Andrew Gottlieb on Critical Race Theory in the Context of Critical Theory
Recently, a great deal of debate has centered on Critical Race Theory, whose basis in Critical Theory is rarely cited. Consequently, much of the conversation is realized without a great deal of understanding, regarding the basic tenets of these worldviews. Others believe that the topic is of such complexity, that it is fully incomprehensible. I find that Critical Theory, and its product—Critical Race Theory, is not so complicated. In fact, I will not take sides, and I will do my best to clarify the tenets of CT, so that others can better decide on their own.
CRT is based on Critical Theory, and I’ll be concise. In one phrase… “Critical Theory holds that the Enlightenment, and (arguably) its greatest achievement—The U.S. Constitution, was a failure.” That’s it, although I think we have time to elaborate at least a little more than that.
Those who support Critical Theory believe that mustard gas, the Holocaust, environmental degradation, pervasive racism and homophobia, as well as other calamities of the late contemporary period in the West, outweigh and negate progress as experienced through the advent of modern medicine, labor law, electricity, clean water, the establishment of the middle class, the end of state-sanctioned slavery, as well any progress they might acknowledge, regarding multiculturalism and technology.
In other words, if we were to create a list of pros and cons, regarding the progression of Western Civilization from the late 18th century—the period of Enlightenment—until today, Critical Theorists would judge that society has plunged into a downward spiral during the intervening time. Many point to a (mis)quote of Gandhi, upon being asked what he thought of Western Civilization. As legend states, he responded, “Western Civilization? It would be a good idea.”
So imagine, then, the sum of world events in the Western world over the previous two centuries. On balance, CT holds that we have witnessed a stream of racism and abuse. And worse for Americans, the magnus opus of the Enlightenment—the U.S. Constitution—is a failure, as well.
By its very nature, ipso facto, Critical Theory is a revolutionary concept. It holds that the Enlightenment was a failure, that the U.S. Constitution, and other Western governing documents, need to be replaced through widespread institutional change. The system, from this perspective, is so deeply infused with the malevolence of racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other ills, that the institutions of Western society are incapable of addressing them.
Critical Theorists claim that Madison’s argument in Federalist Paper 51, “[I]f men were angels…,” is fallacious. The notion developed by the baron de Montesquieu, and articulated by Madison, favoring government tempered by checks and balances, along with other safeguards in the Constitution, has not resulted in fair government.
Critical Race Theory follows along these lines, claiming that, despite any attempts to achieve racial equality in the West, and by extension, in terms of race, gender, or LGBTQ rights, the Enlightenment, and the U.S. Constitution—composed in its image—have failed. Ensuing amendments, court rulings, as well as necessary and proper changes to the US Constitution, as well as other Western governing documents, have likewise failed.
Critical Theory, and its product, Critical Race Theory, argue that racism and discrimination are so deeply baked into the superstructure of government, that the entire system needs to be broken down and reconstructed. My friends and I in grad school, during the early ‘90’s, made a t-shirt based on RBJ Walker’s characterization of this narrative.
2 Walker said, in summary of the movement, “the 20th century will go down in history as the one in which the grand ideals of Enlightenment reason finally collapsed in traumatic ruin.” At the time, we thought the idea was humorous.
On the other hand, it would be equally extreme to claim that the Constitution, arguably the epitome of Western governing documents, should be enforced with sole originalist intent, without amendment or evolution. This notion, that the Constitution is quite nearly perfect, is believed by few, and countered by the document itself. The very amendments, as well as the “necessary and proper” clause, found in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, alongside congressional legislation, attest to the fact that the Founders intended that the document must be pliant.
This flexibility, as argued by apologists for the Constitution, explains why rights provided by it include the previously excluded demographic groups of women, people of color, non-Christians, the LGBTQ community, as well as other important measures. To ensure that Americans are able to enjoy their natural rights, the Constitution was written, and then amended. A Civil War was fought to expand these rights, as well as a Civil Rights movement. The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th Amendments also extended rights to demographic groups previously excluded. Numerous acts of Congress, including the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all achieved the same.
If we look to Supreme Court Rulings, we see an exhaustive list of decisions, in the least intended, to level the playing field. Exemplary of such cases include Brown v. Board of Ed., Reynolds v. Sims, Loving v. Virginia, Shelley v. Kraemer, Obergefell v. Hodges. Federal and state laws have been enacted with the same intent. Whereas most states, following ratification of the U.S. Constitution, limited voting to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males who owned property, the proverbial door was first kicked open a little wider during the Era of Jackson, when voting rights were expanded to white men who did not own property, white men who were not Christian. In fact, I own an 1824 copy of the newspaper, Annapolis Journal, with an article entitled, “Jew Vote Passes.” Following the Jackson Era, race, and later gender, gained federally protected status regarding suffrage.
Results of such field-leveling legislation, amendments, and court decisions, have led to advances believed impossible by my parents’ Baby Boomer generation, as they became politically active during the Civil Rights Era. My father was a civil rights attorney, who spent a great deal of time in Mississippi. My mother was a civil rights leader in the Washington, D.C. area at the time, was jailed, and met with ostracism by many coworkers. In fact, I’m very proud of the fact that Jews, only 3% of the population at the time, accounted for over 50% of civil rights workers who ventured into the South for these reasons. Many died for the cause.
So again, “whither the Enlightenment versus Critical Theory?” Without judgment in monochrome terms, it seems fair to acknowledge that the further we delve back into history, the stronger the defense for the argument that the Enlightenment failed to effect a great degree of equality or equity. However, if we consider, at least within the context of the U.S., all the policy-change mentioned above, the present does seem an awkward time in history to deem the “American experiment” a failure.
Proponents of the Constitution point out that, on the eve of the Civil Rights movement, there were two African American members of the House of Representatives in 1954, and 60 today. In 1957, there was one African American senator, and there are five today. In 1954, there were eleven women in the House of Representatives, and today there are 125. In 1954, there were two women in the Senate, and today there are 25.
Before 1960, there had been 3 African American judges in the federal court system. Since that time, there have been 292 African American federal judges, including 3 on the Supreme Court. During the intervening time, the U.S. has elected its first African American president, reelected him, and now has a vice-president who is an African American woman.
And in much wider terms, 11% of African Americans enjoyed middle-class lives in 1960, while over 30% of African Americans enjoy this status today.
Before taking further questions, I’ll quote Abbie Hoffman, a hero of the civil rights movement, and a friend of my parents’. Hoffman might seem an unlikely apologist for Western democracy, or even less, the U.S. Constitution. In defense of himself on trial, he invoked founding father, Thomas Paine, albeit loosely, “[w]hen our country is right, keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs. Years later, Hoffman spoke proudly of his participation in righting such wrongs…
We didn't end racism, but we ended legal segregation.
We ended the idea that you could send half-a-million soldiers around the world to fight a war that people do not support. We ended the idea that women are second-class citizens.
We made the environment an issue that couldn’t be avoided. The big battles that we won cannot be reversed.
We were young, self-righteous, reckless, hypocritical, brave, silly, headstrong, and scared half to death. And we were right.
It should seem clear that one of the most radical activists of the 1960s, in reflection decades later, felt great pride in having participated in great changes that were realized by the “system.” Are the current charges against Western democracy and the U.S. Constitution valid? Possibly, although the evidence from the previous 60 years, on balance, certainly renders the cause of CT a great challenge to its proponents.