Demystifying Critical Race Theory
Activists on both sides have an incentive to keep Critical Race Theory undefined and ambiguous.
Editor’s Note: This piece was first published in Areo Magazine in April 2023.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) originated in higher education, but its political relevance has become more than academic, especially in the United States. Although CRT sprung from legal scholarship, proponents have pushed for its wholescale integration into education, medical training, psychology, and the social sciences as a whole.
CRT has also been the subject of intense political controversy. Many US states have introduced bills to restrict its teaching, sometimes on the grounds that it is not “factual and objective” or that it can “distort historical events.” As a result, both proponents and opponents have a vested interest in defining CRT in whatever way supports their agendas.
Indeed, several media outlets and organisations have published simplified explainers framing CRT either positively or negatively. These conflicting accounts make it hard to tell what critical race theory is—let alone formulate coherent opinions about CRT-related policy.
Definitions and Obfuscations
Even in the original academic literature, it is hard to find a consistent definition of critical race theory. Writing in 1995, Derrick Bell, one of CRT’s founding members, describes it as “a body of legal scholarship,” but CRT has clearly extended well beyond its legal origins since then and has been variously described by its practitioners as an “academic concept,” a “framework” both “theoretical” and “pragmatic,” “a pedagogical approach,” and a social “movement.”
Early critical race theorists were reluctant to pin the fledgling field down to a specific definition.
As Veronica Gentilli explains:
Critical race theorists seem grouped together not by virtue of their theoretical cohesiveness but rather because they are motivated by similar concerns and face similar … challenges. … The main question for critical race scholars is how to attack a legal system that disempowers people of color; their shared goal is one of political reform.
Thus, it should not be surprising that summaries and definitions of CRT have varied over the years. For example, theorists have compiled lists of critical race theory’s three tenets, four themes, five precepts, six unifying themes, seven tenets, eight themes and even specific principles customised for particular fields (e.g., social work). While there are certain common elements, there is often fierce disagreement as to how and when to apply them. Stephanie Phillips, who describes CRT as “nebulous,” recounts a debate over a list of tenets that were proposed at a critical race theory workshop:
Critical Race Theory:
1. holds that racism is endemic to, rather than a deviation from, American norms;
2. bears skepticism towards the dominant claims of meritocracy, neutrality, objectivity, and color-blindness;
3. challenges ahistoricism, and insists on a contextual and historical analysis of the law;
4. challenges the presumptive legitimacy of social institutions;
5. insists on recognition of both the experiential knowledge and critical consciousness of people of color in understanding law and society;
6. is interdisciplinary and eclectic (drawing upon, inter alia, liberalism, post-structuralism, feminism, Marxism, critical legal theory, post-modernism, and pragmatism), with the claim that the intersection of race and the law overruns disciplinary boundaries; and
7. works toward the liberation of people of color as it embraces the larger project of liberating all oppressed people.
According to Phillips, the discussion surrounding the first six points “went fairly smoothly,” but “all hell broke loose” regarding the final clause. There was a lengthy argument as to “whether gay men and lesbians are ‘oppressed people’ and if so, whether their liberation had anything to do with the fight against racial oppression.” The group ultimately resolved to include gay and lesbian rights as “an integral part of the antiracist struggle,” though only after eight years of heated argument.
To complicate matters further, activists on both sides have an incentive to keep critical race theory undefined and ambiguous. Proponents may redefine it as needed; critics may cite extreme claims as representative. Defenders can dismiss these same criticisms as unrelated to what CRT actually is and accuse such critics of fostering a moral panic. But for those interested in understanding CRT, the ambiguity and fluidity of these definitions can be frustrating.
➜ Read the full article at Quillette.com
Note: Quillette maintains its independence through reader subscriptions. You'll need a subscription to access the complete article.
 | A guest post by
|