General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJeff Tiedrich has a message about Critical Race Theory
Link to tweet
H2O Man
(73,308 posts)CrispyQ
(36,221 posts)The Volatile Mermaid - what an awesome screen name!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I like it, too!
yardwork
(61,408 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,535 posts)Caliman73
(11,690 posts)Right wingers accusing Tiedrich of trying to "silence" them or shame them because he "doesn't want to hear the truth".
If I want to debate and debunk Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and I don't understand basic concepts in Physics, then I need to shut the fuck up and learn rather than try to put my stupid opinion out there against scholarly ideas derived by research and supported by evidence.
Bettie
(15,995 posts)and always amusing as well.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)CRT developed out of critical theory which was developed out of the Frankfurt School which was decidedly Marxist in orientation.
That said, his rule of thumb is sadly correct. And since I mentioned Marxism, I guess suppose I should sit the fuck down.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Nicely done - if your purpose is to mischaracterize and mislead, that is.
Perhaps you should take your advice.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)Your response is so untethered from the history of social theory. While Derrick Bell, for one, may have disavowed any direct genealogy, referencing instead the likes of DuBois and Bunche, Crenshaw is quite specific in her description of CRT being a response to critical legal studies, which had unapologetically Marxist theorists (among other strains). American CRT, specifically, was more rooted in American thinkers (see Bells disavowal), but many of the thinkers Bell cites as his influences were themselves immersed in Marxism: Bayard Rustin, Du Bois, Richard Wright, etc. Non-theorist contemporaries in the 70s, too, were deeply influenced by Marxist thought (for example, Amiri Baraka née Leroi Jones).
Do let me know if I am mischaracterizing.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And we both know it.
Among other things, the fact that some CR theorists identified great thinkers who were Communists or Marxists as among the many people who influenced their scholarship does not mean that CRT "developed out of critical theory which was developed out of the Frankfurt School which was decidedly Marxist in orientation," by which you clearly meant to imply - as the Heritage Foundation, Ted Cruz and their ilk do - that Critical Race Theory is direct related to Marxism.
Throwing around a supposedly erudite explanation of the "connection" between CRT and Marxism wrapped in academic sounding terms, as Ted Cruz has been doing the past few days (in language very similar to that your post) might fool some people, but I see right through it.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)Were talking past each other, and its my fault.
By drawing the line crt developed out of critical theory
etc you assumed I was drawing a straight line from Marx to crt via the Frankfurt school. I was not, and I was undone by poor word choice. However, it is absurd to argue that the lines of theory and practice developed by critical law studies and crt - to say nothing of civil right activism - were not influenced by (later) Marxist critiques. The supposedly erudite explanation you complain about above is also called history, or rather a description of things that happened and for which we have clear and ample evidence of. Read Bell. Read Crenshaw. Read Delgado. Hell, read Wright, DuBois, and Bunche.
Ok, that was needlessly snarky.
But we can at least agree that Cruz and his ilk are all twats. Just because they misuse and mischaracterize things that actually happened (or thinkers who influenced other thinkers) doesnt mean they didnt.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But considering most academics in the social sciences or liberal arts has likely been influenced to some degree by great thinkers who were at some point in their lives Marxists or Communists, injecting "Marxism" into any discussion of Critical Race Theory - especially when done by racists like Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson - has only one purpose: to mischaracterize it as something it is not and to convince uniformed people that it's something foreign, suspect and dangerous instead of an honest attempt to present a more honest and accurate version of American history, law, society, and culture.
And yes, that was snarky. I've not only read all of those scholars and taught their readings in my own classes, I studied under one of them, and have known some of them personally, including two who are/were close personal friends.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)I also teach those scholars in my classes, though I have not studied under any of them. My field is postcolonialism, which undoubtedly shades my perception to see echoes of Marxism everywhere. Which I still maintain they are. But we agree that the *use* of the Marxist bogeyman by racists is as you describe. But my belief is that we cannot concede this ground to them. I am not a Marxist, but I understand the appeal of Marxist theory and see its utility in doing what theory does. The right cannot be allowed to colonize the terms Marxist/Marxism and evacuate them of their meaning, lest scholars lose useful tools. This is why tweets like Tiedrichs annoy me. Hes not wrong (as I said in my first response), but he concedes ground to racists and other useful idiots that harms theory.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)druidity33
(6,435 posts)and Marxist theory in particular isn't "Bad". I think that was what the "ceding ground" comment was about maybe?
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)There's no question that many on the right will use the label as a kudgel to beat Democrats over the head...
The problem is that there are plenty of Democrats who would explicitly reject Marxism ( ) but see worthwhile aspects of CRT (or at least aspects that some associate with CRT) that they don't want thrown out with the bath water... while there are simultaneously some on the farther left end of the spectrum who will happily say "yeah... it's Marxism and there isn't a problem with that".
As long as the second group exists - we can't just argue about the use of the label.
Same thing with "defund". Plenty of Democrats had entirely rational theories on what they meant when they said it... but we had little success in getting the public to accept that framing when the right could just pull up a video of a crowd booing the mayor of Minneapolis when he simply wouldn't commit to getting rid of all police.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)Just like there were plenty on the left who (correctly) saw "defund the police" as something very different from how HF might use it... there were also plenty on the left who meant it exactly that way - and a tweet like Tiedrich's (but in reference to "defund" wasn't persuasive enough leading up to the election. IOW, the HF line "sold well" politically.
