Things I’m tired of hearing about CRT:
1. “It divides people into oppressor/oppressed groups.” No, it recognizes empirically discovered existing social group oppressive hierarchies.
1. “It divides people into oppressor/oppressed groups.” No, it recognizes empirically discovered existing social group oppressive hierarchies.
2. “CRT teaches that White people are ‘intrinsically’ and necessarily oppressors.” No, so-called “oppressor groups/oppressed groups” are not essentialist categories, such that, e.g., “white” or “male” equals “oppressor” as such, nor “black” or “female” equals “oppressed” as such.
3. “Intersectionality teaches that layers of oppression add up based on identities.” No, intersectionality teaches that social group identities are “reciprocally constructing phenomena.” They ….. intersect(!) and create unique social locations.
4. “Standpoint epistemology claims that minorities have more authority.” No, SE teaches that some have had experiences that are “particularly epistemically salient for identifying and evaluating assumptions that have been systematically obscured as the result of power dynamics.”
5. “Commitment to story telling means the real truth isn’t what matters.” No, everyone is storytelling, but counter-storytelling by subordinated groups can help expose the false assumptions of dominant groups.
6. “CRT teaches there is no such thing as objective truth.” No, CRT teaches there are no perfectly objective individuals and that claims to objectivity often obscure dominant group assumptions.
7. “CRT is worldview.” Uh, then so is Legal Formalism, Legal Postivism, Legal Moralism, Legal Pluralism, Legal Realism, Critical Legal Theory, and every other legal analysis you can think of?
Actually, this could go on way too long. Ugh.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
