High-tension protests swept the cities and streets of America after George Floyd's death (Credit: Life Matters on Pexels)
Racism is a meme that is gaining widespread importance and prominence in modern times, far more than in the past. An interconnected and globalized world, bleeding-edge communications technology, and heightened education and awareness mean that any incident of racial prejudice or violence spreads like wildfire and quickly attracts both attention and action. However, even as racist thought processes are being exposed to the mainstream, a fundamental base on which its study stands is rotting away. There is a silent war raging under the surface of society. A war to gain the right to define racism.
Normative and Positive Thought
In an overwhelming majority of disciplines concerning the study of humanity and human policies, such as political science, sociology, or economics, sub-parts included, two broad schools of thought always exist among theorists. These are the normative and positive schools of thought.
Positive theory is utilitarian. It seeks to act based on facts and describes the state of the system it is studying as it is. We can subdivide positive theory into three types:
Descriptive: Describes the features of systems. It is simply an analysis of the content of a particular institution and expounds on its features and provisions.
Causal: Describes the history and origins of systems. This type of theory traces the cause-and-effect relationship that gives rise to a doctrine, policy, or belief system.
Predictive: Studies the effects of systems in use. It seeks to compute, reason, and predict its way to quantifying and understanding the consequences of implementing a regime of thought.
Positive theory does not debate on the merits and demerits of a system in place; it seeks simply to describe it and understand its functioning. Some examples of questions a positive theorist may seek to answer are:
"What are the ingredients of tort law?"
"What are the consequences of a price floor regime?"
"How did the institution of law arise?"
"What are the defining features of a family?"
"What are the foundational works that shaped capitalist thought?"
"What is the origin of the social contract theory?"
Normative theory lies on the other end of the spectrum. The name 'normative' often leads to people to apply this name to what is actually positive thought; it sounds like it describes the 'normal'. However, the word actually comes from 'norm', descended from the Latin word 'norma', meaning carpenter's square. Thus, normative thought sets down a norm or standard that ought to be followed. It is anti-functional in the sense that it does not seek to study a working system but to examine and evaluate it. Taking up questions upon the merits and demerits of a regime is the work of this discipline. Based on their orientation, normative theories are predominantly of two types:
Justificatory: Seeks to justify and exalt the status quo in a regime. Pro-established systems.
Critical: Criticizes the status quo. Anti-establishment; focused on finding out faults in systems. It always finds itself in opposition to the institutions in place.
Thus, normative theory is based on values and subjective analysis. It approaches institutions and doctrines as questions of right and wrong, proper and improper, moral and immoral, and variants thereof, rather than puzzles to be pieced together. Some queries a normative thinker might pursue are:
"Is an inquisitorial system of law superior to an adversarial system?"
"Is capitalism superior to socialism?"
"Is fascist thought dangerous?"
"Should forex controls be or not be applied?"
"Is absolute liability a fair principle?"
"Are joint family systems inherently sexist?"
"Should we disband the judiciary and law enforcement?"
Are the two schools entirely separate? While a clearly defined line of separation is an attractive and simple hypothesis, suitable for a quick introduction to the subject, normative and positive thought are in reality linked by definition. Normative thought is impossible without positive analysis of a system; you cannot debate the merits and demerits of a particular policy without first understanding the policy (predictive theory is the most useful for most normative questions). Positive theories, particularly those causal in nature, also provide constraints on realism-based normative theories by describing the processes behind the development of systems (normative theories constructed in ideal conditions, such as Utopia, are not subject to this).
In short, positive thought describes what is, while normative thought seeks to describe what ought to be. Positive analysis can exist without normative analysis, but proper normative analysis depends on the fruits of positive theories. Most modern theories combine both aspects to present a coherent world view.
"There is a silent war raging under the surface of society. A war to gain the right to define racism."
