Update: For my last words on Dr. Shenvi’s work, please see: “Critical Theory, Dr. Levinson, Dr. Shenvi, and Evangelicalism: Final Thoughts”
The following is in response to “Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 7.” Thank you again, brother!
Since the topic is now Shenvi’s fourfold construction, clarification is first in order:
T1: I don’t think anyone’s position is that, a priori, societies are divided into oppressor/oppressed, or that, a priori, “white” or “male” are dominant classes. The argument is that given a society structured to distribute advantages/disadvantages according to socially constructed group membership, dominant groups are in a structurally oppressive relation to subordinate groups, by virtue of said distribution. No one can doubt this was true of “white” and “male” throughout American history; and all should recognize that this is not true of societies structured along different lines. Whether one lives in such a society is an empirical, a posteriori, question, not a subject of armchair theorizing nor biblical exegesis.
T2: Neither the Bible, the dictionary, nor common usage requires “violence” for “oppression.”
T3: Systems which advantage/disadvantage according to socially constructed group identities should in fact be dismantled; God-created identities should be honored, though not in reconstructed form (see, e.g., America’s “masculine” and “feminine”).
T4: To say “social location” determines “access to truth” is misleading. Standpoint Theory’s epistemic claim relates to what counts as good evidence, not the nature of truth, its objective character, nor its public accessibility. “The claim is that members of marginalized groups are more likely to have had experiences that are particularly epistemically salient for identifying and evaluating assumptions that have been systematically obscured or made less visible as the result of power dynamics” (Kristen Intemann).
Do I believe this fourfold construction represents a specific ideology? Not so much.
Simone Weil sums up a common assumption of many social theories, ancient and modern:
Human history is simply the history of the servitude which makes men—oppressors and oppressed alike—the plaything of the instruments of domination they themselves have manufactured…. (Oppression and Liberty [1955], p. 66)
The Enlightenment was itself a project of emancipation, from the tyranny of kings, nobles, land-owners, and clergy, all by means of supposed unshackled reason (see Diderot/D’Alembert’s Encyclopédie). John Locke’s project was responding to Hobbes’ hegemonic Leviathan and Rousseau the oppression of the rich. Before Marx, Babeuf wrote a “Manifesto of Equals”; Sainte-Simone, Fourier, and Owen envisioned egalitarian utopia; Blanqui, Proudhon, and Blanc critiqued the oppressive regime of private property; and Fichte and Hess constructed the basis for Hegel’s dialectic of “Master and Slave” (“oppressor/oppressed paradigm”), later taken up by Paulo Freire.
In 1859, Mill described the tyranny of social hegemony, “more formidable than many kinds of political oppression” (On Liberty), noting particularly that “[a]ll causes, social and natural, combine” to “enslave” and oppress women (“The Subjection of Women”). Likewise, Sarah Grimke argued in 1837 that chattel-slavery was itself born of patriarchy: “The lust of dominion was probably the first effect of the fall; and as there was no other intelligent being over whom to exercise it, woman was the first victim of this unhallowed passion,” classing women as “the oppressed” (“Woman Subject Only To God”).
In 1878, Frederick Douglass described America as a “society divided into two classes, as oppressed and oppressor” along the “color line” (Selected Speeches and Writings, p. 629; dozens of quotes available). It was W.E.B. Du Bois who articulated the concept of “Double Consciousness” (1903) and “Second Sight” (1920), the basis of our “unique voice of color,” “Psychological Wage” (1935), the basis of our modern conception of White privilege, and Whiteness Studies in, e.g., “The Souls of White Folk” (1910). Dr. King spoke/wrote often of the oppressive systems created by white men—the so-called oppressor/oppressed paradigm—and even the “double disability” of “poor Negros.” “Just as the ambivalence of white Americans grows out of their oppressor status, the predicament of Negro Americans grows out of their oppressed status” (Where Do We Go From Here?, p. 173, 109).
Much earlier, Truth, Mary Terrell, Nannie Burroughs, Fannie Williams, and Julia Cooper wrote of the intersection of race and gender oppression and the unique voice of the Black Woman: “not many can more sensibly realize and more accurately tell the weight and the fret of the ‘long dull pain’ than the open-eyed but hitherto voiceless Black Woman of America” (“Our Raison D’etre” [1892]). And when Crenshaw took up this charge in the 1980’s, her legal case-studies fully justified her idea of “Intersectionality,” no less than Derek Bell’s legal theorizing on “Interest Convergence” reasonably explained the stall of Civil Rights implementation, both applying the critical methods employed by Critical Feminists and CLT before them. (Hence, CRT was born.)
Well outside the Critical tradition, Von Mises contrasted the oppressive social “bond of hegemony” to the “contractual society” (Human Action) and Libertarian Feminists identified patriarchy as class oppression.
There is nothing un-libertarian, then, in recognizing the existence of economic and/or cultural forms of oppression which, while they may draw sustenance from the state (and vice versa), are not reducible to state power. (“Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?”)
Modern Liberals and CT opponents like Rawls, Dworkin, Kymlica, Wasserstrom, and Okin sought/seek to address oppressive relations between classes/races/gender/sexuality/ability (see Rawls’ “Original Position” gedanken). According to Liberal (non-CT) Feminist Elizabeth Anderson,
The proper negative aim of egalitarian justice is not to eliminate the impact of brute luck from human affairs, but to end oppression, which by definition is socially imposed. (“What is the Point of Equality?”)
