Critical Race Theory, Part 3

The practical reality is, that even though Critical Race Theory helps to expand the ways in which social problems involving race can be viewed and, even if it has contributed to changing perspectives on these problems, it doesn’t provide answers to questions about the action or actions a person, or people, can take to resolve these problems.

Many social scientists see no problem with this. The belief that theories of social science are not intended as solutions, but only as explanations, allows theorists to narrow their focus and concentrate on smaller aspects of larger, more complicated problems, therefore separating a problem from its more complicated context. In the traditions of social science, this is considered to be “normal” science.

Critical theory challenges the assumptions of “normal” science by asking questions like – Why shouldn’t social science contribute to solutions to social problems? If you were to ask where this responsibility lies, wouldn’t common sense say it lies within social science itself? Why should it be wrong to assume that the traditions of social science would be built upon their ability to improve the human condition?

These are the kind of questions that drove social psychologist Kurt Lewin when he was doing the groundbreaking work that formed the foundational logic for Organization Development. He asked questions that challenged the norms of social science, like; How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems? Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation? How can we make connections across the disciplines or illuminate data in revealing ways? Is it possible to interpret what’s been discovered in ways that provide a larger, more comprehensive understanding?

Kurt Lewin asked these questions of social science as he sought to understand the fascist oppression of Hitler’s Nazi regime. His questions, along with his theories of change, are equally relevant in a discussion of Critical Race Theory. Lewin applied a systems view to social problems that recognizes the profound interconnections between change in a person, change in groups and change in a system. Then he employed a methodology of action research, an iterative learning process based on democratic values, power equalization and participation, in his approach to finding solutions.

Lewin was an anti-racist, not just in an intellectual sense, but in his moral fiber. He viewed social problems involving race as one of the most crucial problems of his time, both in the US and internationally. He was particularly concerned with the expansion of Jim Crow policy and colonialism, feeling that it was likely to endanger every aspect of democracy.

I believe it’s time for the these Lewinian logics of Organization Development to come to the fore. With this, OD thinkers can take a holistic and pragmatic approach to the kind of social problems illuminated by Critical Race Theory. And, unlike the detached observers in social science, or the politically-motivated ideologists, they can be participants in a democratic process of addressing social problems intelligently. It is an opportunity to recognize how people, acting together, can engage in processes that support systemic thinking and innovation that can lead to real solutions to real problems.