In the universities there is a field of scholarship that goes by a number of names such as “Gender Studies”, “Identity Studies”, “Feminist Studies”, “Critical Pedagogy”, “Social Justice Studies”, “Critical Theory” and many more. For the sake of simplicity I will broadly refer to these fields as “Critical Theory” when addressing the foundational theories and I will use the term “Social Justice” when discussing their outworking and calls to social action. This field of study has had an increasing impact upon both the university campus and the broader society. The unifying element connecting all these fields is a predetermined commitment to a particular worldview that views society through the dual lenses of postmodernism and Marxism. The foundational principles of Critical Theory mandate a particular form of “problematizing” groups, and have a particular method for mitigating social injustices. Critical Theory is foundationally flawed and its framework for interpretation is detrimental to those whom it purports to help. This paper will offer an overview of the main ideas within Critical Theory and Social Justice Studies and elucidate a number of issues within these fields.
1. Introduction: The Long March through the Institutions
Before his rise to power, Mao Zedong’s communist army was forced to retreat after a significant defeat at the hands of the nationalist party. Mao’s army undertook a 10 000 kilometre trek through some of the harshest terrain in China. This historic event became known as the Long March and marked the beginning of Mao’s rise to supreme power. Mao’s application of the Marxist doctrines would cause the deaths of upwards of 40 million Chinese.
Perhaps the most important Marxists since Karl himself, was the Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). He is credited for having designed the blueprint and having laid the foundation for the Cultural Marxist movement in the west. His position was later dubbed “The Long March through the Institutions.” Gramsci argued that in order to overthrow the West and institute socialism, revolutionary affront would be insufficient, rather Western culture must be subverted. By infiltrating the universities, churches, schools, unions, and political parties, he believed that the cultural transformation necessary for revolution would take place.
As we survey the effect of Critical Theory it would seem that Gramsci’s Long March is in its final stages and we might be on the precipice of revolution.
2. Defining Critical Theory
The two foundation stones of Critical Theory are the ‘Critical” element and the “Theory” element. The Critical component is based in the Neo-Marxist assumption that society is stratified into oppressor groups and oppressed groups. Oppressor groups use hegemonic power to reinforce oppressive social arrangements.[1] The Theory element is built upon postmodern epistemology and functions to bolster the claims and accusations levied by the critical branch of the system.
In her influential textbook, Robin DiAngelo begins her overview of Critical Theory in these words:
“Our analysis of social justice is based on a school of thought known as Critical Theory. Critical Theory refers to a body of scholarship that examines how society works, and is a tradition that emerged in the early part of the 20th century from a group of scholars at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany (because of this, this body of scholarship is sometimes also called “the Frankfurt School”). These theorists offered an examination and critique of society and engaged with questions about social change. Their work was guided by the belief that society should work toward the ideals of equality and social betterment”[2]
This is perhaps the first fundamental pillar of Critical Theory. The influence of the Frankfurt School should not be underestimated. This school was an explicitly Marxist institution. One of their primary developments was that they took the traditional categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat and expanded them out from being limited to economic status and applied the oppressor/oppressed distinction to all realms of society. The Frankfurt School is where the idea of Political Correctness was born and the ideas around Social Justice that are prevalent today. Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Jürgen Habermas are some of the key scholars from Frankfurt.
Marxism is the first pillar and post modernism is the second:
“Efforts among scholars to understand how society works weren’t limited to the Frankfurt School; French philosophers (notably Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jacques Lacan) were also grappling with similar questions (this broader European development of Critical Theory is sometimes called “the continental school” or “continental philosophy”). This work merges in the North American context of the 1960s with antiwar, feminist, gay rights, Black power, Indigenous peoples, The Chicano Movement, disability rights, and other movements for social justice.”[3]
These French philosophers were hugely instrumental in developing the ideas of postmodernism and relativism. Their impact on Critical Theory will be seen more in section 4.
With the dual pillars of Marxism and Postmodernism in place, it is important to understand how these function as “Theory”.
This idea of theory is not in the sense of ‘scientific theory’ with hypothesis, method and so on. “Theory” is the idea of worldview. It is the presuppositional framework through which everything else is explained. Rather than being a set field of information, Critical Theory is a framework through which all information is interpreted, evaluated, and explained.
