Thoughts on Critical Theory Part 1: Narratives

One of the hot button topics these days is Critical Race Theory which is under the umbrella of a group of Critical Theories. My first interactions with CRT and CT were accusations of pastors that I trust as well as insinuations that I myself subscribed to this theory. I had not heard of it before that. I began studying these theories to better understand. If you have tried to look up a quick definition you will find that not many are available. This is because it is an interdisciplinary field of study with decades of development. So after listening to hours of lectures and reading several books and many articles I think I have a fairly good grasp on the Theory. But because it is an interdisciplinary field I have found it helpful to break it down into smaller pieces to analyze. So first I want to look at the role of narratives in CT and CRT.

The prominence of narratives in this theory stems from the influence of postmodernism in the formation of this theory. A simple understanding of postmodernism is the belief that there is no objective truth. A more detailed understanding of a particular slice of postmodern theory is that it sees narratives as power plays rooted in the dominance of a particular group. Let me give some examples: Propaganda would be an example of using a narrative to assert power. So during chattel slavery, there was “scientific” evidence for the lower or less evolved status of people of African descent. This was used for the justification of slavery. In Nazi Germany, there were theories about the “evil” or “moral crookedness” of the Jews. This was used to justify genocide.

A more recent example of this was the practice of redlining. This was the practice of drawing lines around “unfavorable” areas of cities that were not eligible for particular types of mortgage loans. This disproportionately affected African Americans. Yet the narrative was not about color. The narrative was about economics. Nevertheless upon review it was clear that the intention was disenfranchisement and segregation.

So are the postmoderns right? I do not think so. The issues with the scenarios above was not just that they were deceptive and had horrendous intentions. These narratives were objectively not true. No ethnicity is of higher or lower status. And the red-liners were lying about the issue being one of purely economics. A commitment to truth dispels the error of these narratives.

Nevertheless, narratives have been and are used as power plays. For a juvenile example, when I walk into a room in which my children are yelling at one another I get different stories about what happened. Each child is telling the story that advances their agenda and exonerates them. To understand what really happened one has to get the truth. Saying that people propose narratives for the sake of power does not mean that truth does not exist.

So how is this used in the theory. We can look at American history and see that various people will emphasize or omit aspects of the history. Growing up I was taught by my dad various aspects of African American history that I did not learn in school. Now I am not sure why my curriculum did not highlight some of the accomplishments of African Americans or highlight some of the pains of our experience on American soil. Certainly one of the reasons could be to project a positive national story for the sake of patriotism.

The point is not necessarily to talk about how history is taught but rather to highlight the solution of incomplete or inaccurate narratives. The answer is not to think that there is no objective truth but rather to investigate the truth even more.

Another issue with a postmodern view of narrative is that it assumes that all narratives are power plays. Now we have established that some narratives certainly are power plays. But this theory has a largely pessimistic view of humanity, particularly those who are in power. Somebody could be wrong about a narrative without evil intention. And someone could just simply be relaying information. But the major issue in assuming all narratives are power plays is that you always assume the worst of the “other”s speech.

For example, take the statement that men and women are different. From particular branches feminist theory this statement would be a power play to say that men are better than women. Or for those who believe that Scripture teaches that marriage is between one man and one women, that belief or narrative would be seen as a power play by queer theory. Now someone could say that because they dislike homosexuals. But it could be just as true that they want to faithfully interpret the Scriptures and do not have an aim to craft a narrative that intentionally harms someone. A white man could say to a black man that the black man needs to work hard at his job. According to CRT, this white man would have absorbed the narrative that black people are lazy and this is why he said that. Now that could be true. Or the two could be friends and one is trying to encourage the other. My issue is not the possibility that narratives are power plays because they certainly could be. My issue is the assumption that they always are because this only creates division.

So we should not be ignorant of the potential of narrative being power plays. But I do not think that we should always assume that they are. The only way forward is to assume an inquisitive posture. For example, if I have a white friend that says something that I find offensive or racist, I do not need to assume the worst (though it could be). I can say to my friend, “that statement or that way of thinking is incorrect and here is why.” If the offense was out of ignorance, then we have made progress. If the offense was on purpose, we still made progress. But I need not always assume the worst and I need not be ignorant that narratives can be used for ill.