A refresher: What is Critical Race Theory after all?
As drawn from the explicit answers to this question given by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, Devon Carbado, and others, we have, ordered thematically:
[Thread]
1. Race is Socially Constructed
Race is not a natural, biological, “out there” entity such that it exists independently of law and society. Rather, it is a product of human social interaction, a construction of social reality. Further, race and racial categories were
historically created to justify and maintain social hierarchy, slavery, and other forms of group-based exploitation, as well as to distribute rights, citizenship, privileges, access, and disparate advantages/disadvantages.
2. Differential Racialization
Race, as an historically contingent artifact, was constructed to serve different social needs for differing social purposes at different times and in different places throughout history. Therefore, not all “races” were historically constructed along
the same lines, nor imbued with the same set of characteristics, nor are these constructions particularly stable through time.
3. Intersectionality
Further, because race has been socially constructed to serve different purposes for different groups at different times, race is inextricably linked with other social constructions and/or social arrangements developed by dominant groups to distribute
protections, rights, citizenship, privileges, access, advantages, and disadvantages. As such, “race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather as reciprocally constructing phenomena" (Collins).
4. Racism is Endemic to American Life
Because race was historically constructed by, in tandem with, and as integral to other central formative American systems and institutions—including American law, government, nation, politics, religion, human geography, economic structure,
and distributive schemas—the attendant racial hierarchies and ideologies are likewise integral to American life and its institutions.
5. CRT is Skeptical of Claims to Neutrality, Objectivity, Color-Blindness, and Meritocracy
Because racism is endemic to American life and institutions, concepts like neutrality, objectivity, color-blindness, and merit are viewed by CRT scholars as sites of racial formation and
preservation, as historical artifacts containing their own racial ideologies, racial logics, and racial preferences, and are therefore legitimate sites of racial critique. CRT judges decision procedures not by their facial neutrality or objectivity, but by their remedial
effectiveness in addressing the subordinated circumstances of people of color.
6. Racism is a Structural Phenomenon and Explains Current Maldistributions
As such, racism is primarily a problem of historically racialized systems—created for the distribution of social, political, and economic goods—continuing to perform as it was historically created, even
in our supposedly “post-racial” legal era.
7. CRT is Discontent with Liberalism and the Standard Racial Progress Narrative
On the other hand, liberalism conceptualizes racism as an aberration, a departure from the social norm. Therefore, liberalism tends to idealize the problem of racism as (1) prejudice, bias, and
stereotype, (2) discrimination, or “allowing race to count for anything,” and (3) mere physical separation of races. Liberal answers to racism, accordingly, are (1) increased knowledge, (2) color-blindness, and (3) racial “mixing”; and, of course, plenty of time to allow
“enlightenment” to run its natural course.
CRT scholars, alternatively—due to the contingent history of racial construction and the embedded nature of racism—view such liberal diagnoses and remedies as means of preserving the status quo, viz., preserving and legitimating the
current maldistribution of social power and the racially subordinated circumstances embedded within.
8. Interest Convergence
Because of the embedded nature of racism, due to the historical nature of racial construction, racial progress is often ephemeral, and always prioritized in contrast with the rest of the traditional liberal program—i.e., individual freedom, freedom of
association, free markets, vested interests, property rights, etc. Significant change normally occurs only when the latter interests are threatened by racist policy and thereby converge with the interests of people of color. When these interests change, the fortunes of Black
Americans are in turn reversed. The dialectic of racial reform and retrenchment is a central CRT analytic.
9. Unique Voice of Color Thesis
Those who have been, and continue to be, marginalized through social identification with historically constructed groups are thereby uniquely placed to address their unique social, legal, political, and economic subordination, as they “are more
likely to have had experiences that are particularly epistemically salient for identifying and evaluating assumptions that have been systematically obscured or made less visible as the result of power dynamics" (Intemann). In this manner, embedded, seemingly invisible, systems of
racism can be made more visible to those who have been socialized as members of other historically constructed groups.
