Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (or CRT for short) has become a divisive political topic in the United States and across the globe, with political conservatives exposing it as an argument to delegitimize progressive thought. In this article we investigate what Critical Race Theory is, why it has become an instrument of political criticism, and how this is relevant to veganism.

What is it?

Critical Race Theory is one of those ideologies that's hard to define succinctly because there's not a lot of central authority or a clear universal definition, unlike Veganism. However, there is extensive enough scholarship and prescriptive practice to establish a general definition.

To understand what CRT is, it's important to understand where it comes from because it's a reactionary movement (much as veganism is a reaction to Carnism). CRT stems from the period after civil rights reforms as an evaluation of race in society and culture in attempt the answer the question of why racial disparities persisted despite liberal attempts at a colorblind system. Fundamentally, it's a departure from liberal beliefs of colorblindness in law which it regards as ineffective. It advances the idea that we live in a white-dominated society, and that racism benefits whites so the majority white dominated culture is motivated to maintain racist systems, and because of this non-whites will not be capable of prospering in the same way whites are because of this indelible structural racism built into the system at every level. This structural racism needs not by necessity be intentional on the part of any individual, it has more to do with the point of how it benefits whites at the expense of people of color.

Principal Beliefs

To simplify the implications and premises necessary to understand CRT, here is a rough approximation of the necessary axioms of Critical Race Theory and their conclusions:

There are races

CRT necessitates that there are races which are real in some substantive sense beyond perception and social construct, and that those races possess certain fundamental qualities unrelated to mere race perception that cause them to prosper differently in different systems. Difference in success is not just due to individual racism e.g. in hiring by racist bosses. This assumption is necessary to reject color-blind solutions (the rejection thereof is the foundation and origin of CRT). If those differences in outcome were only caused by subjective prejudices due to perceived race, then color-blind solutions would stand a very good chance of success if implemented properly. This is fundamentally the same belief about race that ethnonationalists hold.

To be clear, many CRT scholars have attempted to claim they believe races to be "social constructs". However, in examining the credibility of those claims it's necessary to assess the gulf between words and actions, and the deductive necessity of the underlying belief in *actual* races. It is credible that some CRT advocates may believe races to be non-biological in nature, instead preferring a "nurture" based explanation to necessary fundamental racial differences which includes upbringing and cultural identity. However, if they believe these to be the differences causing differing levels of success (for example, the plausible but controversial/unproven "acting white" hypothesis[1], discussed more here.) they seem to have little to no interest in identifying and rectifying those differences. Whether this disinterest in examining cultural causes of differing outcomes is fear of "victim blaming" or the belief that culture is sacrosanct is a distinction without a difference -- nor is the distinction between cultural aspects and biology -- in any case it amounts to what they would regard as fundamental and immutable qualities of a race which leads to the fixation on systemic discrimination of some kind as the only acceptable cause worthy of consideration.

To be clear, the Philosophical Vegan community does not endorse this position and holds the position that any racial beliefs beyond medical ones (e.g. higher rate of Sickle Cell Anemia among patients from African decent, people of light complexion more prone to skin cancer) to be pseudoscientific and without evidence. Because there is no evidence of race, the null hypotheses for the cause of racial disparities should be racism from perceived race and issues like poverty and lead exposure which can be resolved through colorblind policies. Ascribing any other cause would require evidence that neither CRT advocates nor ethnonationalists provide.

Those races' interests are in conflict and the minority always loses

Critical Race Theorists believe that white people (or in theory the dominant race in any culture) are inherently motivated to benefit themselves at the expense of other races, either consciously or unconsciously, and will always create and maintain systems that are hostile to people of color in a way that they can't get ahead and achieve racial equality. CRT teaches that white people will only allow people of color to prosper when it benefits them, the implication being that this is a rare occurrence. Essentially, the conservative claim that CRT teaches that white people are racist is unfortunately correct and has been repeatedly validated despite the attempts to obfuscate this claim with jargon in CRT apologia. The only caveat is that the definition of "racism" CRT advocates use is different from what conservatives assume (e.g. a man in a white hood saying the N-word and burning crosses in front of black churches) CRT teaches fundamentally the same belief of ethnonationalists in this respect, except where ethnonationalists believe in a coming race war, CRT teaches that this will result in an indefinite perpetuation of oppression of people of color.

