What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[HondurasKeiser]

CRT's are Critical Theorists. Critical Race Theory is Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm simply looking at the history of Critical Theory to understand it better in its full context.

I think you are missing what critical theory is. Wikipedia's definition is reasonably good on this:

A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

So a critical theory says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society. I can't see anything wrong with that. It's a very pragmatic approach. It has nothing to do with Marxist revolutions.

You seem to be ignoring the genesis of Critical Theory(ies) and you're doing so either naively or willfully; either way you're flat-wrong. Let me draw an historical line for you, it's very basic and there are a lot of branches and additional streams but beginning with at least Kant, one idea leads inexorably to the next, with one philosopher or theorist building off the work of the previous:

1. Kant
2. Hegel
3. Marx
4. Neo Marxism(s)
4. Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Habermas, Fromm, Marcuse)
5. Critical Theory - developed by the Frankfurt School
6. Critical Legal Studies
7. Critical Race Theory

I am not sure that Bell can be properly called a Marxist, though his ideas are certainly grounded on a Marxist understanding of groups, conflict, power and the movement of history. However, your assertion that the people that developed Critical Theory i.e. the theorists of the Frankfurt School, were not Marxists or had 'nothing to do with Marxist revolutions' is simply wrong on its face. To a person, the Frankfurt Schoolers had been young Marxists, disaffected by the violence of the Soviets and unsatisfied with the trajectory of history that had failed to bring the class revolution that Marx had predicted. Their version of Neo Marxism was an attempt to revolutionize society via avenues other than or in addition to economic class.

What's more, your anodyne assertion that Critical Theory is a just a helpful sociological lens through which to view society and that it may indeed be a net-positive because it "says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society." strikes me again as either an unfamiliarity with the theory and more importantly its proponents, or a willful assertion to the contrary of what the Critical Theorists actually state as their purpose is: "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." - Horkheimer

Here's the abstract of a syllabus on Critical Theory taken from Wesleyan University:

According to the Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer's 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory," Critical Theory aims at dislodging traditional theory's reliance on the assumption that to theorize means to categorize and explain facts from a trans-historically fixed position. Instead, Critical Theory wants to uncover the formative socio-economic processes of exploitation, struggle, and domination that underpin both the objective appearance of reality and our subjective ability to become conscious of them. In doing so, it not only wants to critique the very foundations of society and subjectivity but also wants to ignite a utopian imagination. Although Critical Theory draws on the concepts of the Western philosophical tradition (in particular on Kant and Hegel), it views them as being tainted by the "irrational totality" of bourgeois society that structurally blocks the realization of genuine freedom, equality, and liberation from fear. Hence, Critical Theory is concerned not only with the critique of specific social ills but also with the abolition of their systemic causal conditions. For this reason, it is by design a practical and activist mode of theory, as exemplified by an insight Herbert Marcuse attributes to Angela Davis: "the philosophical idea, unless it was a lie, must be translated into reality."

In this seminar, we will do three things: 1) Retrace the genesis of Critical Theory from Marx's appropriation of Hegel's dialectical method to Lukács's theory of reification; 2) Explore the Frankfurt School's ambition to establish Critical Theory as an encompassing, multi-disciplinary research program addressing the pathologies of capitalism from the interlocking perspectives of social and economic theory, psychoanalysis, empirical social research, aesthetics, and ethics; 3) Examine how contemporary heirs to the tradition of Critical Theory such as Angela Davis, Sianne Ngai, or Rei Terada have challenged and advanced the concerns of the earlier theory in light of our current neoliberal and authoritarian predicament.

[Ken]

What's more, your anodyne assertion that Critical Theory is a just a helpful sociological lens through which to view society and that it may indeed be a net-positive because it "says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society." strikes me again as either an unfamiliarity with the theory and more importantly its proponents, or a willful assertion to the contrary of what the Critical Theorists actually state as their purpose is: "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." - Horkheimer

So instead of the hand-wringing about dusty old philosophers that no one actually reads, how about providing specific examples of how Critical Race Theory has been incorrectly applied in religion, education, criminal justice, or some other specific area of policy. I provided a specific example above relating to school discipline. If it is doing damage to the church, surely you have examples?

[Bootstrap]

I think you are missing what critical theory is. Wikipedia's definition is reasonably good on this:

A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

So a critical theory says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society. I can't see anything wrong with that. It's a very pragmatic approach. It has nothing to do with Marxist revolutions.

You seem to be ignoring the genesis of Critical Theory(ies) and you're doing so either naively or willfully; either way you're flat-wrong. Let me draw an historical line for you ...

I'm saying that we have to actually discuss what someone like Derrick Bell says and teaches if we want to understand what the founder of Critical Race Theory is saying. Did you watch the video? Did you have comments on what he said?

I'm not ignoring the genesis of critical theory, but I am definitely saying that the right way to understand someone like Derrick Bell is to look at what he is actually saying. At each step in this history, people reject some things and add new things and mix them with other things, and there are different schools. After all, where I live, white Christians lynched black Christians in the 1920s and even had picnics to witness these lynchings. I'm a white Christian, but it doesn't mean I approve of lynchings. Even if there is a direct historical line between me and them.

Bell's understanding of power structures in society is definitely influenced by Marx's analysis. But Bell is not calling for revolution, he is calling for change based on understanding how the systems in our society work. There's a lot I don't know about what he teaches, but it's pretty obvious that he's not teaching what some people claim.

And it's pretty obvious that we haven't spent much time on this thread actually discussing what he says.

