So cool. Just this past week, I was circling around how the ontology and epistemology of Critical Theory is drastically different from both Judeo-Christian and Western-Enlightenment\liberal perspectives. I think most people are unaware of these foundational distinctions and their importance. If they did, I don't think any Christian or true Western Enlightenment liberal could ever support CT.
I don't know if I agree! Critical theory evolved out of a range of enlightenment traditions, both as a critique of but also a necessary product of the enlightenment. And given that liberalism/enlightenment are such broad broad sets of ideas, I think it's possible to see ways for a theoretical lens oriented around critique is totally possible within their orbit. The Enlightenment is a bit of an amorphous thing after all - hundreds of years of very dynamic thinking, very hard to pin a particular epistemic foundation on it. Ditto Christianity - you only need to look at how Liberation Theology evolved in places like Latin America to see how a critical epistemology can be wedded to Christian theological traditions (or for a contemporary thinker, Zizek marries Christianity's radical core with Marxian thinking quite nicely - Jesus is a radical figure after all!). Ultimately it boils down to how people interpret theory (and that is, for me, the excitement and fun and fascination and the point of different theoretical traditions!)
@@PatNormanI sincerely appreciate the reply, even if you disagree with my assessment. One of the main reasons I've spent the last 3 years diving down this rabbit hole of Marxism, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, and its neo-Marxist/postmodern branches like CRT is b/c I took a class on Liberation Theology class in Seminary. I recognized that it’s ontological->epistemological interpretations were remarkably distinct from a biblically-grounded worldview, even if LT was an attempt to baptize Marxism within its ideological framework. There are several reasons, but I'll lay out one (and will be happy to reply with more). Marx was doggedly anti-Christian. His ontological framework is strictly materialistic, shaping an anthropology that divides human beings into materialistic binaries of oppressor bourgeoise and oppressed proletariat. The biblical ontological framework, however, unites humanity in several ways that transcends the physical/material world: 1) We all have dignity and worth as image-bearers of God-> This should cause us to remember and recognize that value and worth in others; 2) As children of Adam, we all bear his sin condition and fall short of God's glory-> Our own shortcomings should humble us in light of the wrongdoing/failures of others. 3) While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Grace/forgiveness in Christ are essential. We should graciously forgive others just as God has graciously forgiven us. These 3 ideas about human beings are foreign, if not anathema, to Critical Theory proponents. Even more, these anthropological distinctions aren’t a tertiary disagreement that can exist within different theological traditions of Christianity. They are essential and foundational distinctions that drive an unmitigable wedge between the two respective belief systems. To put it in applicable context, LT risks fracturing any hope of true community when its ideological foundation divides human identity by its immutable traits. For Marx and the early LT pioneers, it was mostly wealth or economic class, but as these ideas have evolved or mutated, they include other partisan positions and interests (wealth, class, race, ethnicity, sex and gender, sexuality, body type and health, etc.) In doing so, these class distinctions serve as identity markers that unavoidably stoke the fires of division- comparison, pride, envy, jealousy, fear, anger, hatred are inevitable outcomes when you ontologically divide people into “us” vs. “them” categories. The Bible has a very simple and easy understand rebuttal- “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” You can also see the kind of catastrophic outcomes this kind of anthropological binary foments. Whether it’s the Bolshevik revolution, Mao Tse-Tung’s cultural revolution, or the Hutus and the Tutsis. They each incorporated their own Marxist binaries that deeply entrenched a bitterness and divide amongst their respective people groups, drawing suspicion on their very neighbors and distorting the “other’s” humanity into something monstrous and inhuman. Ultimately, it becomes much easier to dispense with people in genuinely inhumane ways when they're now considered less than human.