10. CRT Aspires to be Interdisciplinary and Eclectic
Further, since race is not a natural entity but a social construct, and since racism is thereby embedded in American society through its historical construction, race and racism are particularly amenable to fruitful
interrogation by aspects of both Critical Theory and post-modernism/structuralism. Accordingly, CRT scholars seek to deconstruct these systems and ideologies, but with an eye toward reconstruction and liberation. More broadly, CRT seeks to incorporate a wide range of traditions
and disciplines in order to address the various and sundry ways racialization is embedded throughout society.
11. CRT is Both Theory and Praxis
In the end, CRT seeks not only to understand race and racial subordination, but to change the subordinated circumstances of marginalized peoples. CRT scholars understand that consistent, effective, liberative critical social theory cannot
separate the construction of social knowledge from the active redistribution of social power.
Note: to be clear, the above thread is not a definition of CRT, but rather some broadly accepted commonplaces. In @sandylocks' words, "the notion of CRT as a fully unified school of thought remains a fantasy of our critics" ("The First Decade")
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On the topic of racial formation and Intersectionality, this quote is so helpful, IMO:
"[B]ecause races are constructed, ideas about race form part of a whole social fabric into which other relations, among them gender and class, are also woven. … This close symbiosis was 1/
2/ "reflected, for example, in distinct patterns of gender racialization during the era of frontier expansion—the native men of the Southwest were depicted as indolent, slothful, cruel and cowardly Mexicans, while the women were described as fair, virtuous, and lonely Spanish
3/ "maidens. … This doggerel depicted the Mexican women as Spanish, linking their European antecedents to their sexual desirability, and unfavorably compared the purportedly slothful Mexican men to the ostensibly virile Yankee. Social renditions of masculinity and femininity are
Here are some broadly accepted commonplaces, drawn from CRT scholars' own answers to the question, presented in logical progression.
A thread:
1. Race is Socially Constructed
Race is not a natural, biological, “out there” entity such that it exists independently of law and society. Rather, it is a product of human social interaction, a construction of social reality. Further, race and racial categories were ...
... historically created to justify and maintain social hierarchy, slavery, and other forms of group-based exploitation, as well as distribute protections, rights, citizenship, privileges, access, advantages, and disadvantages.
I love how he ignorantly invokes Dr. King, and then in the next breath COMPLETELY ignores Dr. King's message, especially as in his Letter From Birmingham Jail. Typical Spirituality of the Church racist complicity.
And the footnotes for this "difficult" topic? DiAngelo, DiAngelo, DiAngelo, DiAngelo, DiAngelo, Kendi. Hahahaha! Great research! Pretty much studied the whole topic in detail!
In 1883, Frederick Douglass put together a "colored" convention. The White folk tried the old reverse racism claim on him. In his response, we see an early refutation to both the "reverse racism" claim and a reaction to "color-blindness" in general.
A longish thread: 1/
2/ "We are asked not only why hold a convention, but, with emphasis, why hold a colored convention? Why keep up this odious distinction between citizens of a common country and thus give countenance to the color line? It is argued that, if colored men hold conventions, based
3/ "upon color, white men may hold white conventions based upon color, and thus keep open the chasm between one and the other class of citizens, and keep alive a prejudice which we profess to deplore. We state the argument against us fairly and forcibly, and will answer it
Since everyone's back to invoking Dr. King against antiracism, let's keep looking at what he actually wrote. Foe example:
"Indeed, one of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. From the old plantations of the South to the newer ghettos of the North, 1/
2/ "the Negro has been confined to a life of voicelessness and powerlessness. Stripped of the right to make decisions concerning his life and destiny, he has been subject to the authoritarian and sometimes whimsical decisions of the white power structure. The plantation and the
3/ "ghetto were created by those who had power both to confine those who had no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness. The problem of transforming the ghetto is, therefore, a problem of power—a confrontation between the forces of power demanding change and the forces of
2/ pernicious influence of CRT. In reality, this folks have just become aware of the racism in the church and denomination, have pressed back on it, and ultimately leave after no change. Now, the folks who are still there think, "why are these people going on about racism? I'm
3/ not a racist, my church is not racist, and I don't even know any real racists." Upon investigation, they realize that this brothers and sisters leaving don't define or understand racism as they do--as personal hatred toward someone because of their skin color. So, where did