On Academic vs Political Versions of Critical Race Theory | TaraElla Report LvCT

Why the real worry is not the academic stuff, but the activist adoption of CRT's ideas.

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.

Last time, we talked about why critical race theory (CRT), and critical theory in general, are inherently revolutionary and anti-liberal to some extent. At the end of the last episode, I briefly discussed how there are different 'levels' of CRT, and how an academic and nuanced approach to CRT might still be compatible with liberal commitments, but a politicized and revolutionary approach might not be. Today, I want to expand on this point.

Hypothesis vs Fact

CRT is based on a set of assumptions, including the idea that racism is ordinary and pervasive in America and several other Western countries, and that the political system in these countries are inherently unfair towards non-white people. Therefore, it is often said that, in CRT, the question being asked is not 'is racism present in this scenario', because it is always assumed to be present. Rather, the question being asked becomes 'how is racism being present and affecting this scenario'. It also logically follows that CRT tends to assume that racial disparities are due to 'the system' being racist, and applies this assumption in its analysis of all kinds of racial disparities.

I think a critical distinction that needs to be made here is whether the central assumptions of CRT are being presented as hypothesis or fact. As a liberal, I believe in being open-minded in our search for the truth. As such, I welcome people coming up with and exploring all sorts of hypotheses. This is why I am so passionate about free speech.

What I cannot accept, and what many people cannot accept, is when hypotheses are being treated as facts, without adequate objective evidence to conclusively prove their truth. This is especially concerning, if such 'truths' are being used to develop solutions to cure social ills. Think about this: you would expect your doctor to be practicing evidence-based medicine. Why shouldn't we expect those proposing social change to practice evidence-based politics?

Academic vs Politicized Critical Theory

This brings me onto the next point. CRT, indeed all of critical theory, started out as academic theory. As some might say, the core assumptions of CRT might be controversial, and might not always be true, but it remains a useful 'lens' to do research and thinking around. I have no problem with the existence of CRT as a lens of academic inquiry, as long as we remain very aware of the limitations of the products of such academic inquiry. (In the past, I have also raised concerns regarding the balance between criticalist perspectives vs other perspectives in contemporary academia, but that's another issue.) If the insights from academic CRT are taken with awareness of their limitations, and in balance with other perspectives, then the results might not always be incompatible with liberal commitments.

What I, and I suspect many people, have a problem with is the popularized and politicized form of CRT. What I mean by 'popularized and politicized CRT' is where ideas from CRT thinking, like colorblind racism, the pervasiveness of white supremacy, intersectionality and so on are taken out of the academic context, and applied in popular culture, political debates, and especially the culture wars. Unlike academic CRT, this form of 'CRT' is much less nuanced. After all, when doing academic work, one is generally encouraged to think about the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of one's work. However, in politics, especially in the culture wars, no such requirement applies. Indeed, such reflexivity is often seen as weakness in the face of the enemy. Thus politicized CRT is much more dogmatic, much more rigid, and often incompatible with liberal commitments to individual-level equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, and so on. Therefore, it is justified, even for liberals who are otherwise OK with academic CRT, to be concerned about CRT-type ideas being applied outside the university setting.

An even more worrying trend in recent years has been the adoption of CRT and associated ideas as part of a wider revolutionary agenda by those with a revolutionary, as opposed to reformist, political orientation. In this new revolutionary adoption of CRT, the assumptions of CRT are taken as fact, and indeed as justification for the need to overturn the current (liberal) system. Furthermore, in extreme cases, any opposition to CRT could be painted as 'upholding white supremacy', a view essentially justified on the grounds of Foucaldian postmodern philosophy rather than objective reality. Now, this would indeed be the opposite of an evidence-based approach to resolve our social ills. And I truly fear where such a misguided approach will lead us to.