Post-Modern Theory of Racism
A particular movement that has been gaining traction for about 40 years now and has today established itself at the forefront of race-based thought is CRT, or Critical Race Theory. Using your newfound knowledge from the previous section, it should be trivial to glean some basic features from the name; it is a primarily normative critical theory that seeks to explain racial dynamics in human life. CRT extends across all humanitarian disciplines, but particularly concerns itself with politics, law, and society. Beyond the bare basics on the face of the record, it is a multi-faceted theory with many moving parts. Some of the primary tenets that define it are:
Race as a Social Construct: Critical Race Theory rejects the contention that there exists a biological or 'real' basis for race. According to them, race is a social construct created by humans for tribalist purposes. It has no actual presence beyond that of a societal tool of classification.
Racism as a Function of Institutions: This theory rejects racism as an interpersonal artifact and instead proposes that it is embedded in systems and institutions. A critical race theorist looks upon the status quo as a tool to enact, enforce, and maintain racist ideals and actions.
Essentialism: People who share racial origins have a common 'essence of being'. Their struggles, problems, and issues are congruent with each other. Racial solidarity and organization is natural and beneficial to the interests of marginalized groups.
Intersectionalism: CRT is concerned with how issues of race intersect with other issues, such as those of sex, gender, class, wealth, nationality, and orientation. As a qualifier to essentialism, it also studies how the needs, problems, and aspirations of distinct groups within a racial classification may vary.
Revisionist Systemic Origins: This school of thought takes a revisionist approach to the historical and philosophical evolutions of systems. It treats established institutions as products of the need to maintain racial oppression, and also criticizes existing efforts towards egalitarianism as arising from the interests of the 'oppressive class'.
Anti-Rationalism: Critical Race Theory rejects Enlightenment concepts such as rationalism, legal equality, neutrality, judicial rights, and incremental reform as broken products of a broken system. It is opposed to meritocratic and colour-blind societal approaches. Followers of this doctrine emphasize a race-conscious and radical approach to justice, based around political organization and action rather than systemic remedies.
Emphasis on Narrative and Constructionism: Evidence and reason is considered secondary to anecdotal and experiential information. Socially constructed ideas of 'experienced reality' are utilized to build a model of the world, rather than rational thought. CRT is of the view that members of racially disadvantaged groups are more competent to address issues of their lived experience, more so than academic researchers and theorists. This is known as 'standpoint epistemology'. Rejection of logical reasoning and expertise in favour of storytelling is a fundamental doctrine.
Institutional Privilege and Internalized Racism: As a corollary of racism being a systemic phenomenon, CRT rejects the idea of the need for individual accountability for racial prejudice. It considers all members of the structurally advantaged group to be inherently racist as a function of their very being, since they have benefitted from a racist institution. It considers racism to be an internalized phenomenon rather than an explicit aberration in the system, embedded so closely in culture, law, society, and politics that an end to it must spell an end to the entire status quo. This manifests both in the internalized superiority of the oppressing race and the internalized inferiority of the oppressed.
Being aware of these constituents, we can now take a functionalist approach and dissect CRT to separate its machinery out. To fully understand it, we must classify its various parts into the various subcategories of normative and positive thought (remember, no comprehensive theory is ever just one of the two). My division is as follows:
Descriptive:
Race as a Social Construct;
Racism as a Function of Institutions (inasmuch as it describes the institutions);
Essentialism;
Standpoint Epistemology;
Intersectionalism.
Causal:
Revisionist Systemic Origins.
Predictive:
Racism as a Function of Institutions (describes the role of the status quo in maintaining racism);
Institutional Privilege and Internalized Racism.
Critical:
Anti-Rationalism;
Racism as a Function of Institutions (criticism of the institutions as tools of oppression);
Revisionist Systemic Origins (criticism of existing efforts towards racial equality);
Emphasis on Narrative and Constructionism.
"Positive analysis can exist without normative analysis, but proper normative analysis depends on the fruits of positive theories."
Thus, CRT is a comprehensive theory that embraces both a positive definition of the systems and their normative criticism. In short, we can define critical race theory as a 'doctrine that propounds the idea of racism being a phenomenon ingrained in institutions that cannot be solved from within the inherently discriminatory systems in place'. The only way to address racism is by uprooting and reordering the machinery of society through radical action. Now, having a reasonably in-depth understanding of the doctrine, we may move forward into why I feel CRT has created problems in modern socio-political and cultural interactions, both in terms of academic study and public dynamics.