An example of “theory” in this sense would be something like a materialistic worldview. A naturalistic/materialist has a predetermined commitment to the idea that everything can be explained in terms of the material realm. All things that exist are just matter in motion. This claim is not necessarily investigated or examined but rather it is the tool by which everything else is examined.
Critical Theory should be understood in this way.
“Many people outside of academia find theory uninteresting. Theory often seems unnecessarily dense and abstract, far removed from our everyday lives. But, in fact, all of us operate from theory. Whenever we ask “how” or “why” about anything, we are engaged in theorizing; theory can be conceptualized as the learned cultural maps we follow to navigate and make sense of our lives and new things we encounter. Everything we do in the world (our actions) is guided by a worldview (our theory).”[4]
The foundational uniting element among Critical Theorists is an overarching belief that society should be understood as a complex system of competing power dynamics wherein powerful groups subjugate oppressed groups. Critical Theory is an explanatory tool founded in the theoretical humanities rooted in Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism.
3. Understanding Oppression
One of the implicit assumptions among Critical Theorists is that the only feasible explanation for many of the disparities that exist in society is that privileged groups mistreat oppressed groups. While it might seem plausible that in the absence of prejudicial discrimination, resources, wealth, opportunities, and social capital would exist equally among all groups, this assumption is not based in empirical evidence. Rather it is the assumption through which disparities are analysed. The reality is, disparities do exist. Moreover, “proportional representation” is a phenomenon that “few, if any, societies have ever approximated.”[5]
However, for the Critical Theorist oppression (primarily seen in racism, sexism, homophobia, and ableism) is so totalizing and immanent that it cannot be avoided. Our group identities are inescapably relevant and always functioning to further the goals of our group.
“Although we are individuals, we are also – and perhaps more fundamentally – members of social groups. These group memberships shape us as profoundly, if not more so, than any unique characteristics we may claim to possess.”[6]
And again, this is the mechanism and lens through which the data is interpreted.
“I regard racism as a structure, that is, as a network of social relations at social, political, economic, and ideological levels that shapes the life chances of the various races… —the new racism for short—is operating, which accounts for the persistence of racial inequality.”[7]
All group interactions must be viewed as existing in conflict and ranked hierarchically as opposed to being complimentary. The following chart illustrates how these relationships are conceptualized generally:
To take one example from the previous figure, able bodied people experience greater access to wealth, opportunities, resources, and power, not because they have fairly earned those things but because they have erected a systematic social arrangement to perpetuate their own success at the cost of disabled people.
“Ideology – the received wisdom – makes current social arrangements seem fair and natural. Those in power sleep well at night: their conduct does not seem to them like oppression.”[9]
Oppression is so ubiquitous that even treating the existence of these oppressive systems as up for debate is considered a mechanism to further perpetuate the system of oppression (as will be seen further in section 4).
As a result of this framework, to whatever extent you belong to an oppressor group, to that same extent you can rightly be labeled as a racist, classist, sexist, ableist or whatever other identifier might apply.
This is most frequently seen in race and gender, but the example of race can be taken as a model that extends out to all other forms of oppression.
3a. Racism
For the Critical Theorist, racism is not simply prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. In fact, this way of defining racism is seen as a tool of oppression.[10] Instead, racism is seen as a combination of “prejudice plus power.”[11]
“Racism is a structure, not an event”[12]
(Racism is) “a system into which I was socialized”[13]
“Racism is unavoidable… impossible to completely escape”[14]
“Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because the frameworks conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play; our learning will never be finished”[15]
Racism is perpetrated on the group level and not on the individual level. Racism therefore becomes absolutely inescapable. By virtue of being born into a dominant group, you accrue certain unearned privileges and benefits through a system that is biased. A system that has been constructed to benefit you at the cost of others.
As a result of this new definition of racism, a moral asymmetry is created. Only certain groups can be racist on this definition.
“There simply aren’t enough black people in positions of power to enact racism against white people”[16]
Certain words, actions or attitudes are considered racist if committed by a white person but not so if committed in reverse. Prejudice, maybe, but not racist. Racism only goes in one direction.
“Racism is deeply embedded in the fabric of our society. It is not limited to a single act or person. Nor does it move back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between white people and people of color is historic, traditional, and normalized in ideology. Racism differs from individual racial prejudice and racial discrimination in the historical accumulation and ongoing use of institutional power and authority to support the prejudice and to systematically enforce discriminatory behaviors with far-reaching effects.”[17]
As a result of this moral asymmetry many behaviours and practices are considered good or appropriate if they operate towards one group yet can be considered racist when operating towards another group. A school for only white students is considered racist yet a school for Pacific students only is celebrated.[18] The existence of the BET network (Black Entertainment), black churches, and many other black social groups are considered entirely appropriate yet the establishment of ‘white entertainment’ or ‘white only social groups’ would be universally shunned.
