I’d say some brief analysis would have helped this bit of research.
It’s important to note that most proponents of these ideas — like critical race theory — are *not* “race essentialists”. Rather, they see racial identity grounded in *history* and experience, not “Blackness” per se. CRT, for example, specifically denies “essentialism”. …
I’d say some brief analysis would have helped this bit of research.
It’s important to note that most proponents of these ideas — like critical race theory — are *not* “race essentialists”. Rather, they see racial identity grounded in *history* and experience, not “Blackness” per se. CRT, for example, specifically denies “essentialism”. (See Gary Peller on this.)
Also, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is *not* a proponent of critical race theory. He is a *sociologist* who writes about “white supremacy” within that discipline. His historical analysis is worth reading as it is an example of *another* approach to the subject that is *not* “CRT”.
Proponents of CRT maybe not be "race essentialists," but they are constructed essentialists, in that constructed group identities are determinative of status. This they have in common with Marxism, hence the term "cultural Marxism," (an accurate term, even if some people dislike it). One strand of provenance for CRT winds back to Marcuse and the Frankfurt school. Erica Sherover-Marcuse, his widow, led the first "privilege walks" in Marin County in the '70s.
That Ukrainian kulaks weren't singled out by Stalin because of anything they'd done personally or because of their ethnicity was probably little comfort to them. Once you start grading groups of millions of people either oppressors or oppressed, i.e., good or bad, because of history, or sociology, or economics, or whatever, it never ends well.
Yes — why I often say the real problem with "CRT" is its underlying "blank slate psychology" and postmodern epistemological influence {"knowledge construction"}. As FAIR, I think we should focus more on resisting "race consciousness" in general and "critical race consciousness" in particular. That is the more effective counter to what they are "selling" in my mind ... not "race essentialism" so much. :-)
Largely agree, except in that sentence, I thought EBS was squarely associated with the field (example paper: https://www.asanet.org/more-prejudice-restatement-reflections-and-new-directions-critical-race-theory), whereas Ian Haney Lopez, in my mind, is more associated with the “Race-Class Narrative” project, which I personally see as a partial, but not far enough, challenge to common CRT notions about the limits of liberal democracy to end racial inequality.
Associated, yes … and working from the same “conflict theory” …yet refers there to his “social system approach”.
My point is that we need to be careful — at FAIR — of not painting everything that *sounds* like “CRT” *as* “CRT” if we are to live up to our mission of seeking common understanding. That became clear to me after *actually* reading people like EBS.
Thanks for the additional insight. I imagine this could be a helpful conversation over tea! Cheers.
Agree!! And not everything associated with CRT is automatically wrong/bad, just needs to be evaluated skeptically and in detail. Sometimes there is wheat in the chaff, sometimes the whole thing is rotten… takes critical thought and an open mind.
I’d say some brief analysis would have helped this bit of research.
It’s important to note that most proponents of these ideas — like critical race theory — are *not* “race essentialists”. Rather, they see racial identity grounded in *history* and experience, not “Blackness” per se. CRT, for example, specifically denies “essentialism”. (See Gary Peller on this.)
Also, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is *not* a proponent of critical race theory. He is a *sociologist* who writes about “white supremacy” within that discipline. His historical analysis is worth reading as it is an example of *another* approach to the subject that is *not* “CRT”.
Nice work.
Cheers
Proponents of CRT maybe not be "race essentialists," but they are constructed essentialists, in that constructed group identities are determinative of status. This they have in common with Marxism, hence the term "cultural Marxism," (an accurate term, even if some people dislike it). One strand of provenance for CRT winds back to Marcuse and the Frankfurt school. Erica Sherover-Marcuse, his widow, led the first "privilege walks" in Marin County in the '70s.
That Ukrainian kulaks weren't singled out by Stalin because of anything they'd done personally or because of their ethnicity was probably little comfort to them. Once you start grading groups of millions of people either oppressors or oppressed, i.e., good or bad, because of history, or sociology, or economics, or whatever, it never ends well.
Yes — why I often say the real problem with "CRT" is its underlying "blank slate psychology" and postmodern epistemological influence {"knowledge construction"}. As FAIR, I think we should focus more on resisting "race consciousness" in general and "critical race consciousness" in particular. That is the more effective counter to what they are "selling" in my mind ... not "race essentialism" so much. :-)
Largely agree, except in that sentence, I thought EBS was squarely associated with the field (example paper: https://www.asanet.org/more-prejudice-restatement-reflections-and-new-directions-critical-race-theory), whereas Ian Haney Lopez, in my mind, is more associated with the “Race-Class Narrative” project, which I personally see as a partial, but not far enough, challenge to common CRT notions about the limits of liberal democracy to end racial inequality.
Associated, yes … and working from the same “conflict theory” …yet refers there to his “social system approach”.
My point is that we need to be careful — at FAIR — of not painting everything that *sounds* like “CRT” *as* “CRT” if we are to live up to our mission of seeking common understanding. That became clear to me after *actually* reading people like EBS.
Thanks for the additional insight. I imagine this could be a helpful conversation over tea! Cheers.
Agree!! And not everything associated with CRT is automatically wrong/bad, just needs to be evaluated skeptically and in detail. Sometimes there is wheat in the chaff, sometimes the whole thing is rotten… takes critical thought and an open mind.