You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Critical Theory’ tag.
Critical theory, as articulated by James Lindsay and rooted in the Frankfurt School’s intellectual project, forms the corrosive core of contemporary “woke” ideology. At its heart, it is not a constructive framework for social improvement but a methodological commitment to negation. Its aim is not to diagnose specific problems and propose reforms, but to discredit existing social arrangements by measuring them against an imagined standard of perfection that its own architects say cannot be positively described.
This orientation traces back to Max Horkheimer’s 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory. Traditional theory, he argued—drawing from the natural sciences and classical philosophies—engages with observable reality and grapples with the inevitable trade-offs embedded in human life. Critical theory rejects this approach. It evaluates the real world not against empirical evidence or feasible alternatives, but against a speculative ideal that can never be fully articulated, let alone realized. In 1969, Horkheimer reaffirmed this openly: because the ideal society cannot be conceptualized in existing terms, the only available activity is relentless critique of whatever exists. In effect, the real world is condemned for being real.
This negative idealism weaponizes the gap between the actual and the imaginary. Real societies, by necessity, require trade-offs: freedom of speech permits offensive speech; environmental protection imposes economic and temporal costs; social order requires rules, hierarchies of competence, and constraints on behavior. Critical theory interprets these trade-offs not as inherent features of human life but as intolerable flaws. It provides no functional replacement for what it seeks to dismantle. Instead, it declares that racism, class division, penal systems, borders, gender norms, or any designated “problematic” ought not to exist in the ideal world. Everything short of that unreachable ideal becomes proof of systemic oppression.
By measuring the real against an impossible standard, critical theory does not reform institutions—it erodes their legitimacy. It fosters perpetual grievance while strategically withholding any concrete alternative that could be scrutinized, tested, or judged by the same standards it applies to the world.
James Lindsay identifies three major historical ideologies that employ this same pattern of negative utopianism: communism, fascism, and political Islam. The claim is not that these movements are identical, but that they exhibit the same critical-theoretical structure:
- Communism imagines a stateless, classless society populated by “socialist man,” a type of human being who does not yet exist. Until such a person emerges, every tradition, institution, and authority is condemned as perpetuating exploitation.¹
- Fascism posits a perfectly ordered national or racial hierarchy unified around the mythic volk. Anything cosmopolitan, liberal, or “degenerate” is denounced as a betrayal of that utopian unity.²
- Political Islam (in its revolutionary form) imagines global submission to divine law. The present age is delegitimized as jahiliyyah—ignorance—and therefore unworthy of loyalty until the ideal community is imposed.³
In each case, the ideal is defined primarily by what it negates: capitalism, decadence, unbelief. And in each case, the historical results were catastrophic: gulags, war, genocide, theocratic oppression. The ideal was literally u-topian—“no place.”
Critical theory operates on precisely the same logic. Its power lies in inflaming resentment, undermining trust in existing institutions, and inducing a permanent revolutionary consciousness. It teaches adherents to view every tradition, norm, and hierarchy as illegitimate simply because it exists. It replaces trade-offs with absolutist moral demands, and flaws with indictments. It offers no blueprint for construction—only a sophisticated toolkit for deconstruction.
This is why contemporary “woke” politics behaves as it does. The endless denunciations of “systems,” “structures,” and “hegemonies”; the refusal to offer workable solutions; the moral absolutism; the perpetual expansion of grievance categories; the inability to articulate what a healthy society would look like—all reflect the same methodological negation that Horkheimer enshrined. It is criticism without end, and without responsibility.
Critical theory, in this sense, is not a path to reform but a program of societal disintegration. By demanding the impossible and attacking the real for failing to produce perfection, it generates only dissatisfaction, conflict, and institutional decay. The historical record is unambiguous: no system built on a negative utopia has ever produced anything but rubble.
To embrace critical theory is to wage war on reality under the banner of a perfection that cannot exist. That is why it must be understood clearly—and rejected root and branch.
Citations
Primary Critical Theory Sources
- Max Horkheimer, Traditional and Critical Theory (1937).
- Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays (1969).
- Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (1964).
- Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (1968).
- Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics (1966).
Historical Ideology Sources
6. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (1846); Critique of the Gotha Program (1875).
7. Benito Mussolini & Giovanni Gentile, The Doctrine of Fascism (1932).
8. Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (1964) — foundational for modern political Islam.
9. Ruhollah Khomeini, Islamic Government (1970).
Secondary Sources / Contemporary Analysis
10. James Lindsay, Cynical Theories (with Helen Pluckrose, 2020).
11. James Lindsay, The Marxification of Education (2023).
12. Roger Scruton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands (2015).
13. Paul Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism (2005).
14. Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind (2016).
15. John Gray, Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007).
Glossary of Key Terms
Critical Theory – An ideological project originating with the Frankfurt School that critiques society against an impossible ideal rather than proposing practicable reforms.
Negative Idealism – Measuring reality against a utopia that cannot be articulated or realized.
Utopia – Literally “no place”; an imagined perfect society used as a moral weapon against the real world.
Hegemony – Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural dominance; used by CT to claim that norms and values are tools of oppression.