@@PatNorman (These replies might be out of order- This is meant to be the 2nd reply read). As for CT being remarkably anti-Western Enlightenment and illiberal, you really just need to read Horkheimer, or look at some of the pioneers of Critical Theory. Horkheimer claimed that traditional theory (most notably grounded in the ideas of Descartes, Kant, Locke, etc.) “fetishized knowledge”, seeing truth as empirical and universal. Critical theory, on the other hand, according to Horkheimer, believed that “man could not be objective and that there are no universal truths.” - In “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” Richard Delgado and Jean Stephancic write, “Critical Race Theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. - In “CRT, Archie Shipp, and Fire Music” John O. Calmore writes, “As a reflection of authenticity, critical race scholarship also rejects the traditional dictates that implore one to write and study as a detached observer whose work is purportedly objective, neutral, and balanced.” - In Charles R. Lawrence III’s account in “The Word and the River”: “We must learn to privilege our own perspectives and those of other outsiders, understanding that the dominant legal discourse is premised upon the claim that knowledge of objective truths and the existence of neutral principles. We must free ourselves from the mystification produced by this ideology. We must learn to trust our own senses, feelings, and experiences, and to give them authority, even (or especially) in the face of dominant accounts of social reality that claim universality.” - And in Margaret L. Anderson and Patricia Hill Collins’ “Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology”: “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a western and masculine way of thinking. One that we will challenge throughout this book.” Those are just a few examples that should hopefully shed light on this common thread that exists throughout this broader belief system. Christianity and traditional liberalism (grounded in Western Enlightenment values) have a completely different epistemology for understanding the world, that is completely divorced from the materialistic ontological framework of CT. That’s why CT grounds its beliefs in material things-> appearance, belongings, and a radical subjectivity above something grounded in the intrinsic, transcendent, or objective. Christianity embraces the intrinsic, transcendent, and objective, recognizing human identity in God. Paul writes, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12). That is, he's saying human anthropology is decidedly not materialistic. There are evil ideas and evil forces guiding the ideas of those against us, but our persecutors are still created in the image of God. Therefore, we are to "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28). Traditional Liberalism is a step away from that divinely ingrained identity. It's neutral b/c it embraces individual freedom (including freedom of conscience) to believe in God or not. But it does maintain ideas like universality and objectivity, from which rationalism, logic, and empiricism flow. Critical Theory rejects those fundamental ideas, which necessarily leads to drastically disparate belief systems, attitudes, goals, and practices.
@@Krillian777 Totally legitimate reading and argument (and for the record, I *have* read Horkheimer! I had a solid diet of the Frankfurt School as an undergraduate until doctoral study moderated and diversified my theoretical tastes!). LOVE your thinking here! I don't deny that plenty of fore-runners in contemporary CT have critiqued the Enlightenment, and you've mentioned a few here. But my point is more that, like the Enlightenment, critical theory is nebulous and within it there a range of approaches. Habermas is probably the best example of a Frankfurt School scholar (and Frankfurt is a lazy proxy for the whole CT tradition, but bear with me) who also leans in to the system-building rationalism of the Enlightenment. CT, like all of these research paradigms (I don't know if you've seen the other videos on this channel), is one lens with which to understand particular problems. In this case, it interrogates matters of inequity, justice, etc etc. Ditto CRT: not and never intended (except by people who burlesque it and who I wouldn't take all that seriously) as a 'total explanation' for existence - it's necessarily partial. But that's the reflexive critique CT brings to the Enlightenment/'Western'/Christian tradition: these are also only ever partial systems, despite their claims to transcendence or universality. So we're at a kind of theoretical ouroboros where you need to accept the terms of CT in order to understand its critique of Enlightenment, which might superficially seem to undermine the principles of Enlightenment (which might be broadly understood as rationality, humanism, freedom - many values which can be read as antithetical to Christianity, and which were inconsistently applied throughout the Enlightenment period). But like, Kant nicely hit the nail on the head when he reduced it all to freedom (basically, freedom to think, to understand, blah blah - I'm referring to the essay 'what is enlightenment'). Permit me to lean on the CT-adjacent scholar with whom I am most familiar, Foucault, who argued 'we must free ourselves from the intellectual blackmail of being for or against the enlightenment'. For me that's how I approach paradigmatic lenses - there are some that are *of course* incommensurate, but that's because they're looking to address different problems. As far as any paradigm goes, and definitely those with a constructivist/critical ontology, I think there's always the open possibility of aligning it with Enlightenment values (at least of rationalism and humanism), because its out of those values that CT evolved. To your broader theological point (and I am *definitely* not an expert on that front), I guess my hope would be that a critical lens oriented towards the material conditions of life in societies as they are would complement rather than compete with a religious system oriented towards transcendent ideals that are not of this world.
