal of power among the black race and all other races! This means their end goal is revenge! It is about changing the power structure!
I would strongly suggest that the hyperlink to “anti-racism” in the sentence “The liberal approach to anti-racism is to divest race categories of social significance…” be removed and changed simply to “racism” with no link. It’s a bit confusing for some of the people I’m trying to deprogram from Der Wokenvolkstasi’s drek.
Please follow NH’s lead and stop CRT! https://patch.com/new-hampshire/merrimack/richards-please-pass-hb544-protect-my-kids-hate IT PASSED, thanks to this dedicated father!
I think it would be helpful if this site would explain ways to combat CRT with common language arguments instead of highly scholarly theories…
Whoops. I mean: *James* Lindsay.
In an article on June 2, 2021 (“Disputing Racism’s Reach, Republicans Rattle American Schools”), the New York Times ran an article with a highly misleading summary of what CRT is. It said: “The concept [CRT] argues that historical patterns of racism are ingrained in law and other modern institutions, and that the legacies of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow still create an uneven playing field for Black people and other people of color.” Many people of many political stripes could agree with those broad statements. If that’s all CRT meant, then I highly doubt that so many people would be as upset as they are. I hope John Lindsay writes a letter to the NY Times about this!
I have begun putting together a program that will replace CRT as a viable presentation/class that shows the equality of the races through studies of extraordinary people of all races who contributed to our future. It is meant to have a subtle lesson plan whereas students can reach their own conclusions on race and how much it does NOT matter. Please contact me to team up to make this project viable and make it the alternative to CRT. Too often we complain but never present alternatives to bad programs like CRT.
Excellent description.
The goal of CRT is the same as that of Marxism. Marx relied on class division, however, since data can resolve this issue and poverty (in it’s real sense) is not the norm, a new paradigm had to be adopted to divide Classical Liberals from socialist sympathizers. If you research the political leanings of every author of a CRT “Scholastic” article, you will find a communist/socialist.
Excellent coverage of a very distorted theory of human relationships. I still fail to understand how someone could be so blind as to formulate such a theory that ignores such a wide swath of the population who work together without racial issues.
The belief that these issues exist systemically but are hidden and must be ferreted out, is a paranoid dilution. The world they describe is a world that could never exist at peace. By suggesting that this is real, they are fomenting violence and division in order to provide an excuse for those who proclaim their lawlessness is due to racial inequity.
Great introduction to this convoluted and difficult subject. I’m loving the thoroughness of this encyclopedia.