“We can never predict whether an action will be racist or antiracist solely from its content”[19]
Accepting these premises assigns whites to perpetual guilt and oppressor status. This system of oppression is further reinforced and bolstered by the ideas of “white complicity”, “epistemic exploitation”, “convergence” and “standpoint epistemology” (More on these ideas in section 3 and 4)
This brief overview of how Critical Theory shapes discussions around race can be taken as a model of how Critical Theory applies to any set of oppressor and oppressed groups. The fundamental features are the same, namely, systematic definition of oppression, inescapability, imminence, and moral asymmetry.
3b. Micro Aggressions
Racism never goes away. It always exists just beneath the surface for most white people. Society has, for the most part, moved beyond outright acts of aggression because of race, however, that is not because racism has disappeared. Rather, racism has proven notoriously adaptive. One way that racism has adapted is through micro-aggressions;
Micro-aggressions consist of those words and interactions perceived as racist by racialized targets that rarely reflect vindictive intent yet inadvertently inflict, insult or injure.[20]
The idea is that micro-aggressions are the covert and nuanced expressions of everyday racism. When someone performs a micro-aggression, they are attempting to commit a form of aggression against someone for the purpose of perpetuating their privilege. Here are a list of some common or popular examples of micro-aggressions;
- “Where are you really from?”
Asking this question is seen as a tool used to make someone a perpetual alien and outsider on the basis of appearances.[21]
- Clutching one’s purse when around a person of colour[22]
This act communicates to the aggressed individual that they will always be perceived as a criminal because of the colour of their skin.
- Mansplaining
80 percent of British women have been victim to this form of aggression according to a recent survey.[23] According to Merriam Webster (who added the word to their dictionary in 2018) mansplaining is “to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic.”[24] This bigoted affront is used to reinforce the system of male patriarchy by marginalizing female voices and centering male thought.
- Manspreading
This peculiar micro-aggression was made famous by the fact that it has been banned in Spain’s capital, Madrid.[25] The Oxford Dictionary defines manspreading as “the practice whereby a man adopts a sitting position with his legs wide apart, in such a way as to encroach on an adjacent seat.”[26] Even though many men would say that they adopt a more spread position to accommodate for the potential compression of testicles and penis, it must be understood that this is in fact an act of male dominance.
Many more examples could be explored. Here is a chart exemplifying more common examples:
4. Standpoint Epistemology
Central to the system and framework of Critical Theory is the idea of Standpoint Epistemology. This is a theoretical perspective that argues that knowledge stems from social position and posits the idea that knowledge is socially constructed. Therefore, almost all claims to objective knowledge are rejected.
“One of the key contributions of critical theorists concerns the production of knowledge. Given that the transmission of knowledge is an integral activity in schools, critical scholars in the field of education have been especially concerned with how knowledge is produced. These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral, and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible.”[28]
In her seminal essay, renowned feminist scholar, Audre Lorde, penned perhaps her most famous words when she wrote this:
“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never bring about genuine change.”[29]
Lorde was communicating the idea that a power system, once established, will always work to justify itself. In the case of knowledge production, Critical Theorists would go on to explain that certain ways of knowing are in fact methods of oppression. Certain ways of gaining knowledge are established conventions erected by oppressors in order to perpetuate their dominance.
“We defend our epistemic home terrain not only for the sake of maintaining our worldview, but also to preserve our perceived entitlement.”[30]
It is important then to understand what these tools are. The ‘master’s tools’ include anything used by oppressor groups to reassert power or to marginalize oppressed groups, including but not limited to logic, reasoning, exegesis, and statistics.
“By interrogating the politics of knowledge-production, this tradition also calls into question the uses of the accepted critical-thinking toolkit to determine epistemic adequacy. To extend Audre Lorde’s classic metaphor, the tools of the critical thinking tradition (for example, validity, soundness, conceptual clarity) cannot dismantle the master’s house:”[31]
This system creates an epistemic bind for oppressors. They are limited by their epistemic home terrain and are therefore unable to assess the ways in which they are being oppressive. Their way of examining such a claim is structured to protect them.