@@PatNorman So, I initially wrote a lot in response, and then I backed up and read what you had to say again. And then I read it again. And then one more time😊 So I’m not sure if you have time to get back to me or not, but I have a couple of questions. I’ll start with one about Jurgen Habermas? I’ll admit have not read anything from Jurgen Habermas, so I’d love to hear some of your insights on his take and how it’s different from how I’m perceiving CT ideas being applied in the world, especially the US and Europe, today? I have heard/read about him however, tangentially. One insight I took home was that Habermas is kind of a 3rd wave form of CT. You’ve got scholars like Horkheimer and Adorno who really make up the 1st wave form of neo-Marxist CT, which really IS adjacent to a lot of French postmodern thinking (discerning objective truth is impossible, our social superstructure oppressively shape our perceptions of what is true, and that society is composed of systems of power that need to be deconstructed). Here you really unearth oppressor/oppressed binary, systemic oppression as in our western, capitalist system is oppressive, and how culture masks, yet perpetuates this ongoing oppression. Then you’ve got the 2nd wave which really leans into the political action and revolutionary aspects that flow from Marx and into the arguments of Marcuse, Angela Davis, and so. They embrace all of the concerns of Horkheimer and Adorno, but reinforce and deepen the divide between the oppressed “us” and the oppressive “them”. In doing so, they justify revolutionary action, and Marcuse goes on to suggest (and I’m clearly paraphrasing) that violent action is justified and noble, depending on what side you’re on. And then there’s Habermas’ 3rd wave. Can you summarize Habermas’ central tenets and how he distinguishes himself from other scholars at the Frankfurt School? I’m ignorant here, but a recent off-handed talking point I heard was that Habermas’ ideas, while profound, have not really taken root within American culture like the other two phases, and therefore are less relevant to the ongoing circumstances of our society. I will say, however, given that Postmodernism is a response to Modernity’s failures, I read that Habermas is particularly critical of the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century that was thought by some to “progress” society. I also read in Tim Keller’s book “Making Sense of God”, that Habermas recently startled the philosophical establishment by acknowledging that secular reason alone can not account for what he calls “the substance of the human”. He goes on to say that the “The ideals of freedom….of conscience, human rights and democracy (are) the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love….to this day there is no alternative to it.” I would agree. I believe that Modernity collapsed b/c it was secular. It was ushered in by the Enlightenment’s skeptical distancing from God which many foresaw, even Nietzsche, as catastrophic. That is, without God or a transcendent order, there is no foundation or anchor for morality outside of its own subjective wants and desires. Such seismic shifts in thinking, would ultimately reduce truth and morality to power grabs. And I really wonder if that’s what Habermas may have started to acknowledge, judging by his quote.
It's a good thing no critical theorist would ever suggest critical theory could answer every question ever. It's a lens for thinking about particular problems, not a grand theory of everything.
Black Panther makes me sad. Two white Jewish artists wrote a fiction in which an African nation was more advanced than Europe due to Alien intervention instead of personal accomplishment. Still seems patronizing to me. And ditto on the comment about Blade being the first black superhero movie
Thank you Pat for making this video. You have explain critical theory to me in a way I can understand.
Thank you for this clear summary. Now I don't have to read walls of text from my teacher and write a summary from this video instead
Thank you for publishing this great video, Pat!
Thank you, Dr Norman. Your videos are very important for me.
*Haekal
(Aceh, Indonesia)
Good video! Good mix of formal and correlative explanation .
Thank you so much for simplifying this topic! Appreciate it.
The first marvel movie with a lead black male is actually Blade back in 1998 and not black panther.