[HondurasKeiser]

What's more, your anodyne assertion that Critical Theory is a just a helpful sociological lens through which to view society and that it may indeed be a net-positive because it "says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society." strikes me again as either an unfamiliarity with the theory and more importantly its proponents, or a willful assertion to the contrary of what the Critical Theorists actually state as their purpose is: "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." - Horkheimer

So instead of the hand-wringing about dusty old philosophers that no one actually reads, how about providing specific examples of how Critical Race Theory has been incorrectly applied in religion, education, criminal justice, or some other specific area of policy. I provided a specific example above relating to school discipline. If it is doing damage to the church, surely you have examples?

You have a tendency Ken, to simply wave away ideas, that you dislike or are inconvenient to your position as irrelevant or "hand-wringing", or over-wrought. It makes for a poor dialogue. Boot asserted, falsely, that Critical Theory has nothing to do with Marxism and is just a lens through which to view society. The point of my previous post was to draw a line between Marx and Critical Theory and to show that the theorists themselves conceived of their ideas as an attempt to revolutionize Western society. For what it's worth, people actually do read those dusty old philosophers and their ideas have quite a bit of purchase in academia; see the Wesleyan Univ. syllabus I posted by way of example.

I've said nothing about Critical Race Theory's damage to the Church so I'm not sure why you saddled me with that task but I'll do my best to proffer a few examples when I get the chance.

[ohio jones]

I'm saying that we have to actually discuss what someone like Derrick Bell says and teaches if we want to understand what the founder of Critical Race Theory is saying.
...
At each step in this history, people reject some things and add new things and mix them with other things, and there are different schools.

Don't these statements conflict with each other? Are we discussing the original concept or the current application (or both), and do we need a "New" New Thread for one of those?

[Ken]

What's more, your anodyne assertion that Critical Theory is a just a helpful sociological lens through which to view society and that it may indeed be a net-positive because it "says we should stop with all the ideological one-liners, step back, and look at the social structures and cultural assumptions that are causing problems in our society." strikes me again as either an unfamiliarity with the theory and more importantly its proponents, or a willful assertion to the contrary of what the Critical Theorists actually state as their purpose is: "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." - Horkheimer

So instead of the hand-wringing about dusty old philosophers that no one actually reads, how about providing specific examples of how Critical Race Theory has been incorrectly applied in religion, education, criminal justice, or some other specific area of policy. I provided a specific example above relating to school discipline. If it is doing damage to the church, surely you have examples?

You have a tendency Ken, to simply wave away ideas, that you dislike or are inconvenient to your position as irrelevant or "hand-wringing", or over-wrought. It makes for a poor dialogue. Boot asserted, falsely, that Critical Theory has nothing to do with Marxism and is just a lens through which to view society. The point of my previous post was to draw a line between Marx and Critical Theory and to show that the theorists themselves conceived of their ideas as an attempt to revolutionize Western society. For what it's worth, people actually do read those dusty old philosophers and their ideas have quite a bit of purchase in academia; see the Wesleyan Univ. syllabus I posted by way of example.

I've said nothing about Critical Race Theory's damage to the Church so I'm not sure why you saddled me with that task but I'll do my best to proffer a few examples when I get the chance.

No, what I am saying is that how Critical Race Theory is actually used to examine specific issues in education or other areas of policy today has nothing to do with Marxism. It is just another lens or analytical tool used exploring specific problems. And whether you can make linkages between 80 year old theoretical writings about Critical Theory and Marxism is irrelevant.

What you and Falco are doing is EXACTLY the same thing as those who find genocide and slavery at the roots of our system of private property here in the US and therefore consider all private property to be tainted by genocide since nearly every piece of private property in this country (outside Indian reservations) was stolen from the native inhabitants at gunpoint and through genocidal wars of extermination. If you can daisy-chain a 21st century educational analysist or theologian back through 10 generations of theoretical writings to find Karl Marx then I can look at your property deed or composition of your community and trace it back 10 generations to find the taint of genocide (or slavery if you live in the south). One can do the same thing with Christianity and trace it back to all manner of egregious injustices in our past. Mennonites too for that matter.

History is important, yes. It informs us of how we got here. But far more important is understanding where we are today and figuring out how to move forward in a just and equitable manner. Whether we are talking about church administration, theology, education, criminal justice or whatever.

[Josh]

Some of us simply reject critical theory, which includes subcategories of it, whether the Hegelian dialectical line is class, race, religion, gender, or whatever else.

Ultimately I don’t think carving people up by race, ethnicity, wealth, etc. is a healthy exercise. People should be treated as individuals, and their culture and family looked at, but that is all.

[Ken]

Some of us simply reject critical theory, which includes subcategories of it, whether the Hegelian dialectical line is class, race, religion, gender, or whatever else.

Ultimately I don’t think carving people up by race, ethnicity, wealth, etc. is a healthy exercise. People should be treated as individuals, and their culture and family looked at, but that is all.

Yes, in a just and equitable word everyone would be treated equally as individuals.

Unfortunately we don't live in that fantasy world. And pretending that we actually do is just a way of institutionalizing existing inequities and gaslighting those who aren't being treated equally or justly.

[Josh]

Some of us simply reject critical theory, which includes subcategories of it, whether the Hegelian dialectical line is class, race, religion, gender, or whatever else.

Ultimately I don’t think carving people up by race, ethnicity, wealth, etc. is a healthy exercise. People should be treated as individuals, and their culture and family looked at, but that is all.

Yes, in a just and equitable word everyone would be treated equally as individuals.

Unfortunately we don't live in that fantasy world. And pretending that we actually do is just a way of institutionalizing existing inequities and gaslighting those who aren't being treated equally or justly.

No, the answer is to treat people as individuals.

Your above example placed blame for juvenile delinquency on outside factors. But if an individual decides to (for example) commit sexual assault… exactly whose decision was that? I don’t think “inequality” is ever to blame. It is the individual’s decision.

[barnhart]

Have been watching this thread with the same question Ken raises, where is CRT directly entering or altering the church.