Critical Theory is taking our culture by storm and underlies much of the upheaval we see on the nightly news. As Christians, we must understand what it is, and how best to respond.
Several friends have asked me for my perspective on Critical Theory. This blog begins my two-part answer to that question. I’ll offer a brief summary of and response to Critical Theory. Others with more expertise than I have also addressed these issues, so throughout the series I’ll also suggest a number of other sources, both online and in print, that I think you will find helpful as you seek to gain a greater understanding of this influential ideology.
The History of Critical Theory
Critical Theory has its roots in Marxism. Marx argued that the ultimate problem facing society was that those with money (the bourgeoisie—the elite) oppress those without money (the proletariat—the working class). Therefore, his ultimate solution was to flatten out the economic disparity between the “haves” and “have nots.” In practical terms, the solution was for the working class to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Only then would there be equality and could the good life be achieved.
However, in the early decades of the twentieth century Marxism wasn’t doing very well. Economic prosperity was on the rise in many countries. As a result, there was less and less economic disparity between the classes, as an affluent middle class emerged. And so there was less tension between the rich and the poor. Without the problem of economic disparity described by Marx, his call of “workers of the world, unite” to overthrow the bourgeoisie was less and less appealing to many.
Yet there was a group of intellectuals who were not ready to give up on Marx. They began meeting in Frankfurt, Germany, to discuss how Marx’s ideas might be reframed for this new reality. They became known as the Frankfurt School, and their solution was Critical Theory.
Intellectuals in the Frankfurt School reasoned that Marx’s fundamental assumption was correct—all problems are ultimately caused by disparity between the haves and have nots. However, they came to believe that the disparity was not along economic lines. Rather, the disparity was in terms of power. One group has power and uses that power to rule over the other groups in a society.
Since disparity of power among groups is the ultimate problem in our world, they reasoned that redistribution of power to other groups is the ultimate solution. And it was clear who has the power: whites, males, heterosexuals, Westerners, and so on. Therefore, equality can only be achieved and the good life promoted by taking power away from these groups and giving it to members of marginalized groups. Hence began the great social engineering project now known as Critical Theory, and with it the rise of “identity politics” between those who do and do not have “power” in society.
An Analysis of Critical Theory
From this ideology comes much of the social upheaval we are experiencing today. Critical Theory has become a full-orbed worldview, or even religion, that redefines everything in its wake. The ultimate problem, according to the gospel of Critical Theory, is not personal sin against a Holy God (an internal, universally shared problem). Rather, the ultimate problem is external and societal: the oppression of the powerless by the powerful. The white, male, heterosexual, or Western identity groups in a culture are seen as enforcing and maintaining power at the expense of the non-white, female, LGBTQ, and/or non-Western identity groups.
Therefore, the solution is not internal but external as well. Salvation comes not through individual repentance but through a change in society–the overthrow of the oppressors. One can obtain this salvation only by embracing the moral code of Critical Theory: demonizing the “oppressors,” becoming “woke,” affirming “intersectionality,” embracing and promoting the “cancel culture,” redefining what authors and books should and should not be in curricula from primary to tertiary education, and so on.
Ultimately salvation is obtained by working for “Social Justice” (intentionally capitalized). This is not the same thing as biblical justice, which we should all work toward, and which includes social justice (not capitalized). Biblical justice involves ensuring that everyone is treated equally, fairly and justly, has the same opportunities to flourish, enjoys equal protection from harm, and has equal access to and just redress of grievances when this is not the case: It is consistent with Micah 6:8:
He has told each of you what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: to act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God.
But under Critical Theory, “Social Justice” takes on a new meaning. It is no longer equality of opportunity, protection, and just redress of grievances, which biblical justice requires we give attention to (and which our history and current reality confirm that we must pursue with much greater vigor). Rather, Social Justice has become defined as greater “justice” for those of oppressed identity groups, often at the expense of justice for those of more “powerful” identity groups.
For instance, biblical justice clearly affirms that black lives matter, and we should work to see that every person of color is affirmed and defended as equally valuable, afforded equal opportunity and equally protected from harm, as people who are of ultimate worth since each equally shares in the Image of God. Yet the Black Lives Matter movement (capitalized) is driven by Critical Theory and Social Justice, with the ultimate goal of not just equality, but social superiority of those marginalized (not just black, but LGBTQ and others; see the BLM’s “About” page, https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/)
For a wonderful exposition of biblical justice and how it compares to Social Justice, I highly recommend Tony Evans’s Oneness Embraced: Reconciliation, the Kingdom, and How We Are Stronger Together. Dr. Evans is an African-American pastor and theologian who has experienced injustice firsthand for much of his life. Out of his experience, he has written a wonderful book pointing the way to true justice and reconciliation.
For a very interesting discussion of how Critical Theory now functions as a religion for many in our culture, I highly suggest this interview with Jacob Howland: The Rise of Secular Religion and the New Puritanism.
Conclusion
Next week I’ll conclude this discussion by offering a response to Critical Theory and helpful resources for further study.
Until then, grace and peace.
Thanks, Stan. Perhaps in your subsequent post you can clarify a couple things.
1) By drawing a line from Marxism to the Frankfurt School to critical theory, how do you avoid the genetic fallacy? That is, regardless of its origins, might not critical theory have something useful to say about power structures in our society?