Excellent. Short. Just what I needed today.
You made it simple to understand thank you
Awesome breakdown, much appreciated!
Really helpful with my studies - thank you!
Pls anyone help me.. Explain to me what is critical sociology is? Its my assignment. Its difinition
So cool. Just this past week, I was circling around how the ontology and epistemology of Critical Theory is drastically different from both Judeo-Christian and Western-Enlightenment\liberal perspectives. I think most people are unaware of these foundational distinctions and their importance. If they did, I don't think any Christian or true Western Enlightenment liberal could ever support CT.
I don't know if I agree! Critical theory evolved out of a range of enlightenment traditions, both as a critique of but also a necessary product of the enlightenment. And given that liberalism/enlightenment are such broad broad sets of ideas, I think it's possible to see ways for a theoretical lens oriented around critique is totally possible within their orbit. The Enlightenment is a bit of an amorphous thing after all - hundreds of years of very dynamic thinking, very hard to pin a particular epistemic foundation on it. Ditto Christianity - you only need to look at how Liberation Theology evolved in places like Latin America to see how a critical epistemology can be wedded to Christian theological traditions (or for a contemporary thinker, Zizek marries Christianity's radical core with Marxian thinking quite nicely - Jesus is a radical figure after all!). Ultimately it boils down to how people interpret theory (and that is, for me, the excitement and fun and fascination and the point of different theoretical traditions!)
@@PatNormanI sincerely appreciate the reply, even if you disagree with my assessment. One of the main reasons I've spent the last 3 years diving down this rabbit hole of Marxism, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, and its neo-Marxist/postmodern branches like CRT is b/c I took a class on Liberation Theology class in Seminary. I recognized that it’s ontological->epistemological interpretations were remarkably distinct from a biblically-grounded worldview, even if LT was an attempt to baptize Marxism within its ideological framework. There are several reasons, but I'll lay out one (and will be happy to reply with more).
Marx was doggedly anti-Christian. His ontological framework is strictly materialistic, shaping an anthropology that divides human beings into materialistic binaries of oppressor bourgeoise and oppressed proletariat. The biblical ontological framework, however, unites humanity in several ways that transcends the physical/material world:
1) We all have dignity and worth as image-bearers of God-> This should cause us to remember and recognize that value and worth in others;
2) As children of Adam, we all bear his sin condition and fall short of God's glory-> Our own shortcomings should humble us in light of the wrongdoing/failures of others.
3) While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Grace/forgiveness in Christ are essential. We should graciously forgive others just as God has graciously forgiven us.
These 3 ideas about human beings are foreign, if not anathema, to Critical Theory proponents. Even more, these anthropological distinctions aren’t a tertiary disagreement that can exist within different theological traditions of Christianity. They are essential and foundational distinctions that drive an unmitigable wedge between the two respective belief systems.
To put it in applicable context, LT risks fracturing any hope of true community when its ideological foundation divides human identity by its immutable traits. For Marx and the early LT pioneers, it was mostly wealth or economic class, but as these ideas have evolved or mutated, they include other partisan positions and interests (wealth, class, race, ethnicity, sex and gender, sexuality, body type and health, etc.)
In doing so, these class distinctions serve as identity markers that unavoidably stoke the fires of division- comparison, pride, envy, jealousy, fear, anger, hatred are inevitable outcomes when you ontologically divide people into “us” vs. “them” categories. The Bible has a very simple and easy understand rebuttal- “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
You can also see the kind of catastrophic outcomes this kind of anthropological binary foments. Whether it’s the Bolshevik revolution, Mao Tse-Tung’s cultural revolution, or the Hutus and the Tutsis. They each incorporated their own Marxist binaries that deeply entrenched a bitterness and divide amongst their respective people groups, drawing suspicion on their very neighbors and distorting the “other’s” humanity into something monstrous and inhuman. Ultimately, it becomes much easier to dispense with people in genuinely inhumane ways when they're now considered less than human.
@@PatNorman (These replies might be out of order- This is meant to be the 2nd reply read).