When a white man resists affirmative action programs and points to statistical evidence that these programs are detrimental to people of colour, this is seen as an act of ‘privilege-preserving epistemic pushback’. This does “epistemic violence”[32] to oppressed groups. The appeal to statistics is a defense mechanism to allow the racist behavior to go unchallenged.
Oppressed groups do not suffer from the same condition. They have the lived experience of having to navigate a society wherein the epistemic home terrain was shaped by their oppressor. They understand his tools. They also understand their own epistemic home terrain and therefore have a special access to knowledge that their oppressor does not possess.
“Positionality: The recognition that where you stand in relationship to others in society shapes what you can see and understand about the world.”[33]
As a result of the postmodern influence and Standpoint Epistemology a number of ideas have developed which further bolster the Critical Theory system. These ideas include Intersectionality, White Fragility, Epistemic Exploitation, and Interest Convergence. Here is an overview of these ideas:
4a. Intersectionality
Intersectionality is the term used by scholars to recognize the fact that we each occupy multiple social positions and these positions interact with one another in complex ways. When an individual participates in a range of oppressed groups, their epistemic access increases. In other words, by being subjugated, one can gain a special access to knowledge that their oppressor does not possess.
“A person who is privileged by some system of oppression has more limited epistemic access to the nature of that oppression than does a person marginalized by it.”[34]
Being a part of an oppressor group means that one is unable to see certain things. They cannot see and evaluate their own flaws because their epistemology insulates them from adequate critique. What is needed is for the oppressor to receive the special knowledge possessed by the oppressed, and when received, it must be received without offering resistance or contradiction. In an ‘anti-racist’ checklist for whites, Dr. John Raible suggests this as a goal for whites to strive for:
“__ I readily accept – with no explanation or “proof” necessary – a person of color’s position or perception.”[35]
This special access to knowledge makes objections irrelevant. There is no meaningful way to contradict the claimed knowledge of an oppressed individual.
This idea can be illustrated by the analogy of colour blindness. In this analogy, the ultimate oppressor would be the person who is completely colour blind. They can only see greyscale. This might be our straight, white, able-bodied, Christian, male. Now add one degree of oppression. Perhaps, they are now a straight, white, able-bodied, Christian, female. Now she is still pretty close to being fully colour blind but she can now pick up shades of green. Now a straight, white, able-bodied, Muslim, female, can see tints of green and red. In this analogy, the person who can see full colour might be our Trans, black, disabled, Satanist, genderqueer. They have ultimate epistemic access.
4b. White Fragility
In the case of race and oppression, when a white person responds to these doctrines with defensiveness, anger, fear, guilt, argumentation, silence, or withdrawal, it is indicative of their racial fragility. Oppressors, particularly white people, lack racial stamina and therefore refuse to embrace the CT system.[36]
4c. Epistemic Exploitation
Even though oppressors are reliant upon the oppressed for knowledge, because of their own epistemic limitations, oppressors must be very careful not to engage in epistemic exploitation. This act is “marked by unrecognized, uncompensated, emotionally taxing, coerced epistemic labor.”[37]
“Standard conversational norms allow epistemic exploitation to masquerade as any number of acceptable and normalized practices— ‘exercising harmless curiosity,’ ‘just asking a question,’ ‘making a well- intentioned effort to learn,’ ‘offering alternative explanations,’ and ‘playing devil’s advocate’ are a few of the labels used to describe epistemically exploitative interactions.”[38]
4d. Interest Convergence
Interest Convergence is a phrase that was first coined by NYU law professor Derrick Bell. It is the idea that the interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will only be accommodated when it converges with the interests of whites.[39]
That is to say, white people will only pursue black interests when they can personally benefit from their social betterment. Oppressor groups, therefore, need to be viewed with perpetual suspicion.
5. Becoming an Ally and Doing Social Justice
Core to the system of Critical Theory is the desire to reshape the social consciousness and advocate for justice along the lines of equal outcomes for all:
“Social Justice – Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. “Individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice””[40]
In order to mitigate various social injustices, Critical Theorists advocate a state controlled redistribution philosophy.
“social justice” has evolved to generally mean state redistribution of advantages and resources to disadvantaged groups to satisfy their rights to social and economic equality.[41]
The mission of the Social Justice movement follows this general pattern.