Structural Oppression – The assertion that unjust outcomes are produced by hidden systems rather than individual actions.
Standpoint Epistemology – The belief that knowledge is tied to identity; “lived experience” is epistemically privileged.
Praxis – Activism embedded into theory; in CT, the idea that theory must produce political action.
Reification – A Marxist term meaning the naturalization of social constructs; used to claim that institutions disguise power.
Signs You Are Encountering Critical Theory in Real Life
Here are the typical markers:
1. The language of systems and structures
Phrases like:
- “systemic oppression”
- “institutional racism”
- “hegemonic norms”
- “structures of privilege”
These shift blame from individuals to invisible systems.
2. Demands for perfect equity, not equality
If disparities alone are treated as dispositive evidence of injustice, CT is operating.
3. Appeals to lived experience as decisive evidence
Personal narrative is elevated above data or argument.
4. Moral asymmetry between groups
Some identities are framed as inherently oppressive; others as inherently oppressed.
5. Critique without end, without alternatives
If someone deconstructs everything but proposes nothing testable or concrete, it’s CT.
6. Rebranding ordinary conflict as oppression
If disagreement is treated as harm, and harm as violence, CT is at work.
7. The “if it exists, it’s oppressive” rule
Traditions, norms, meritocracy, law, biology—all treated as power structures.
How to Deal With Critical Theory in an Argument
Critical Theory arguments do not operate on normal rules of evidence or rational debate. Here’s how to engage effectively, calmly, and persuasively.
1. Reintroduce Trade-Offs
CT denies trade-offs. Bring them back.
“Every policy choice has costs—what trade-offs are you proposing in exchange for your solution?”
This forces concreteness.
2. Ask for Positive Alternatives
CT collapses when it must define what it wants.
“If the current system is oppressive, what specific system would you replace it with? How would it work in practice?”
Make them articulate the utopia in concrete terms. They rarely can.
3. Reject Claims Based Solely on Disparity
Demand causal reasoning.
“A disparity doesn’t automatically indicate discrimination. What evidence shows a causal link?”
This moves the debate from ideology to empiricism.
4. Expose Moral Asymmetry
Ask:
“Why are only some groups moralized? Do individuals still have agency?”
This undermines the oppressor/oppressed binary.
5. Clarify Definitions
CT thrives on shifting definitions.
Ask:
- “What do you mean by racism?”
- “How are you defining harm?”
- “What counts as violence?”
Pinning down definitions prevents concept-hopping.
6. Refuse Standpoint Epistemology
Challenge the epistemic claim:
“Lived experience matters, but it’s not a substitute for evidence. How can we verify your claim?”
This resets the terms of rational inquiry.
7. Separate Compassion From Ideology
Many people adopt CT-infused ideas because they want to be good.
Tell them:
“Your moral concern is admirable. CT is not the only—or even the best—way to address injustice.”
This opens space for alternatives and lowers defensiveness.
This except from the essay “Intimidation Masquerading as Virtue is Chilling Free Speech” by Chanel Pfahl
Brief overview of CRT
In the simplest of terms, CRT is a particular way of looking at race relations in society. The term was originally coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, in the 1980s, and its goal was to examine the ways in which racism continued to present itself in America despite the advances that were made during the civil rights movement.
Though slavery in the United States was officially abolished in 1865, Jim Crow laws (enforcing racial segregation), and other discriminatory practices, such as prohibiting black people from living in certain neighbourhoods, remained for nearly another century. The US, and Canada, to a lesser extent, have a history of racism that cannot be denied, and exploring the ways this history might have lingering effects on people of colour today is therefore a noble endeavour.
CRT does this in a flawed, counterintuitive way, however. It rejects the “common humanity” approach to achieving social justice – the very approach that has allowed us to overcome racist attitudes and race-based discrimination in the West to the degree that we have. Further, it is explicitly opposed to liberal principles like individual rights and civil liberties. Derrick Bell, the first African American tenured law professor at Harvard, and one of the founders of CRT, stated in his 1987 book that “progress in American race relations is largely a mirage obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously, to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain their control”. Indeed, for CRT supporters, racism is viewed as the ordinary, permanent state of affairs in our society.
This cynical view is shared by contemporary CRT advocates like author Robin DiAngelo. In her book White Fragility, which sat on the New York Times Best Seller list for a year in 2020, she claims that “anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities as white people” (p.91) and says “to be less white is to be less racially oppressive” (p. 149). She even argues, in this paper, that “raising white children to be white is a form of child abuse”. Beyond revealing her own racist attitudes, which she also projects onto every other white person, DiAngelo’s “insights” are not overly illuminating. Are Canadian taxpayers aware that they have been paying for her to share her views at “antiracist” events, like this one just last month?
According to CRT, racial identity is of primary importance when it comes to determining one’s position in society. Rather than saying “you are black, I am white, but most importantly, we are both human beings, and we should therefore be treated equally”, it says “you are black, I am white, and as such you are an oppressed victim, and I am a privileged oppressor; your experience of the world is completely different from mine, and the way to bring about positive change is to draw attention to the ways in which we are different”.