As for CT being remarkably anti-Western Enlightenment and illiberal, you really just need to read Horkheimer, or look at some of the pioneers of Critical Theory. Horkheimer claimed that traditional theory (most notably grounded in the ideas of Descartes, Kant, Locke, etc.) “fetishized knowledge”, seeing truth as empirical and universal. Critical theory, on the other hand, according to Horkheimer, believed that “man could not be objective and that there are no universal truths.”
- In “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” Richard Delgado and Jean Stephancic write, “Critical Race Theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
- In “CRT, Archie Shipp, and Fire Music” John O. Calmore writes, “As a reflection of authenticity, critical race scholarship also rejects the traditional dictates that implore one to write and study as a detached observer whose work is purportedly objective, neutral, and balanced.”
- In Charles R. Lawrence III’s account in “The Word and the River”: “We must learn to privilege our own perspectives and those of other outsiders, understanding that the dominant legal discourse is premised upon the claim that knowledge of objective truths and the existence of neutral principles. We must free ourselves from the mystification produced by this ideology. We must learn to trust our own senses, feelings, and experiences, and to give them authority, even (or especially) in the face of dominant accounts of social reality that claim universality.”
- And in Margaret L. Anderson and Patricia Hill Collins’ “Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology”: “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a western and masculine way of thinking. One that we will challenge throughout this book.”
Those are just a few examples that should hopefully shed light on this common thread that exists throughout this broader belief system. Christianity and traditional liberalism (grounded in Western Enlightenment values) have a completely different epistemology for understanding the world, that is completely divorced from the materialistic ontological framework of CT.
That’s why CT grounds its beliefs in material things-> appearance, belongings, and a radical subjectivity above something grounded in the intrinsic, transcendent, or objective. Christianity embraces the intrinsic, transcendent, and objective, recognizing human identity in God. Paul writes, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12). That is, he's saying human anthropology is decidedly not materialistic. There are evil ideas and evil forces guiding the ideas of those against us, but our persecutors are still created in the image of God. Therefore, we are to "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28).
Traditional Liberalism is a step away from that divinely ingrained identity. It's neutral b/c it embraces individual freedom (including freedom of conscience) to believe in God or not. But it does maintain ideas like universality and objectivity, from which rationalism, logic, and empiricism flow. Critical Theory rejects those fundamental ideas, which necessarily leads to drastically disparate belief systems, attitudes, goals, and practices.
@@Krillian777 Totally legitimate reading and argument (and for the record, I *have* read Horkheimer! I had a solid diet of the Frankfurt School as an undergraduate until doctoral study moderated and diversified my theoretical tastes!). LOVE your thinking here!
I don't deny that plenty of fore-runners in contemporary CT have critiqued the Enlightenment, and you've mentioned a few here. But my point is more that, like the Enlightenment, critical theory is nebulous and within it there a range of approaches. Habermas is probably the best example of a Frankfurt School scholar (and Frankfurt is a lazy proxy for the whole CT tradition, but bear with me) who also leans in to the system-building rationalism of the Enlightenment. CT, like all of these research paradigms (I don't know if you've seen the other videos on this channel), is one lens with which to understand particular problems. In this case, it interrogates matters of inequity, justice, etc etc. Ditto CRT: not and never intended (except by people who burlesque it and who I wouldn't take all that seriously) as a 'total explanation' for existence - it's necessarily partial. But that's the reflexive critique CT brings to the Enlightenment/'Western'/Christian tradition: these are also only ever partial systems, despite their claims to transcendence or universality.
So we're at a kind of theoretical ouroboros where you need to accept the terms of CT in order to understand its critique of Enlightenment, which might superficially seem to undermine the principles of Enlightenment (which might be broadly understood as rationality, humanism, freedom - many values which can be read as antithetical to Christianity, and which were inconsistently applied throughout the Enlightenment period). But like, Kant nicely hit the nail on the head when he reduced it all to freedom (basically, freedom to think, to understand, blah blah - I'm referring to the essay 'what is enlightenment'). Permit me to lean on the CT-adjacent scholar with whom I am most familiar, Foucault, who argued 'we must free ourselves from the intellectual blackmail of being for or against the enlightenment'. For me that's how I approach paradigmatic lenses - there are some that are *of course* incommensurate, but that's because they're looking to address different problems.