- Identify oppressed or marginalized groups.
- Examine group outcomes with a particular focus on negative disparities.
- Assign blame for the disparate outcomes.
- Redress group grievances through redistribution of resources, wealth, social power and advantages.
It is important to notice that identifying oppressed groups precedes any examination of disparities. This is an important feature to recognize, because when disparities are examined there will often be disparities that accrue to the benefit of the oppressed group. For example, Pacific Islanders are over represented in international rugby. Women achieve disproportionately better results in the universities.[42] These disparities are considered earned privileges and are therefore not considered an injustice. Normally inequalities are an injustice except for when they accrue to the benefit of an oppressed group.
The primary oppressed groups that Critical Theorists focus on are ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ groups. Social Justice advocacy almost primarily consists of state controlled redistribution programs such as reparations, affirmative action programs,[43] equitable hiring,[44] and minimum wage advocacy.[45]
Due to the Marxist foundations of Critical Theory, the suggested remedies to social injustices are rooted in a belief that an expansion in government power will ultimately be the solution to the persistent disparities.
The overwhelming influence of this system has not been the focus of this paper, however, suffice to say Critical Theory and Social Justice has had increasing and immeasurable cultural impact in almost every institution.
Antonio Gramsci’s Long March through the Institutions may well be in its final stages.
[1] Crenshaw, K. Race, Reform, and Retrenchment, CRT. p. 108
[2] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 50
[3] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 51
[4] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 52
[5] Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, University of California Press. p. 677
[6] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 46
[7] Bonilla-Silva, E. (2013). Racism Without Racists, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. loc. 911
[8] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 46
[9] Delgado, R. Storytelling for Oppositionists: in: Critical Race Theory. pp. 71-72
[10] Tatum, B. D. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? pp. 7,10-11. “[David Wellman] defines racism as a ‘system of privilege based on race.’… Someone … is usually quick to point out that this is not the definition you will find in most dictionaries. I reply, ‘Who wrote the dictionary?’ I am not being facetious with this response. Whose interests are served by a ‘prejudice only’ definition of racism? … People of color can and do have racial prejudices. However, if one defines racism as a system of advantage based on race [then] people of color are not racist because they do not systematically benefit from racism.”
[11] Eddo-Lodge, R. Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People about Race. loc. 1084. “There is an unattributed definition of racism that defines it as prejudice plus power”
[12] DiAngelo, R. White Fragility. loc. 558
[13] (ibid) loc. 310
[14] (ibid) loc. 328
[15] (ibid) loc. 362
[16] Eddo-Lodge, R. Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People about Race. loc. 1084.
[17] DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility. loc. 579
[18] http://pass.school.nz/official-opening-for-the-pacific-advance-secondary-school/
[19] Lee, J. C. Race and Postmodernism, CRT. p. 446
[20] Fleras, A. (2016) Theorizing Micro-aggressions as Racism 3.0: Shifting the discourse. p. 1
[21] (ibid)
[22] Applebaum, B. (2018) Remediating Campus Climate.
[23] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/18/eight-ten-british-women-have-been-subjected-manspl
[24] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mansplaining
[25] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/mandspreading-madrid-spain-ban-public-transport-bus-metro-behaviour-etiquette-a7779041.html
[26] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/manspreading
[27] Fleras, A. (2016) Theorizing Micro-aggressions as Racism 3.0: Shifting the discourse. p. 7-8
[28] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press.. 28
[29] Lorde, A. (1979) The Master’s Tools.
[30] Bailey, A. (2017) Tracking Privilege-Preserving Epistemic Pushback. p. 880
[31] (ibid) p. 181
[32] (ibid) p. 181
[33] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 30
[34] Berenstain, N. (2016). Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo Vol 3. p. 579
[35] Raible, J. (2009). Antiracist Checklist for Whites.
[36] DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility
[37] Berenstain, N. (2016). Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo Vol 3. p. 570
[38] (ibid) p. 570-571
[39] Bell, D. (1980) Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilema, 93HARV. L.
[40] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/social_justice
[41] Young, W. H. (2015) Academic Social Science and Social Justice. p. 1
[42] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/28/university-gender-gap-at-record-high-as-30000-more-women-accepted
[43] https://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints/faqs/positive-actions-achieve-equality/
[44] Sensoy, O, DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal. NYC,Teachers College Press. p. 150
[45] (ibid)