2) Would you define sin only as “personal sin against a Holy God”? Or is sin also social and structural (see Hendrikus Berkhof and John Howard Yoder)? Thus, perhaps critical theory is a reminder, albeit secular, that sin is bigger than individuals, and that not only does prejudice (animosity against a particular group) exist, but that so does racism (systems of oppression).
3) Can you clarify where on the “About” page the BLM group calls for the “social superiority of those marginalized”? I see a call for the end of white supremacy. Is that what you find objectionable?
4) Given how this whole discussion about critical theory has heated up since this summer’s protests, how much do you think critical theory drives those protests? And how many of the protestors are just tired of seeing unarmed African-American people get shot by police?
Great questions, Joe. I appreciate your engaging these issues with me, and sharpening my thinking, as well as correcting it as need be. I’ll offer a few thoughts in reply…
You write, “1) By drawing a line from Marxism to the Frankfurt School to critical theory, how do you avoid the genetic fallacy? That is, regardless of its origins, might not critical theory have something useful to say about power structures in our society?”
I think the fallacy is avoided because the foundational ideas of Critical Theory (inequality of power is the central problem we face, and therefore dictates the solution) is directly derived from Marxism, via the thinking of the Frankfurt School. So I am pointing out this ideological lineage. And if Marx is wrong, ideas such as Critical theory, with this lineage, is also wrong, as far as it is grounded in those ideas.
However, I believe you are correct that CT may have something useful to say about power structures in our society, even with such a lineage, and thus (in my view) inadequate groundings for this supposition. Sin affects all aspects of individuals and cultures, and so certainly there is truth to the idea that power structures can and are used to oppress others. Yet this is not an insight of CT. It is fundamentally a biblical concept (vis-a-vis total depravity, related to your second point below). And so by mis-identifying the ultimate grounding of this problem in oppression by those with power, and not the deeper, biblical grounding of our fallenness, and how that affects all else, including how we structure societies, we can only identify superficial, ultimately unsatisfying, and often harmful solutions, such as those of CT.
You write, “2) Would you define sin only as “personal sin against a Holy God”? Or is sin also social and structural (see Hendrikus Berkhof and John Howard Yoder)? Thus, perhaps critical theory is a reminder, albeit secular, that sin is bigger than individuals, and that not only does prejudice (animosity against a particular group) exist, but that so does racism (systems of oppression).”
Good point. I should have been more nuanced here. I agree with you that sin, though ultimately personal, and against God, has repercussions throughout all we do not only individually but in our social contexts as well. And so yes, CT is a secular reminder that society is not what it should be. However, CT would go further than you did. In an attempt to deny the individual and universal, CT would not grant that individual sin, shared by all and thus writ large in society, has these consequences (I’ll say a bit more about this in my post next week). So I think we have to be very careful in drawing parallels between what biblical truth and justice are describing, and the analysis and dictates of CT.
You write, “3) Can you clarify where on the “About” page the BLM group calls for the “social superiority of those marginalized”? I see a call for the end of white supremacy. Is that what you find objectionable?”
Good catch. I should have been more explicit in how I see these themes on that page. I was taking exception to this paragraph:
“We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.”
This is language that denotes a desire to “liberate” (a cognate of which is used in the first paragraph) these groups from oppressors (a cognate of which is used in the next to last paragraph). This language of oppression and liberation has direct ties to Neo-Marxist theory, as now explicated in CT. In doing so, it coincides with CT’s understanding of “Social Justice” (capitalized). This exegesis seems further justified by comments made by Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of BLM, self-identifying as a Marxist seeing to promote this ideology. For instance, concerning the BLM movement she is on record saying:
“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers…. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk….”
(Quoted, for instance, in this June 25, 2020 NY Post article: https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/ )
You write, “4) Given how this whole discussion about critical theory has heated up since this summer’s protests, how much do you think critical theory drives those protests? And how many of the protestors are just tired of seeing unarmed African-American people get shot by police?”
Per Patrisse’s comments above, I think Critical Theory drives the protests an an organizational level. However, I don’t think some(?) many(?) most(?) of the participants understand this underlying ideology, and as you say, rather they join in because they are tired of experiencing injustice (in the biblical sense of the word).
Thanks again, Joe. I appreciate your wisdom and nuance.
Thanks! Useful clarifications, and I fully agree with the importance of examining the presuppositions of ideologies; I appreciate your distinction between biblical justice and those that ground CT. Given how CT has become a bit of a lightning rod in recent months (e.g. the SBC decision), I just hope that a critique of the ideology doesn’t become a way that white evangelicals can avoid having tough and soul-searching conversations about racial issues, including those highlighted this summer. I don’t think you are doing this; this is not an accusation. But the question for many churches and groups is how to graciously question CT while living out the true beauty of biblical shalom in sacrificial ways.
Again, thanks for your efforts to think Christianly about an important issue.
Joe, absolutely agree! Thank you as well, brother.
Thanks for addressing this very important topic!
Thanks, Barbara.
[…] Stan W. Wallace, “How Should Christians Understand Critical Theory?” […]
[…] Stan W. Wallace, “How Should Christians Understand Critical Theory?” […]