I'm not very familiar with CRT beyond the book by that name (which I did not finish)... but unless a bright line can be drawn between "critical race theory" and "critical theory", Tiedrich's position will be a tough sell. Because there's no way to discuss critical theory without recognizing neo-marxist philosophical roots.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And it's not the only area of Critical Theory that is taught and studied.
The problem for the right wing - and obviously some on the left - is not critical theory but race, period. This attack is just another attempt to shut Black voices up, advance the notions of white victimization and distract from and derail attempts to address systemic racism in America.
It's really sad that you not only bought this BS but are trying to sell it.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)I'm equally aware that the primary text explicitly credits historical French marxist philosophers like Antonio Gramsci. It isn't buying OR selling BS to accept that.
Now... tying any particular political philosophy that has marxist roots as somehow tantamount to Mao or Cambodia or whatever... that would be well off base.
But this is like the defund the police argument I pointed out above. If there are actually people in the streets saying that it's exactly what they meant... it's hard to spin away from. If we want to say "you don't understand CRT"... that's one thing. But we can't say "it's entirely unrelated to Marxism" when philosophy dictionaries significantly predating the current debate explicitly label the Franfurt school that way. IOW... it's fine to call the label a political dog whistle that is misused... but not that it doesn't actually apply.
The problem for the right wing - and obviously some on the left - is not critical theory but race, period.
Then perhaps your response to my unless a bright line can be drawn between "critical race theory" and "critical theory" should have been that there is a difference?
Beastly Boy
(9,056 posts)Perhaps we should also mention that Marx was influenced by Adam Smith who was influenced by John Locke, who was the founder of classical liberalism, which in turn is at the foundation of market capitalism. So i guess CRT at its core is all about market capitalism,
It is also worth mentioning that the social theory developed by the Frankfurt School turns out to not be Marxist at all, and that critical theory is not defined by the Frankfurt School, and Critical Race Theory is one of many applications of critical theory out there, each pursuing different areas of research that are not necessarily connected.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)It is also worth mentioning that the social theory developed by the Frankfurt School turns out to not be Marxist at all, and that critical theory is not defined by the Frankfurt School
The Institute for Social Research was endowed explicitly by Felix Weil to develop the study of Marxism in Germany, and the nazis closed it ten years later for pretty much the same reason.
I accept everything else in that sentence. Its the other side of the same coin I was so inelegantly trying to describe.
Beastly Boy
(9,056 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 23, 2021, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)
The Frankfurt School is known to be critical of Marxism because they considered it to be too incomplete and inflexible to address the socio-economic issues of interest to the Frankfurt School. For this reason, they did not limit themselves to the application of Marx's dialectic materialism, as any self-respecting Marxist would, and instead focused on a critical approach to analyze the macro (at least as it applies to Europe) social and economic developments.
I guess Mr Weil didn't get his money's worth. And I would challenge your assumption that Hitler shut down the Frankfurt School because they were Marxist. Maybe it was because many of them were Jewish. Or gay. Or just resisting his own warped world outlook. Or influential. Or not nazi and influential. Or better looking. Take your pick!
On edit: forgot to address the Frankfurt School not defining critical theory. This is simple: Frankfurt School has been out of business for nearly a century, but critical theory is still being used by a multitude of scholars in many fields. They are the ones who define critical theory.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)But people still credit him for Marxism. Functionalism expanded beyond Durkheim. Linguistic Structuralism developed beyond Saussure and Jakobson, even being adapted into completely new fields. Funny how that works.
(Your point about Judaism and/or homosexuality and/or whatever is well taken. But they hated marxists, too!)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Marxism is a modernist philosophy. CLS is postmodern.
Also, it was largely developed under Roberto Unger, an anti-Marxist leftist.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)Who was roundly criticized as ahistorical and unscholarly by William Ewald in YLJ more than thirty years ago.
Youve also missed one of the repeated strands of this thread, namely that theories are not beholden to their originator. Even if the postmodern strand of CLS was developed under Unger (and this is leaving aside for now the absolutely Marxist strains of CLS, particularly in Britain), the field is bound to change, expand, retrench, etc. exactly the phenomenon that got me into trouble by claiming CRT has some Marxist underpinnings, or even more remotely, that the Frankfurt School was Marxist.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I mean, I'm not arguing that CRT or CLS are going to be anti-Marxist in perpetuity. But right here, in the time and space we occupy, CRT is not a Marxist school of thought. Not even superficially. Are Marxists going to find CRT interesting? Perhaps. But when they get to the part where racism isn't exactly the product of class warfare and can't simply be solved with a classless society, they might consider seeking gratification elsewhere... or maybe not being Marxists anymore.
JackintheGreen
(2,036 posts)ck4829
(34,971 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 29, 2021, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Critical Race TheoryPermanut
(5,436 posts)heard today on Bible thumper Trump cult talk radio, that "wokism" is actually a religion. We get a new twist of talking points every day.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)It goes back at least a couple of years. I think the current rhetoric is "cult"
IronLionZion
(45,250 posts)love erasing things they don't like from history
The Mouth
(3,122 posts)But are the first and worst to cancel anything that contradicts their tiny little 19th century worlview.