My friend The Negro Subversive (henceforth “TNS”) is a blogger, writer, and former grad student who tweets and also blogs at his Substack, The Negro Subversive. He’s a pan-Africanist and socialist, so as you can imagine we’ve had many lively and interesting discussions over the years.
If I'm reading this correctly, CRT is -- at least for some -- calling for a fairly complete dismantling of classic liberalism and rationalism, not to mention many of the founding principles of the Enlightenment. Which is fine! Argue that! I'm pro-free-speech! But, well, this isn't that different from what a lot of conservatives are *saying* CRT is (amid some hysteria and often overt racism). And, yeah, it does feel awfully Marxist in its vibe. But beyond that, I kinda agree with the conservatives on at least the parameters of the debate: if we're going to radically alter civilization -- and I'm having a hard time coming up with a more radical perspective than the one that's being argued here -- shouldn't this be debated? If we're going to use these ideas to inform school curriculums -- and it seems to me like we already definitely are -- shouldn't every aspect of this world-view be open to at good faith dialogue? But I feel like I've read 50,000 articles, even this one, sort of, where I'm told that the debate over CRT is, mostly, just white backlash and grievance, or about not wanting slavery taught in schools. This feels like gaslighting. And any criticism is invariably defined as some form of racism. There is DEFINITELY a lot of bad faith criticism of CRT, but I sure don't feel like I read very many "good faith" defenses. I keep arguing: Hey, I agree with some of what you say, but some of your conclusions are really out that, what you're saying is really, really radical. But the answer always seems to be some form of: No, it's not, and it's racist to say that. That feels like a terrible way to change anyone's mind or ever win this debate.
I might have misunderstood the author's point, but I think that this piece, and most of the discussion about "objectivity," misses a very important point. Evaluating the truth of positive statements is very different from evaluating the truth of normative ones.
An example of a positive statement is "this building will stand only if it is constructed using concrete." It's possible to evaluate the truth of this statement objectively. An easy way to do it would be to attempt to construct the building using some material other than concrete. The truth of the statement does not depend on whether the inventor of concrete was an anti-racist paragon or a genocidal maniac.
An example of a normative statement is "constructing this building is good for society." There is no obvious way to evaluate this statement in an objective way. We need to agree on an entire moral philosophy before doing so, and there's no way to empirically test which moral philosophy is "correct." We therefore might doubt a normative claim made by a genocidal maniac merely on the basis of that person's character.
The issue in this article is that the author makes the implicit assumption that ALL of social science is about making normative statements. He then cites negative aspects of Western culture (like colonialism and oppression of natives) in order to cast doubt on the entire process of producing social science.
Notwithstanding the fact that you'd be hard-pressed to find any culture that doesn't have war and destruction in its past, social science often asks questions with objective answers. For example, one might be interested in the employment effects of increasing the minimum wage (independently of whether such laws are normatively good). These types of claims made by social science can't be dismissed on the basis of Western culture's depravity. So, we might not be able to decide whether white supremacy or anti-racism is objectively right, but the conclusion that we should discard objectivity entirely is unwarranted and potentially destructive.
It’s one thing to say that CRT misreads history and social science in a way that would make the average old-school Marxist blush (and it does). What’s even worse is how depressing and inherently divisive these bad ideas are. Plenty of people are wrong; only a select few can be this miserable.
I’m also not sure if CRT adherents recognize themselves as the world’s strongest practitioners of tribalism and racial obsession, but what’s truly ironic is that in doing so they more strongly mimic 19th and 20th century racist pseudoscience than anyone else today.
"Western history has global significance only because Europeans and European colonists once seized power across most of the earth. "
Actually, its significance is not the seizing of global power.....attempts to seize global power, and regional power, are the historical coin of the realm. Western history is significant for the elevation of the individual, rights, and especially, the scientific revolution.
(What studies of ancient DNA reveal is that the earth was people and re-peopled through genocide, war, settler colonialism, slavery, extinctions, brutal replacements, rape, and famine. And also, from time to time, a tad of kindness.)
It was in the 18th century and 19th century that the most cogent and sustained efforts to rid the world of slavery came about.....that within the world of "whiteness". And it was also in the 18th and 19th century, in Europe under Enlightenment auspices, that saw the feminism and the beginnings of what would be gay rights come into being.
I've read a lot of critical race theory, and it is really not that hard to understand what people mean by that who criticize it. It is the difference between saying all people are equal, the same, and saying one race is the oppressor race and the other the oppressed. That's it. Not really tough. The rest is propaganda designed to obfuscate the issue.
Starting from either point you end up in very different places about policy, education, etc. Both views are in fact against racism. It is a difference in how you approach ending it that matters.
From someone who’s well-read in the social sciences, this is a fantastic post. It’s refreshing to see a discussion of CRT that’s actually rooted in the study of social science and uses history to bring it all into context.
Noah, Noah. You're doing it again. Who exactly is it who believes that CRT is "any discussion of racism whatsoever”? Preemptively setting up a straw man on the right.
I love reading you, man, and I'm really enjoying your sci-fi picks, but like a lot of people on the left (and the right, of course), you often let things slip that reveal your Stephen-Colbert-like stereotyping of the other side. When you feel the urge to set up an ideological dichotomy, restrain yourself.
On the one hand this is laughable but on the other it's quite disturbing. I cannot believe people think that what this author is saying is profound or useful.
