A 50,000 Foot Overview of Critical Theory

Twitter
Telegram
Email
Print

A 50,000 Foot Overview of Critical Theory

Somewhere in the mid to somewhat early 1980s academia became abuzz with a new legal theory that was being advanced by a handful of legal scholars and the like. This new theory posited that true justice could never be accomplished blindly because justice was not blind. Instead they asserted that the system was bent towards seeing black Americans in a particularly harsher light.
The more this theory, like any new theory or philosophical movement, was discussed, the more it was adopted in the halls of legal academia. It quickly expanded into the law schools and shortly thereafter law students were writing papers about the theory. Critical Race Theory was intended to be a way to approach criminal justice and the legal process. But like all bad ideas, someone else caught on to it.
As the years progressed Critical Race Theory morphed into a blanket Critical Theory. This blanket spread to address gender and sexuality and feminism. The principle advanced by Critical Theory, was that no person of any minority status could experience true just treatment in a legal system set-up by and geared for the favorable outcome of white heterosexual males. This concept led to the inception of a secondary theory we now know as Intersectionality. Intersectionality takes Critical Theory and injects it into every human interaction and assigns each person points based on their differing identification categories.
Look at it this way:
A white heterosexual male with a decent annual income has zero points.
A white gay male with a decent annual income would receive one point, meaning that he is considered marginally oppressed.
A black heterosexual male with a decent annual income would perhaps receive one point, unless you are comparing him the white gay male with the same income. Then you would need to reward him a second point of intersectional value because the white gay male is part of the Critical Theory oppressive race.
Now add gay to the above scenario and the black man has a third point.
But what happens when we add in female? A white lesbian woman of the same financial class as the straight black male outscores the black male but can feasibly tie with the gay black man and outscore the white gay male.
See where this is going?
Now, for the trifecta; a poor black lesbian woman who is also at some “stage of transsexual” has no less than 4 points of oppression. When you compare her to the straight white male above, he is not only the oppressor but can be justifiably removed from consideration for whatever the comparison is being made for. Because he lacks any Intersectional points he has no value.
Now that you have seen this, you won’t be able to “unsee” it. I do not want you to unsee it. I want you to be fully aware. These two studies, Critical Theory especially, are dangerous bludgeoning instruments meant to beat us all into submission as we are driven further apart along cultural and ethnic lines. Critical theory was never intended to be brought into the academia of primary and secondary education, but it has arrived.
The powers that be, especially in the leadership of the two main political parties, are hell-bent on keeping us at each other’s throats so we can be controlled. Some of us are geared toward rooting out the source of ideological dangers. We need people like me that are nerds like that. But trying to understand where it comes from doesn’t fight it. Understanding how it is used and what it looks like in use is what matters.

Share This Post

Twitter
Telegram
Email
Print
TC

TC

I am TC, a traditional Patriot, an avowed Constitutionalist, a defender of liberty but chiefly I am Christian! A follower of Christ even in all my failing…

I can tell you many things about what motivates me and what drives me to take on this project. None of the things I can tell you are more important than the fact that my position is driven by desire to understand the proper role of government in the United States from a biblical perspective. I have had to change my position on a few things over time and through much personal arguing.

For years I misunderstood Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. I took these passages and tried to apply them to the United States in the context of the ancient church. You could hear me argue, “Well the emperor of Rome made torches out of people so I think you can learn to submit to a bad governor or president.”

Keep Reading