Side note: I am aware of the scientific meaning of the term 'theory', which is a set of ideas that explain phenomena and are verified by the application of the scientific process. However, CRT being a theory that actively rejects evidence and reasoning in favour of subjectivism, I am hesitant to believe that the scientific method may be rigorously applied to it. Therefore, it being necessarily unscientific (which does not always mean false), I am inclined to apply the colloquial meaning to its terminology. Thus, I will define critical race theory to be a speculative and conjectural collection of proposals seeking to explain racial dynamics in society, rather than a substantiated description of the world order.
Preface to Analysis
I'm sure many of you already have the 'Contact Us' page open and half-full with a long tirade calling me a racist and insensitive pig in the most convoluted and colourful language to ever grace the human connectome. So, let me just stop you right there. To be very clear, I am not opposed to most of the propositions put forward by Critical Race Theory. I find myself agreeing, on a macro-level, with a lot of the things proposed. There are some key differences in approach, which makes me... not a critical race theorist, but my aim here is not to expound my own belief system. It is to address one particular contention that has me worried. Without further ado, let us begin.
"CRT being a theory that actively rejects evidence and reasoning in favour of subjectivism, I am hesitant to believe that the scientific method may be rigorously applied to it."
Defining Racism: Academic Discourse
Let's use the good old dictionary as a base from which to begin my rambling. Oxford defines racism as 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized'. A quick search on Google should bring up the same. Based on this, let us break the definition down into functional parts:
What is Racism? Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism.
Who can be Racist? An individual, community, or institution.
Who can You be Racist Against? A person or a group of people.
What is the Basis of Racism? Membership of a particular racial or ethnic group.
Who are the Typical Victims of Racism? A minority or marginalized community.
So far, so good. This is the commonly accepted and intuitive definition of racism. In fact, most of the non-CRT folk may have come to this article holding this definition in their minds. Should we call it a day and end the article here?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. As you may recall (given the fact that you read it mere minutes ago), critical race theory treats racism to be an institutional phenomenon. That is, they propose that it exists only in and as an effect of structures, and not in and among people. This means that, according to CRT, the definition breaks down into parts as follows:
What is Racism? Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism.
Who can be Racist? An institution.
Who can You be Racist Against? A marginalized person or group of people.
What is the Basis of Racism? Membership of a particular racial or ethnic group.
Who are the Only Victims of Racism? A minority or marginalized community.
In current times, given that the theory is most popular in the Western world, thisy dynamic mostly translates to "Only white people can be racist". This definition is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but let's confine ourselves to strictly theoretical discourse for now.
Does institutional racism exist? Undeniably. Structures and authorities can be and are prejudicial and discriminatory in their behaviour with depressing regularity. However, restricting the myriad ways in which racism manifests to structural racism and structural racism only stifles its study.
The etymology of the word "race" is not clear, but it is generally accepted to mean a grouping into which humans may be divided on the basis of shared physical or cultural characteristics. Modern research is pretty conclusive on the fact that race is a social construction and has no biological basis. On the basis of that, racism can be defined in relation as a system of action or belief dependent on race. Colloquially, we consider this system to be negative in nature i.e. discriminatory, as we see it from the point of view of the victim. However, from the point of view of the racist, racism subsists not in facing discrimination, but in doling it out; thus, racism is both enforced inferiority and enforced superiority. However, according to critical race theory, this definition ought to be curtailed to confine racism only to those instances where a typically powerful 'race' acts on a typically weak 'race' with the support of discriminatory institutions. And herein lies the problem.
To be useful, a definition must fulfill certain criteria. It must be:
Definite, and minimal in ambiguity.
Objective, as far as possible within the limits of inherent human subjectivity.
Accurate, without unnecessarily interfering with common and prima facie usages.