To be clear, the Philosophical Vegan community does not endorse either of these positions and holds the position that racism and racist policies are harmful to society at large and the vast majority of everybody.

The solution to this is race based equity policies

Because they believe people of color can not get ahead in a white colonial society in a color-blind way, CRT advocates prescribe a race equity solution where people must be categorized by race and given advantages if categorized as oppressed (or conversely given handicaps if oppressor, likely in the form of taxation on white people for being white) to result in racial equity (equality of outcomes in terms of racial averages). However, CRT proponents are not very policy-minded and rarely outline clear solutions.

The nature of the prescriptive solution is where CRT and ethnonationalist beliefs diverge: the enthonationalist solution is to segregate races into their own nations where they believe they will all do best (and end or prevent the race war). Incidentally, the ethnonationalist solution is compatible with CRT beliefs, and given the number of people who *would* take up arms over a "white tax", the ethnonationalist account may be more plausible -- this is particularly true because based on the CRT belief that white people will not act against their racist interests such a white tax could not come about democratically in a white majority and would have to be the result of violence (e.g. the race war ethnonationalists believe in). It is not clear how Critical Race Theorists resolve these contradictions in their prescriptions, though it is fortuitous that they don't join forces with ethnonationalist racists.

To be clear, the Philosophical Vegan community does not endorse either of these positions and holds that the vast majority of people are probably not racists (in any substantive sense that would prevent equal regard for rights), that most hold racism to be abhorrent, and want constitutionally legal colorblind reforms to end racist hiring practices, to help people out of multigenerational poverty, and end childhood lead exposure and other human welfare issues regardless of racial category. Because we do not accept the psuedoscience of race or fundamental racial differences, we have no reason not to accept a null-hypothesis of optimism in supporting democratic reform for the good of all -- one that has the knock-on effect of resolving racial disparities. This is explained more in alternatives to CRT.

Lack of scientific basis

Many of the ideas in CRT are interesting and may be worthy of consideration, but unfortunately these claims come with no evidence and avoid testable hypotheses, and within CRT there is actually an anti-scientific bias which rejects these modalities with something akin to circular reasoning.

Broadly, advocates of CRT reject the idea of measurable evidence and testable hypotheses themselves on the basis that these are dominant white modes of thinking in social science -- modes which they believe tend to exclude people of color. In other words, asking for evidence or testable claims amounts to racist expectations, invalidating the criticism from the perspective of the CRT advocate. This makes criticizing CRT functionally impossible without being charged with supporting latent racism, and thus, CRT in effect declares itself immune from any sort of criticism regardless of objective validity (a modality they reject).

In place of measurable evidence and testable hypotheses, CRT emphasizes story telling, metaphor, and other art projects. Among social sciences, a realm of already soft science, CRT stands out as uniquely unscientific. CRT has been widely criticized in academic circles for taking a post-modern approach to objectivity and truth (I.O.W. rejecting them), but most of the criticism stops there because credible science-minded academics don't see the point in going beyond this: If CRT is an untestable and unscientific hypothesis, then there's no point in looking into it more until that changes because nothing else that follows has any more basis in objective reality. Unfortunately, this means of thinking leaves the majority of its assertions and claims unexamined and leaves CRT free to spread those ideas unchallenged among the general public (and particularly among students in the social sciences) in much the same way religious fundamentalist opposition to solid scientific theories like evolution has been left unchallenged in the public eye until new atheism.

Unfortunately, unlike the case of relatively apolitical new atheism taking on far right fundamentalist and far left spiritual anti-science, the relative dearth of criticism of CRT from within the left have left fertile ground for criticism by politically motivated conservatives, making CRT a crucial asset in the arsenal of Anti-Progressives.

Alternatives to CRT

Cultural Practice

One alternative theory to differential outcome, popularized most recently by John McWhorter, is that the disparity is largely or perhaps entirely due to attitudes in black culture rather than racist white oppression.

"victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community's response to all race-related issues," -McWhorter

"it's time for well-intentioned whites to stop pardoning as 'understandable' the worst of human nature whenever black people exhibit it." -McWhorter

This is not an uncommon view among successful black Americans who grew up in the U.S. and experienced things like the "acting white" phenomena:

"Children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." -Barack Obama

Evidence

The "Acting white" theory in particular has been broadly examined, but is difficult to find conclusive evidence for because of the complex interactions between the recognized fact of the insult and actual academic achievement. For example, it has been established that it causes anxiety among black students[2] but connecting that anxiety to lowered academic performance is difficult. It's also difficult to compare it against more universal stigma against being a "nerd" which is found among white students as well. In summary, where advocates fall short is in "connecting the dots" from the stigma to actual disproportionate effect. It remains, however, a plausible theory and there have been at least attempts to quantify and study these attitudes.