If I'm reading this correctly, CRT is -- at least for some -- calling for a fairly complete dismantling of classic liberalism and rationalism, not to mention many of the founding principles of the Enlightenment. Which is fine! Argue that! I'm pro-free-speech! But, well, this isn't that different from what a lot of conservatives are *saying* CRT is (amid some hysteria and often overt racism). And, yeah, it does feel awfully Marxist in its vibe. But beyond that, I kinda agree with the conservatives on at least the parameters of the debate: if we're going to radically alter civilization -- and I'm having a hard time coming up with a more radical perspective than the one that's being argued here -- shouldn't this be debated? If we're going to use these ideas to inform school curriculums -- and it seems to me like we already definitely are -- shouldn't every aspect of this world-view be open to at good faith dialogue? But I feel like I've read 50,000 articles, even this one, sort of, where I'm told that the debate over CRT is, mostly, just white backlash and grievance, or about not wanting slavery taught in schools. This feels like gaslighting. And any criticism is invariably defined as some form of racism. There is DEFINITELY a lot of bad faith criticism of CRT, but I sure don't feel like I read very many "good faith" defenses. I keep arguing: Hey, I agree with some of what you say, but some of your conclusions are really out that, what you're saying is really, really radical. But the answer always seems to be some form of: No, it's not, and it's racist to say that. That feels like a terrible way to change anyone's mind or ever win this debate.
I might have misunderstood the author's point, but I think that this piece, and most of the discussion about "objectivity," misses a very important point. Evaluating the truth of positive statements is very different from evaluating the truth of normative ones.
An example of a positive statement is "this building will stand only if it is constructed using concrete." It's possible to evaluate the truth of this statement objectively. An easy way to do it would be to attempt to construct the building using some material other than concrete. The truth of the statement does not depend on whether the inventor of concrete was an anti-racist paragon or a genocidal maniac.
An example of a normative statement is "constructing this building is good for society." There is no obvious way to evaluate this statement in an objective way. We need to agree on an entire moral philosophy before doing so, and there's no way to empirically test which moral philosophy is "correct." We therefore might doubt a normative claim made by a genocidal maniac merely on the basis of that person's character.
The issue in this article is that the author makes the implicit assumption that ALL of social science is about making normative statements. He then cites negative aspects of Western culture (like colonialism and oppression of natives) in order to cast doubt on the entire process of producing social science.
Notwithstanding the fact that you'd be hard-pressed to find any culture that doesn't have war and destruction in its past, social science often asks questions with objective answers. For example, one might be interested in the employment effects of increasing the minimum wage (independently of whether such laws are normatively good). These types of claims made by social science can't be dismissed on the basis of Western culture's depravity. So, we might not be able to decide whether white supremacy or anti-racism is objectively right, but the conclusion that we should discard objectivity entirely is unwarranted and potentially destructive.
As Noah’s less intelligent blue collar reader, I have to confess that 90% of this post was over my head.
At the end of it all, I am no closer to knowing what is the concrete goal.
I believe CRT is originally aimed at the law. So perhaps a concrete example. There is this law… which should be that law.
Is CRT a way of analyzing history? Is it a movement?
Help me envision what the author wants to see in society.
This is drivel. Quick question - are there any claims to objectivity made in the piece? If not, why should it change my mind?
What a dismal world view.
It’s one thing to say that CRT misreads history and social science in a way that would make the average old-school Marxist blush (and it does). What’s even worse is how depressing and inherently divisive these bad ideas are. Plenty of people are wrong; only a select few can be this miserable.
I’m also not sure if CRT adherents recognize themselves as the world’s strongest practitioners of tribalism and racial obsession, but what’s truly ironic is that in doing so they more strongly mimic 19th and 20th century racist pseudoscience than anyone else today.
"Western history has global significance only because Europeans and European colonists once seized power across most of the earth. "
Actually, its significance is not the seizing of global power.....attempts to seize global power, and regional power, are the historical coin of the realm. Western history is significant for the elevation of the individual, rights, and especially, the scientific revolution.
(What studies of ancient DNA reveal is that the earth was people and re-peopled through genocide, war, settler colonialism, slavery, extinctions, brutal replacements, rape, and famine. And also, from time to time, a tad of kindness.)
It was in the 18th century and 19th century that the most cogent and sustained efforts to rid the world of slavery came about.....that within the world of "whiteness". And it was also in the 18th and 19th century, in Europe under Enlightenment auspices, that saw the feminism and the beginnings of what would be gay rights come into being.
I've read a lot of critical race theory, and it is really not that hard to understand what people mean by that who criticize it. It is the difference between saying all people are equal, the same, and saying one race is the oppressor race and the other the oppressed. That's it. Not really tough. The rest is propaganda designed to obfuscate the issue.
Starting from either point you end up in very different places about policy, education, etc. Both views are in fact against racism. It is a difference in how you approach ending it that matters.
From someone who’s well-read in the social sciences, this is a fantastic post. It’s refreshing to see a discussion of CRT that’s actually rooted in the study of social science and uses history to bring it all into context.
Noah, Noah. You're doing it again. Who exactly is it who believes that CRT is "any discussion of racism whatsoever”? Preemptively setting up a straw man on the right.
I love reading you, man, and I'm really enjoying your sci-fi picks, but like a lot of people on the left (and the right, of course), you often let things slip that reveal your Stephen-Colbert-like stereotyping of the other side. When you feel the urge to set up an ideological dichotomy, restrain yourself.
On the one hand this is laughable but on the other it's quite disturbing. I cannot believe people think that what this author is saying is profound or useful.