A definition which does not fulfill any of these criteria is never academically useful. I may define a chair as 'an implement for sitting', and that may successfully dissociate a chair from the ground, but the proposition is incorrect as it fails to differentiate a chair from a stool or a couch, and falls apart if it is used for anything other than sitting. It is indefinite. Similarly, a definition that runs as 'an uncomfortable seat, typically with a back and four legs' is definite but still not proper as it assumes that chairs are uncomfortable and is thus subjective. A definition that runs 'a chair is a donkey' is not acceptable, hopefully for obvious reasons.
The definition put forward by CRT is not acceptable under these criteria, and I'm sure you have figured out why by now, but let us list out the reasons under each criterion for clarity:
Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an institution supporting a powerful community against a marginalized community.
Indefinite: What constitutes an institution? Giving the benefit of the doubt to the definition, let us assume it means a structure capable of influencing the actions of the people under its jurisdiction. What kind of authority can constitute a racist institution? Traditional? Charismatic? Rational-legal? What sort of power is this authority derived from? Coercive? Social? Religious? Financial? Political? Let's give the benefit of the doubt again, and say that only institutions run by the 'oppressors' count. How to define who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed? Historically? Numerically? Geographically? Socially? How much area is to be taken into account? What is the process? Here, you may make the argument that the definition given at the beginning does not define these either, and you would be right. However, it does not link racism to any form of power dynamics, which means defining them is useless and extraneous. It addresses minorities and marginalized communities only as a 'typical' case, leaving the reader free to apply it to any situation seamlessly and comprehend the crux of the matter. The answer critical race theory gives to these questions is not based on any intelligible differentia. It does not tell us why the different forms of power ought to be differentiated beyond some vage reference to historicitiy. At the end of the day, CRT does not tell us why a black neighbourhood ostracizing a white person until he moves out is exercising a different, non-racist form of authority compared to the government enforcing racial segregation in educational institutions. Its call of a definite oppressor and oppressed fails to hold any water as it lacks a test to base the classification on. The theory does not have any rational nexus between proposal and reasoning, leading to an incoherent argument. Thus, it is an ambiguous definition.
Subjective: Even accepting its definitive nature for the sake of argument, the theory fails to satisfy the test of objectivity. This should come as no surprise from a thought process that actively discourages evidentiary reasoning in favour of subjective narrative, but the lengths critical race theorists take it to is honestly egregious. Without any technical justification, sequestering the concept of racism into such a small bubble as part of an academic theory is nonsensical. There is no rational justification for why we should consider racism to be only structual where simple observation tells us that antagonistic behaviour on the basis of race evidently subsists at interpersonal, group, and regional levels as well. On top of that, it completely arbitrarily assigns the ability to be racist only to the 'superior' race. Their weak tradeoff in the form of attempting to call the revers 'racial prejudice' or 'racial discrimination' falls entirely flat; the difference is entirely semantics, intended to obfuscate and pacify by giving the guise of concession. Part of the theory is also dedicated to making out racism to be the more serious condition, which makes this little consolation prize entirely meaningless. Making assumption after assumption after assumption with no backing, CRT is unfair, arbitrary, irrational, and unsustainable.
Inaccurate and Unnecessary: On an entirely more fundamental level, critical race theory is just,,, plain wrong. The word 'racism' has a very long and mostly constant usage history which makes it abundantly clear how and in what context it is meant to be used. It is true that linguistics and society moves forward, but this drift happens on the basis of reasoned and gradual movement. Attempting to armtwist it with fundamentally (I'm sorry to say) idiotic invented tomfoolery is untenable. Deviation from what is apparent on the face of the record and is commonly understood, accepted, and used requires very good reasoning, of which this glorified shredder feed of a proposal has nary a drop. Academically, it is absolutely unnecessary and unwarranted to change the definition of racism to this tune, where we have a far more appropriate and usable term available. The phrase 'structural racism' itself describes the same phenomenon i.e. racism enforced by authoritative or structural means, and does it in a way that is consistent with its common and prima facie usage. A far superior option being available in terms of accuracy and understanding, which is to keep the current terminology intact, the definitions proposed by CRT are not only illogical and academically unsound, but unwanted, unliked, and unnecessary.
