Why Critical Race Theory is Inherently Anti-Liberal | TaraElla Report LvCT

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview. I will also be discussing, from a liberal perspective, how we might handle the conflicts the inevitably arise, and how we can stand our ground firmly while still being constructive about advancing social justice. At least in the beginning, I will be focusing on critical race theory, because it is the most discussed form of critical theory right now, but the themes I will be discussing can actually be applied to most, if not all, types of critical theory.

Last time, we talked about why CRT, and critical theory in general, are inherently revolutionary, and can be counter-productive for those of us who believe in a reformist path to progress. This time, I'm going to talk about a related topic: why critical theory in general stands opposed to the commitments of liberalism. In my recent work on CRT, I have often said that CRT is anti-liberal, and liberals should take a stand against CRT. Every time I've said this, some people have demanded that I explain it in more detail. Well, here it is.

The Liberal Reformist vs the Anti-Liberal Revolutionary

The Western progressive divide of reform vs revolution that I discussed last time is also highly correlated with another divide, that of liberal vs anti-liberal. Liberalism is a cannon of philosophy, political theory and ideals that has its roots in the Enlightenment. Liberals generally believe in liberty and equality between individuals, although there have always been differences in terms of how that might be defined and achieved. While liberals believe in individual liberty, they believe in civilization being the key to guarantee liberty. Hence, liberals are believers in an ordered liberty based on a fair and commonly accepted social contract, which sets them apart from anarcho-individualists, for example. Another common belief among liberals is the importance of pursuing objective truth, and the belief that the improvement of the human condition comes from pursuing and knowing the truth. Many foundational liberal thinkers, including John Locke and John Stuart Mill, are often considered to be great empiricial thinkers. Mill's commitment to free speech was rooted in his desire to let the sound ideas prevail over time. For many liberals, individual liberty, and the free speech and freedom of conscience that comes with it, are inherently linked to the need to pursue truth and knowledge.

The reformist progress of the 19th and 20th centuries (and indeed, even more recent reforms like gay marriage) were all largely rooted in liberalism. Over successive generations, liberals shaped the political systems of the West around their values and ideals. The gradually liberalizing political system allowed reforms like universal suffrage, civil rights, freedom of association and unionization, and so on to happen, which then served to reinforce liberal values, and inspire further rounds of reform. Hence, in this context, the committed reformist is inevitably a liberal, at least to some extent. The reverse is also true: liberals generally haven't seen the need for revolution in a long time, given that the liberal project is already being rolled out gradually via reform. While we still have a long way to go to realize the promise of liberty and equality for every individual under all circumstances, from a liberal point of view, things are improving all the time, and we have very good reason to stay the course.

Therefore, in the context of the 20th and 21st century West, the revolutionaries are generally discontents of liberalism. Basically, these people believe that liberalism will not lead to the betterment of humanity, because it has not brought about their desired utopia. More on this later.

Why It's Not Really About Social Justice

To justify their view that liberalism is the stumbling block to utopia, the revolutionaries generally resort to painting a bleak picture of the results of liberal reform (as you would expect). This is why CRT thinkers and supporters often like to downplay or take a pessimistic view of the achievements of the 20th century civil rights movement in improving racial justice in America, for example. It's also why radical feminists often downplay the very real advancement in women breaking the glass ceiling in the past 50 years, or why revolutionary LGBT activists often dismiss concrete achievements like marriage equality. It's all about liberalism not working for the people. Which is clearly not true. But it's the narrative that the various critical theories, including CRT, like to promote over and over again. The harm of this is that it reduces the energy and enthusiasm for further reform (which is what the criticalists want, but would be very bad for minorities who are still waiting for their equal opportunity).

As you can see, the bitterness of criticalism is squarely aimed at liberalism itself. Underlying this bitterness towards liberalism is often an (in my opinion misguided) view that liberalism enslaves humanity in some way. For example, I did a detailed two-part analysis of the real motivations behind critical theorist Herbert Marcuse's justification to limit free speech, and I concluded that it was due to a desire to abolish Freudian repression rather than a desire to advance social justice.

Indeed, given that liberal reformism has produced good results for social justice so far, there really can be no justification to 'burn it all down' without proof that the alternative is going to be better. Therefore, my logical reasoning has led me to the conclusion that the anti-liberal sentiment at the root of criticalism is not really about social justice at all. Rather, criticalists romaniticize an imagined utopia, and are bitter towards liberalism for failing to deliver this impossible utopia. What criticalists do not understand is that their utopia isn't possible because of human nature, biological constraints, scarcity of resources, and so on. No system can completely overcome these limitations. It's a fact that criticalists, in their revolutionary optimism, have generally not been willing to face.

Critical Theory Opposes the Core Values of Liberalism

Besides trying to discredit the fruits of liberalism, contemporary critical theories also often attack the foundational values of liberalism. This is why they don't have much appreciation for free speech, freedom of conscience, objectivity and empiricism, all fundamental ingredients of liberal philosophy. In more extreme cases, there is also skepticism towards things like electoral democracy, equality of opportunity, and even scientific truth.

I think the core conflict here is that, while liberals believe that the objective truth will liberate and advance humanity, criticalists clearly don't believe that. Instead, they believe that the objective truth either doesn't exist or is not knowable (inspired by postmodernism), and what is important are dynamics of power and oppression (which is the core critical theory view) and repression (from Marcuse). Therefore, liberals are dedicated to pursuing the objective truth, and setting up values and systems that allow us to do that, while criticalists will always decry these values and systems as being oppressive. This actually represents an irreconcilible difference, no matter which way you look at it.

Torwads a Constructive Liberal Attitude on CRT

Therefore, as liberals, in the face of the rise of critical theory thinking, we must stand our ground firmly. At the level of overarching values, it's either our way or their way. There is really no ground for compromise here. This is what I mean when I say that liberals should be unafraid to take a firm and public stance against CRT.

On the other hand, liberalism isn't against the existence of CRT (or other types of critical theory) as one school of thought among many that exists in the marketplace of ideas. As someone once put it, liberalism isn't opposed to critical theory being one available perspective to examine social issues. However, critical theory, in its political activist form, often demands the acceptance of its assumptions about the world, to the exclusion of many liberal principles, due to its core view of culture being a ground for power struggle between groups. The truth is, critical theory comes in many different 'levels', from an academic lens that might be useful for research but is also aware of its potential limitations, to a politicized form that essentially demands acceptance of its doctrines in all areas of cultural and political life. Thus, some 'levels' of critical theory could be compatible with a liberal political system, whilst the more extreme levels might not be. As a liberal, I think it is important to make this distinction.

Furthermore, even as a liberal, I have to admit that the concerns raised by CRT (or other types of critical theory) are not always invalid. Referring back to the aforementioned point about academic forms of critical theory with appropriate nuance, I don't deny that they could be useful for revealing aspects of racism that could be ignored by mainstream thinking. As liberals, we should always welcome a diversity of perspectives, and we should always be open-minded about the need to further improve society for marginalized individuals and communities. As such, we can think of some forms of academic CRT as a mirror, holding our liberalism up to scrutiny, so that we can make sure we remain on the path to removing racism.

However, the key to standing our ground as liberals is that the social and political actions we support in the name of anti-racism must be rooted in a desire to better adhere to liberal ideals like moving towards race blindness, fostering equal opportunity for every individual, and so on. With this in mind, we would certainly have to stand against proposals from certain CRT thinkers (e.g. Ibram X. Kendi) which contain elements that betray the aforementioned liberal vision.