,
18 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Advocates of equity and (biblical) social justice are commonly accused of being proponents of “Cultural Marxism.” On this 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth (May 5, 1818), and in the interest of promoting better dialogue in the church, let me try to explain what CM means:
The term “Cultural Marxism” itself was first used by sociologist Trent Schroyer in his The Critique of Domination (1973). It traces its origins to the economic theory developed by Karl Marx and, more specifically, the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.
In general, CM aims to achieve a more egalitarian society. Its social critique is typically framed in terms of a class struggle, not between the proletariat and bourgeoisie (as in classic Marxist economic theory) but, more broadly, between Oppressors and the Oppressed.
Neo-Marxists (e.g., Antonio Gramsci) introduced the notion of “cultural hegemony,” which describes how the ruling class uses ideology and institutions (rather than force/violence) to develop a culture that preserves its own social power.
Thus, in order for the egalitarian utopia to be fully realized, the “cultural hegemony”—which includes values such individualism, authority, sexual restraint, patriotism/national unity, and Christianity itself—must be undermined by a sustained attack of hegemonic institutions.
Further, the Frankfurt School (e.g., Herbert Marcuse) emphasized the power of culture and the notion that the Marxist revolution would not be advanced by the “proletariat” but by marginalized peoples: blacks, gays, women, etc.
Thus, the CM paradigm will tend to view social ills essentially as a dialectical struggle between rich vs. poor, whites vs. minorities, heteronormativity vs. LGTBQ interests, men vs. women, minority religions vs. Christianity. Dismantle the 1st of each pair; empower the 2nd.
A few additional observations:
1) While CM is a formal school of thought, the label tends to be applied very broadly—i.e., to any (a) identification of people as a social group, (b) use of the language of “oppression,” (c) emphasis on the systemic or institutional (vs. individual) nature of sin/injustice.
2) One can see how the condemnation of CM could become attractive to those (a) accustomed to cultural dominance, (b) nostalgic for traditional, Western cultural norms/institutions. Indeed, the Alt-Right has become one of CM’s most vociferous critics.
3) One can see how CM itself could become attractive to those who are socially marginalized, particularly, victims of systemic sin/injustice.
4) Because CM identifies hegemonic powers as operating through sometimes imperceptible “cultural” forces rather than explicit exercises of power, one can see how criticism of CM lends itself to conspiracy theories.
… and, less dramatically, the view that CM has thoroughly infected the church—through its control of political discourse, academia, and media—unbeknownst to well-intentioned advocates of social justice.
In closing, a plea:
1a) Christian critics of “social justice”: If your critique/concern is sincere, please stop using this label as shorthand. It's unhelpful. “CM” has become an ideological slur and a favorite term of abhorrent (and anti-Semitic) groups like the Alt-Right. Don’t be associate w them.
1b) Be rigorous in grounding your views in Scripture. Acknowledge where the Bible affirms the identification of people as collective entities (groups) and the power of systemic/corporate sin, and calls followers of Christ to seek (social) justice. Use the language of the Bible.
2a) Christian advocates of social justice: Be careful. The seduction of “cultural Marxism,” which may not be consciously identified as such, is real. Much of progressivism is in fact shaped by neo-Marxist ideology.
2b) Be rigorous in grounding your views in Scripture. Acknowledge where the Bible affirms the identification of people as individuals. Don’t malign people solely by virtue of the social group they represent. Use the language of the Bible. <end>