"Critical Race Theory does not have any rational nexus between proposal and reasoning, leading to an incoherent argument."
"The definitions proposed by CRT are not only illogical and academically unsound, but unwanted, unliked, and unnecessary."
Thus, the theory holds no ground academically. It is not suited as a technical, definite, objective, accurate, and enduring definition of racism. This is the point where a critical race theorist will start arguing from a plebeian standpoint. According to its proponents, this definition, though technically incorrect, should still be used because using the uninterested, objective definition leads to harm due to measures like affirmative action also getting caught in the crossfire and branded as racist. While there are legal arguments against this thought process, today we are analyzing from a social standpoint. So, let us understand why this attempt at defining racism is wrong from a public standpoint as well.
Things like the scientific method, self-reliance, planning for the future, intent-based law, decision-making, and hard work are considered 'white culture' by some critical race theorists (Credit: National Museum of African American History & Culture)
Why CRT is Wrong: Public Dynamics
The common refrain adopted, as I said earlier, is an appeal to the stupidity of man; critical race theorists seem to believe that defining racism in the technically correct way will harm the interests of typically marginalized groups. Not only is this incorrect, but is is improper and actively harming both the general state of society and healthy discourse on racism in particular. As usual, CRT could not be more wrong.
First of all, let's get one thing out of the way; the vast majority of people are not stupid. In fact, they are smart. Too smart. Interpreting something in a biased fashion is not a mark of idiocy; it is an intelligent way to, consciously or unconsciously, twist facts to meet a narrative. By taking a piece of data at least partially inconsistent with your worldview and then beating it until the square peg fits the round hole, you can avoid ever having to critically examine your own thought process. That is a memetically sound gambit.
It is undeniable that calling a spade a spade will lead to a few instances of misidentification. Perhaps even many such instances. But this is still the right move for multiple reasons:
Public Discourse Should Not Align with the Lowest Common Denominator: Conducting public information, awareness, and discourse campaigns with the implicit belief that they are stupid is a minefield. Not only is this leading to constantly lowering standards of discourse and dangerously reductive and simplistic reasoning in mass communication, but also providing a huge flat plateau to virtue signal and talk down from. Approaching what is meant to an informative discussion with an ingrained feeling of enlightenment and superiority only serves to alienate those you consider uncivilized ignorant savages. People remember less of what you said, and more of how you made them feel. Talk down to someone, make them feel small, and they will withdraw further into a shell of contempt in return. They will only come away feeling angry, insulted, and defensive, not informed. And those that will listen will be subject to a form of enforced idiocy, fed only a propagandized, digestible, slogan-worthy ideological slurry in the name of the 'truth'. It makes them come away with flawed and fundamentally unstable understanding, leaving them vulnerable to heel-face turns as soon as someone points out the obvious stupidity of the half-baked notions they have been spoonfed. All of this, because a particular class of people sitting on their huge steaming pile of... enlightenment decided they were 'too dumb' for nuances. If the purpose of a critical race theorist is to inform and inform only, they must inform in a way that serves to raise the standard of intellect and reasoning in others, rather than as a custom-built propaganda packet. And if they're not out to do that, they ought to stop pretending to be the Holy Grail and guardians of all that is holy and true, throw their high horse off a hill, and come wallow in the mud of what we all know they belong to already: agenda.
This is what you sound like, and we all know how that movie ended (Credit: Giphy)
"Talk down to someone, make them feel small, and they will withdraw further into a shell of contempt in return."