From a philosophical and psychological perspective, beyond presenting theoretically falsifiable hypotheses, theories of cultural practice have some large advantages to CRT even if they present a similar level of evidence.

Hope vs Helplessness

First, CRT presents a world view that is fundamentally helpless. Whites WILL NOT willingly allow any meaningful further progress in civil rights and racial equality, and because of your race you are fated to certain outcomes that are rigged in every level of society. It doesn't make a difference whether that is through a conspiracy of white patriarchy or something emergent and mindless which may be even harder to address, the unassailable fatalistic aspect leaves very little room for hope or motivating change. Despite the prescriptions of CRT advocates, none of them are viable or even consistent with their core beliefs without being premised on a violent racial uprising -- an implicit at best call to action which is functionally impossible for an individual to act on, and morally problematic.

The idea of black cultural practices being responsible for disparities is very actionable on the individual level and inspires hope for change since there is nobody keeping people of color down but themselves -- and each person has power over his or her actions. Calls to action are clear with respect to staying out of trouble, performing academically, working to end the "acting white" accusation. These would all seem to be fundamentally good things, which even if they are not useful (if there is in fact a racist conspiracy) are at least very unlikely to do any harm.

Even with similar evidentiary standing and reliance on anecdotes, this difference alone should make any rational actor prefer the cultural practices theory to CRT.

Non-violence

The Philosophical Vegan community has a recognized bias against violence, but so does the history of social movements itself: non-violence has historically been the [[[Non-Violence#Efficacy|most effective strategy]] of social change by minorities against the majority. CRT rejects this evidence based narrative, substituting one of conspiratorial fatalism which implicitly can only be broken by violence at such a level (involving some kind of massive coordination between all people categorized as marginalized) it forces all whites against their wills to provide all people of color various levels of subsidization depending on racial category. The necessity of violence as the only logical conclusion of the basic premises of CRT is likely why policy matters are rarely discussed and the call to action is very limited and inconsistent. As implausible as the success of this violent uprising is, more limited violence can still cause significant harm as seen as consequence of Black Lives Matter riots on local businesses (including those owned and operated by people of color, where these riots occurred), and do service to anti-progressives who can use these events for political leverage.

Theories of black cultural factors are inherently inward directed for those most motivated to accomplish change, and also inherently non-violent, at least in theory helping to resolve unproductive anger and direct it to productive self improvement. Even if ineffective (if CRT is right), the fact of preventing ineffective violence and not fueling the conservative political machine is an immeasurable benefit of its own.

Asset to Anti-Progressives

What has been conventionally ignored by intelligent and science-minded progressives as harmless unscientific nonsense of a far left niche has turned out to be anything but harmless -- not because harm it does on its own (which is arguably a minor inconvenience and productivity loss due to ill conceived "white fragility" styled anti-racist sensitivity programs in corporate offices across the country), but because it has been exposed by conservatives as a weapon in the culture war.

While the Philosophical Vegan community tries to maintain a more apolitical and non-partisan stance (not that we don't think political issues are important) to help make sure Veganism has a widespread appeal regardless of political views, it's important to point out for people on the left the long-term ramifications of advocating for not only something potentially socially harmful but also a position that collapses when the right questions are asked. Advocating for blatant anti-science positions hurts the appeal of your movement to those who are scientifically literate, and hands more ammunition to your opposition. Similiar with anti-Nuclear power nonsense, you will not come off as a rational, science-based consequentialist, but rather as an ideologue who only cares about advancing goals not based on reality.

Relevance to Veganism

Similar to ideas such as anti-natalism, overt misanthropy, and deontological ethics, it is potentially harmful to the vegan movement to be advocating CRT, as not only is it a socially harmful idea that lacks evidence and fails under scrutiny, it creates the impression that Vegans and the animal rights movement value ideology and rhetoric over empirical evidence and reason. Veganism as a movement must not fall under the umbrella of becoming a partisan political issue (which unfortunately climate change has become) if it is to become a widely accepted ideal for society; Advocating partisan positions such as CRT doesn't help this.