Indeed, based on the CRT framework, treating everyone the same regardless of skin colour (i.e., “colourblindness”) is actually a form of covert racism, as this approach does not “centre” racial identity. This is directly opposed to the unifying message of Martin Luther King, who famously stated his dream for his four children to see the day when people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.
In fact, even racial segregation is being brought back into fashion by proponents of CRT. They say it is for the “safety” of people of colour — a space to be free from white people, or from “whiteness”, as they like to call it. Have a look at this Chicago church that decided that they were “fasting from whiteness” for Lent this year… and proudly advertised it on their front lawn!
Language games breed self-censorship
With many elements of postmodern thought baked into the theory, CRT is more concerned with “dismantling” abstract “systems of power” through “deconstructing” language than it is with actually finding material solutions to real-world problems using evidence-based analysis. This manifests, notably, as an obsessive focus on what words we should and shouldn’t use (if we are to avoid “harm” and “microaggression” accusations, or worse).
How does knowing the current “accepted” term, say between “racial minority”, “coloured people”, “racialized people”, “Black”, “BIPOC”, and “people of colour” translate to any change for this particular group of individuals? It doesn’t.
But when it becomes such a grave, racist offence to use the “wrong” words, most people would rather not mess it up. This hyperfocus on language, which does not present any real world benefit for black people, simply keeps us guessing, and stops us from saying what it is we think. It is chilling free speech.
At the same time, this insistence on politically correct terminology provides incentives for certain ambitious types to master these language games and become self-appointed members of the thought police. Generally, it is white, university educated, middle and upper class women, who have discovered that between being accused of using the wrong words — i.e., “perpetuating white supremacy” — and accusing others of using the wrong words, while benefiting from a sense of moral superiority, the latter is preferable.
It isn’t clear whether they ever stop to wonder “who is this helping, anyway?” — they simply stay up to date on the latest woke beliefs, and enforce them onto others, ruthlessly at times, while claiming to be the compassionate and inclusive ones. They probably actually believe it.
These ideologues are encouraged not only by the innocuous sounding language that covers up this divisive ideology – like “equity”, “anti-racism”, “inclusion”, etc. – but also by the complex-sounding explanations below the surface. Of course, the underlying ideas are deceptively shallow and straightforward, but being able to virtue signal by using words like “hegemony” or “intersectionality” and cite academic papers (ignoring the fact that rigour is severely lacking in these fields) is addictive for some.
Escaping the burden of proof
“Anti-racist” or “CRT” activists claim that racism permeates our society at every level in a subconscious and/or systemic way. This is tremendously useful for anyone who champions the ideology, as it allows for an easy way out of having to show evidence for their claims. After all, the alleged racism is hidden, so how are they supposed to prove its existence? Why should they be expected to? (And also, you must be racist if you think proof is required.)
If you are brave enough to ask them to substantiate their beliefs, or voice genuine disagreement, many will immediately disengage, label you or accuse you of “harm” for your truth-seeking ways.
This is what we are going up against. The primacy of stand-point epistemology(1) versus the common reality we all share is huge barrier to overcome as any sort of argument of discussion can be had. I think this is the situation that we have to prepare for when dealing with people who have been knowingly or unknowingly indoctrinated into a Critical Theory (2) mind-set.
The ‘social workers’ failed on every level to even engage in a substantive dialogue with Peter Boghossian. What was demonstrated in their failure to engage with Dr.Boghossian was an unwillingness to think outside their ideological box – they had the right answers – just count how many times the words “triggered” was used. These are proto-professionals who cannot engage with ideas that do not match their own. It’s completely fucking scary.
(1) – In summary, standpoint epistemology (and related identity-based epistemologies) are a complicated and widely discredited way to create and justify a kind of gnosticism around critical conceptions of identity and the relevant power dynamics in society. In practice, this typically means it is yet another justification within Theory for only people who agree with Theory to be considered knowledgeable authorities, which is then used to silence opposition and install “professionals” in positions of authority and power based on group identity alone—or, almost alone, as such people tend to have to present a critical consciousness, i.e., be woke Critical Social Justice activists, as well (see also, diversity and inclusion).
(2) – Max Horkheimer defined a “Critical Theory” in direct opposition to a “Traditional Theory” in a 1937 piece called Traditional and Critical Theory. Whereas a Traditional Theory is meant to be descriptive of some phenomenon, usually social, and aims to understand how it works and why it works that way, a Critical Theory should proceed from a prescriptive normative moral vision for society, describe how the item being critiqued fails that vision (usually in a systemic sense), and prescribe activism to subvert, dismantle, disrupt, overthrow, or change it—that is, generally, to break and then remake society in accordance with the particular critical theory’s prescribed vision. This use of the word “critical” is drawn from Marx’s insistence that everything be “ruthlessly” criticized and from his admonition that the point of studying society is to change it. Of note, then, a Critical Theory is only tangentially concerned with understanding or truth and has, as Hume might have it, abandoned descriptions of what is in favor of pushing for what the particular critical theory holds ought to be. The critical methodology, then, is the central object of concern, and it is the tool by which Social Justice scholarship and activism proceed.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…