It Provides Ammunition to Opponents: I should not even have to explain this one. You know this. You know this intuitively. You've seen this when you called the cops on your wife and they arrest you instead because you're the 'natural aggressor'. Or when you are a man and someone gives you a dirty look when they see you with your child, or when you are white and everyone acts like it is okay when you get called a 'cracker', but those same people lose their minds if you turn around and do the same thing to someone else from a different community (I can't list those words in an academic context here without shooting myself in the foot, which should give you a general idea of which way the wind blows). Every member of a 'privileged community' has felt this at least once, especially around people who believe in critical race theory or similar systems. If you have faced any such experience, tell me about it in the comments, and tell me how that made you feel. I'd wager it made you angry. It made you frustrated. It made you feel 'othered', and it provoked you to 'other' in return. Not only is it completely legitimate to feel this way, it is also natural; it is human nature to hunker down and prepare to fight when your tribe is threatened. Some people can limit this hatred to the particular ideologies and ideologues who are responsible for this. However there is a reason that there have always been soldiers than diplomats. It takes far more effort to separate an ideology from the man and engage with it than to beat the man to death. Not thinking too deeply is a societal survival mechanism, one we have encouraged throughout history to better organize the people behind a common goal. it has led us to where we are now. But in this matter, it falls against us. A common refrain for critical race theorists is that humans are not completely scientific and rational, which is true, but then they turn around and completely forget to measure by the same metric those they wish to antagonize! Most people find it simpler to just blame the full community for this (which ties into years of crude and lowest-common-denominator appeals as I mentioned earlier, for which too the same theorists are responsible), and there is an entire ecosystem willing to take advantage of that. When the people are riled against you, it is that much easier to put a sword in their hands and ask them to chop your face off your skull. We saw this during BLM, where riots, violence, and radically anarchist activities ended public support for and eventually all but extinguished a movement started for prima facie admirable reasons. CRT provides this easy route for legitimate voices against racism to be branded as birds of the same feather, shunned, and silenced. In the critical race theorist's mad rush to make the 'privileged' feel guilty for ever being born, their victims are driven straight into the arms of those who point at the reasonable ones standing back and brand them as the enemy too. They are responsible for exacerbating racial antagonism by appealing not to compassion, logic, and understanding, but to anger, shame, arrogance, and contempt. I recognize that this refrain has been used so many times that it's become a joke right now, but I'll say it again: I think it's pretty clear who the real racists are.
Thus, not only is this cancerous abomination of a theory not worth the paper it was raised from by some dark mage's spell to do unholy deeds under the new moon's darkness when it comes to academic reasoning, but it is also entirely unsuited, counterproductive, and downright mentally underdeveloped when it comes to societal utility too. I don't want to say it, i really don't, but typical. Yet this is unironically considered the premier theory to explain racial dynamics by many in the Western world. Far from being chucked into the same hole where radium-laced water lies, it is exalted and taught as an academic discipline in schools and higher educational institutions! Rather ironic, considering their distaste for academia. There is an ongoing war to define racism, and it is a war CRT and others like it are winning.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe humans are just stupid after all...
Conclusion
Now, let's make a few things very clear. Am I saying critical race theory ought to be abandoned entirely? Not at all, it actually makes some excellent points, my... strong language notwithstanding. But it is nowhere close to a proper and accurate theory. With dialectics, it may slowly develop and one day create a new, comprehensive, definite, and accurate model, and that day, I will be the first to support it. All I ask is that it be treated like the stepping stone it is, and not like the miraculous panacea people seem determined to make. This is not an idea that's ready to be released to the public eye, let alone be taught in schools.
Am I saying there's an ongoing white genocide or female takeover or something similar? No. I thought that was pretty apparent, but in case I need to make it clear, no.
What we require is pushback. Pushback from academics, philosophers, politicians, scientists, pressure groups, and influential figures. Hell, racial activists themselves must speak up against this premature acceptance of a flawed theory. Application of logic, evidence and rational thought must build up and arrive at a scientific, positive theory that describes the functional components, causes, and symptoms of racism. Normative analysis of these features must come later, and I hope we will conclude that racism is bad. Take back the narrative. Racism ought to be defined by science, and not by storytelling.
That concludes the glorified rant. Hope you enjoyed wasting more almost 20 minutes of your day with me, and thanks for sticking around till the end. Please comment and share this article if you liked the content and be sure to use all the tweet buttons so generously scattered throughout the text; they're certainly not for aesthetics, after all. Thanks again for reading, and I'll see you around! In the meantime, feel free to browse the website and check out my other pieces, or my writing projects.