As far as any paradigm goes, and definitely those with a constructivist/critical ontology, I think there's always the open possibility of aligning it with Enlightenment values (at least of rationalism and humanism), because its out of those values that CT evolved. To your broader theological point (and I am *definitely* not an expert on that front), I guess my hope would be that a critical lens oriented towards the material conditions of life in societies as they are would complement rather than compete with a religious system oriented towards transcendent ideals that are not of this world.
@@PatNorman So, I initially wrote a lot in response, and then I backed up and read what you had to say again. And then I read it again. And then one more time😊 So I’m not sure if you have time to get back to me or not, but I have a couple of questions. I’ll start with one about Jurgen Habermas?
I’ll admit have not read anything from Jurgen Habermas, so I’d love to hear some of your insights on his take and how it’s different from how I’m perceiving CT ideas being applied in the world, especially the US and Europe, today?
I have heard/read about him however, tangentially. One insight I took home was that Habermas is kind of a 3rd wave form of CT. You’ve got scholars like Horkheimer and Adorno who really make up the 1st wave form of neo-Marxist CT, which really IS adjacent to a lot of French postmodern thinking (discerning objective truth is impossible, our social superstructure oppressively shape our perceptions of what is true, and that society is composed of systems of power that need to be deconstructed). Here you really unearth oppressor/oppressed binary, systemic oppression as in our western, capitalist system is oppressive, and how culture masks, yet perpetuates this ongoing oppression.
Then you’ve got the 2nd wave which really leans into the political action and revolutionary aspects that flow from Marx and into the arguments of Marcuse, Angela Davis, and so. They embrace all of the concerns of Horkheimer and Adorno, but reinforce and deepen the divide between the oppressed “us” and the oppressive “them”. In doing so, they justify revolutionary action, and Marcuse goes on to suggest (and I’m clearly paraphrasing) that violent action is justified and noble, depending on what side you’re on.
And then there’s Habermas’ 3rd wave. Can you summarize Habermas’ central tenets and how he distinguishes himself from other scholars at the Frankfurt School? I’m ignorant here, but a recent off-handed talking point I heard was that Habermas’ ideas, while profound, have not really taken root within American culture like the other two phases, and therefore are less relevant to the ongoing circumstances of our society.
I will say, however, given that Postmodernism is a response to Modernity’s failures, I read that Habermas is particularly critical of the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century that was thought by some to “progress” society. I also read in Tim Keller’s book “Making Sense of God”, that Habermas recently startled the philosophical establishment by acknowledging that secular reason alone can not account for what he calls “the substance of the human”. He goes on to say that the “The ideals of freedom….of conscience, human rights and democracy (are) the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love….to this day there is no alternative to it.”
I would agree. I believe that Modernity collapsed b/c it was secular. It was ushered in by the Enlightenment’s skeptical distancing from God which many foresaw, even Nietzsche, as catastrophic. That is, without God or a transcendent order, there is no foundation or anchor for morality outside of its own subjective wants and desires. Such seismic shifts in thinking, would ultimately reduce truth and morality to power grabs. And I really wonder if that’s what Habermas may have started to acknowledge, judging by his quote.
Great presentation!
Imagine the world only knew critical theory and had no idea what was really real. I doubt we would live very long.
It's a good thing no critical theorist would ever suggest critical theory could answer every question ever. It's a lens for thinking about particular problems, not a grand theory of everything.
Thanks for this!
My pleasure!
very helpful. Tx bud
Black Panther makes me sad. Two white Jewish artists wrote a fiction in which an African nation was more advanced than Europe due to Alien intervention instead of personal accomplishment. Still seems patronizing to me. And ditto on the comment about Blade being the first black superhero movie