Critical Theory vs Discrimination

Garden Variety

Casual observation of human nature reveals individuals in any crowd with prejudices. In some cases, these attitudes are benign (which car brand is best) and in others not so much. There will always be someone who disagrees with your heartfelt beliefs. In our current evolutionary state as sapiens, prejudice and discrimination occur in the random chaos of life.

Cultural and Structural

Another branch of discrimination is more oppressive. It is addressed by the Critical Race Theory movement. A “Critical” theory intends to explain and transform all circumstances that discriminate. This discrimination may be embedded in the social contract and is manifested by inferior schools, different treatment from the justice system, and uneven levels of opportunity. This theory and movement argue that social problems are created and aggravated by societal structures and cultural assumptions, more than by individuals.

The origins of Critical Theory trace back to 1930’s Germany and the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.”

Critical Race Theory

Current CRT scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw share an interest in seeing discrimination as a component of American life, manifested in sources like literature, film, and law. They confront the beliefs and practices that enable discrimination to persist and challenge them in order to seek liberation.

CRT provides a wide-angle lens to look at the cultural environment for laws, attitudes and habits which skew social justice. This is a process as well as a movement and can work to liberate any marginalized group that is held back because of race, gender, ethnicity, skin color, or sexual identity.

CRT has its critics and has been accused of inserting utopian ideals into social theory . But, to pursue equality as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment it seems logical that improving the “system” is much more effective than focusing on individuals.