Critical Race Theory, Part 2

There is a “Catch 22” when it comes to Critical Race Theory. Explaining what it is not is complicated by how hard it is to describe what it is. The “mysterious” nature of CRT, the difficulty of understanding it, especially when removed from the context in which it was created, is the very thing makes it possible for critical race theory to be weaponized.

Even though Critical Race Theory originated in the higher reaches of academia, academics can only do so much to quell the public fear surrounding it, mainly because it was never intended for mainstream public use.

Critical Race Theory is in a class of social science theory called explanatory theory. These are theories that come from a methodical examination of some social phenomena that try to explain how it came to be the way it is. Social science theories have traditionally been developed by scholars who were trained in the strict regimens of scientific inquiry with the researcher in the role of detached, neutral observer. This was seen as a way to eliminate bias in social science research and therefore, a way to produce theories that can be “universal truths” about a society and the way people live and relate to each other.

In the relatively new academic tradition of critical theorizing, which helped to produce Critical Race Theory, these established “truths” are examined for how the frameworks used to develop these theories, in spite of the claim of non-biased neutrality, fail to incorporate multiple divergent perspectives, and thereby privilege the dominant perspective in which the researcher is situated. Critical theorists also challenge the notion that theories of social science can be, or should be, neutral, or “values-free.”

The purpose of explanatory theories like Critical Race Theory is not to propose solutions or provide prescriptions for social change. It is, like most social science theories, not intended to have a practical application, at least not in the way that has been characterized by its far-right critics. Yet there is a practical usefulness to Critical Race Theory.

From a practical standpoint, the usefulness of Critical Race Theory lies in how it provides a better understanding for how social attitudes about race have become normalized, institutionalized, unquestioned, and over time become protected as “the way things are.” Critical Race Theory provides a tool that can be used to see problems involving race differently — from different perspectives — and it elevates the perspective of those whose voices and lived experiences are often left out of the stories we tell about ourselves.

Viewed this way, you could say that the purpose of Critical Race Theory, or any Critical theorizing for that matter, is to create a problem for the status quo. Which is probably why it is viewed as such a threat by those looking to maintain a status quo. It serves to challenge a dominant worldview by poking credible holes in the underlying assumptions of “universal truths.”