And these all just scratch the surface, leaving out many important figures and traditions. But more importantly, the Scripture is shot through with the theme, though in societies divided along different lines; see, e.g., Isa. 58:6-7; Zech. 7:9-10; Mal. 3:5; Lk. 4:16-20; James.
As for the quotes, I’m not sure what they are supposed to prove. If the topic is “threat in principle,” then quotes have nothing to do with it. If the topic is “threat” as in, “currently negatively impacting,” then some quotes is not enough. This would be a sociological question, requiring polling, questionnaires, and interviews; there are millions of evangelicals in America. If the question is, “does Brad think they are true?,” then they are literally irrelevant to Shenvi’s chosen topic.
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Bradly Mason, Part 1
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 2
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Bradly Mason, Part 3
Is Critical Theory a Thread to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 4
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Bradly Mason, Part 5
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 6
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 7
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 8
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Bradly Mason, Part 9
Is Critical Theory a Threat to Evangelicalism? – A Dialogue with Neil Shenvi, Part 10
Bradly Mason 
Bradly,
Hey, it’s me again. Thanks for the open forum that you keep here. I’ve a bit surprised that more persons are not commenting in these spaces, but I guess all the “substantial” discussion happens in Twitter spaces these days… : )
And thanks again to you and Neil for conducting this most interesting and informative debate.
“The argument is that given a society structured to distribute advantages/disadvantages according to socially constructed group membership, dominant groups are in a structurally oppressive relation to subordinate groups, by virtue of said distribution…”
The sticking point for me continues to be things like this:
If a certain family, nuclear or a bit extended, wants to continue to pass on its particular practices, meaning the language it speaks, the customs it practices, and the morality that it upholds, most persons in the world, save a man like Karl Marx, would not begrudge them this.
Most would not begrudge them this even if they mean to focus on “distributing advantages” to their own without the intended result of “distributing disadvantages” as well!
In other words, they do not necessarily let certain people who are not “of them” live in their homes for indefinite amount of times, they do not necessarily worry about only moving out of the high-crime area when they can take all of the other neighbors they can trust with them, and they also do not do things like read to all the other children in the neighborhood at bed time (even if perhaps they do try to make a “little free library” or something like this). All of these things might arguably be good things that, in an ideal world would be attempted, but very few of us are going to jump down their throats for making the hard decisions they make.
Now, let’s try this:
If a certain ethnic group, very similar by blood or perhaps a bit “racially mixed”, wants to continue to pass on its particular practices, meaning the language it speaks, the customs it practices, and the morality that it upholds, most persons in the world would not begrudge them this.
Correct? I mean, we all like Wakanda.
OK then.
Let’s take matters to the next level:
If a certain ethnic group is excited to have their most prominent leaders and figureheads marry prominent persons from other ethnic groups in order to facilitate the combining of their groups into one – not to have two separate cultures (which doesn’t work if you don’t have some fences), but to begin the process of forming a very real hybrid culture of sorts – how are we going to feel about them wanting to not necessarily involve a lot of other ethnic groups in the process as they try and make this happen? (one could also try to become more diverse in the way that Reihan Salam advises in his book “Melting Pot or Civil War” where very few immigrants seemingly capable of becoming middle class are allowed in to a country and then more or less isolated at they are forced to assimilate, a la “when in Rome do as the Romans do”). Is that oppression?
And what if one of these groups is not as powerful in terms of population size, for instance, and the larger group feels strongly that their language and their culture, etc. is not even necessarily superior in an objective sense, but is simply the one they really prefer and do not want to part with (even as they also really are eager to be respectful of other culture practices, and to see what is good, true, and beautiful in them and incorporate them wherever they can?) What if they insist on basically using their language, and the smaller ethnic group, the minority, is alright with this? Is that oppression?
(also, what if religious groups have a very rich tradition, like the Eastern Othodox communities, and they do this kind of thing… oppression?)
We don’t even need to talk about this in terms of the “dominant culture of the United States” for example. Preferences like these may differ from region to region. There is a good reason why the Czechs and the Slovaks had their “velvet divorce” in 1993, shortly after being freed from the shackles of communism. It’s not that they hated each other – its just that they wanted to remain two different “nations” because they value their ethnic heritage, language, etc.
In this case are they both oppressors?
What is wrong with all of this? The only real alternative, it seems to me, is to have new ethnic groups form through wars of conquest, where the victor takes the spoils, including the women and children they please from the conquered persons. My impression is that this is how new ethnic groups have typically formed in world history (or at least here we have the transformation of existing ethnic groups who continue to be recognized as that group by others).
It seems to me that in order for anyone who practices CT or CRT to be convincing about how their theories are beneficial and not just aimed at overthrowing the “oppressor” that is any group that wants to maintain its way and form of life (i.e. “dominant group”), questions like these need to be addressed and dealt with intelligently and carefully.
+Nathan
LikeLike
Hey, I’ve been reading this series and your comments – has Brad responded to them at all in private messaging or what not?
I’m not sure I understand exactly what this comment is getting at, though – could you provide some real-world examples of what you’re alluding to?
LikeLike