Bradly Mason

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 Dr. Shenvi’s recent post, “Dr. Bronner Responds.” I do love and respect Dr. Shenvi as a brother and I hope that none are taking this as personal. I have also agreed not to say that Dr. Shenvi is “misleading” people, as many have taken this to imply intentionality, which I do not believe. 

Dr. Shenvi’s Work and My Intent

First, let us begin with what Dr. Shenvi has argued throughout his articles, lectures, and interviews; this is important for identifying what ideology he is attempting to characterize with his four “core tenets.”

Over the last few years, new terms like “cisgender,” “intersectionality,” “heteronormativity,” “centering,” and “white fragility” have suddenly entered our cultural lexicon—seemingly out of nowhere. In reality, these words and concepts have been working their way through academia for decades, perpetuated by disciplines such as Post-Colonial Studies, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Whiteness Studies, and Critical Race Theory, among others. These fields can be placed within the larger discipline of “critical theory,” an ideology more popularly known as “cultural Marxism.” (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/)

Like many broad philosophical movements, critical theory can be difficult to define. It originated with the Frankfurt school in the 1930s but has evolved considerably since then. In all its iterations, it is principally concerned with hegemonic power and how that power is wielded by dominant groups. However, rather than tracing its historical development, I find it useful to characterize modern critical theory according to its affirmation of several fundamental premises: [Followed by a variant of his usual construction, her called “core commitments.”] (https://freethinkingministries.com/critical-theory-christianity/)

What is critical theory and why should we care?

Critical theory is a set of beliefs or ideas that is foundational to many different disciplines in the humanities: Gender Studies, Cultural Studies, Critical Race Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Feminist Studies, Anthropology, Literary Criticism. It’s also the ideology at the heart of large segments of the secular, social justice movement. Like any broad philosophical movement, critical theory can be hard to define. Rather than focusing on its historical origins, I think a better approach is to identify the set of basic principles shared by most contemporary proponents of critical theory, particularly those at the forefront of cultural activism like Robin DiAngelo. [Again, the construction follows.] (https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/)

People use many different terms to describe what I think is the same underlying ideology: ‘identity politics’, ‘cultural Marxism’, ‘intersectionality’. Jordan Peterson calls it: ‘postmodern Neomarxism.’ James refers to it as ‘applied postmodernism’ or by the humorous moniker ‘grievance studies.’ I personally like the term ‘critical theory.’ Academics talk routinely about ‘critical theory’ and self-identify as ‘critical theorists’ whereas I’ve never heard an academic self-identify as a ‘cultural Marxist.’ But ultimately, we shouldn’t obsess about what label we use; we should just examine the underlying ideas.

If I had to summarize this ideology in one sentence, I’d say that it divides the world into oppressed groups and oppressor groups based on hegemonic power (that is, the power to shape society’s norms and values) and aims to liberate the oppressed.” That’s the ideology that all these terms are trying to describe.

… I like to think about critical theory in terms of a few main premises: [followed by a variant of the fourfold construction.] (https://shenviapologetics.com/notes-for-unbelievable-interview-with-esther-oreilly-and-james-lindsay/)

I’ve written extensively on critical theory elsewhere, but for now, I merely want to point out that it isn’t a shadowy conspiracy theory that involves the Illuminati, Lizard People, and copious amounts of tinfoil. Instead, critical theory forms the basis for numerous academic disciplines such as critical pedagogy, critical race theory, gender studies, and queer theory. (https://shenviapologetics.com/cultural-marxism-and-critical-theory-a-friendly-response-to-ameen-hudson/)

Critical theory is an ideology that divides the world into oppressed groups and their oppressors and aims to liberate the oppressed. [He then quotes Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado (critical race theorists), Beverly Daniel Tatum, and others.] (https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-within-evangelicalism/)

Brad could acknowledge that such an ideology exists, but could deny that it’s properly called ‘critical theory.’ Again, I can provide quotes justifying this designation, but I’m willing to employ another phrase like ‘critical social justice’ or ‘critical race theory,’ since these are used as well. (https://shenviapologetics.com/dialogue-with-bradly-mason-part-1/)

As a result, and given that neither Dr. Shenvi nor I are experts in the field, I decided to ask some who are experts whether his “tenets” are in fact the “core tenets” of “contemporary critical theory” and, more, are they even proper characterizations individually? Many, apparently, do not think this is important. I think it is VERY important. As I’ve written multiple times,

If one is going to attribute CT to an evangelical’s beliefs in order to claim dangerous influence, one is required to attribute that which is distinctive to the tradition, not simply that which is included, though common to other and much earlier traditions.

To my lights, one must either (1) accurately characterize and distinguish before attempting attribution to others, or (2) just critique individual ideas without attempting to attribute an ideology. As such, from the very beginning, my critique has not been that critical theory is righteous and just and consistent with Christianity (I’ve written the opposite), but that Dr. Shenvi’s construction is not the core of any critical theory.

The Content of my Emails

Given the list of quotes from Shenvi’s articles above, and wishing to seek the advice of scholars in the field, I sent the following email to several fitting the description:

Given that you yourself have been cited throughout his attempts to characterize critical theories [modified depending on whether they have], I thought I might go out on a limb and just ask for your thoughts.

In short, he offers the following characterization:

The core tenets of contemporary critical theory are:

1. Society is divided into dominant, oppressor groups and subordinate, oppressed groups along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, gender identity, etc…

2. Oppression is not defined only in terms of violence, but in terms of dominant groups (whites, the rich, men, heterosexuals, Christians, etc…) imposing their values on subordinate groups (people of color, the poor, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, non-Christians, etc…).

3. We should expose and dismantle the values and structures of dominant groups. Racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and transphobia are all forms of oppression that must be dismantled.

4. ‘Social location’ determines our access to truth. In particular, oppressed people have special access to the truth through their lived experience, while members of oppressor groups are blinded by their privilege.

(See, for example: https://shenviapologetics.com/dialogue-with-bradly-mason-part-1/ . He has likewise expanded on these supposed tenets in other longer pieces, including https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-and-christianity-part-1/.)

I and others have argued that these “core tenets” are (1) individually misleading as stated, and misrepresentative of critical traditions, (2) do not represent the actual “core” of Critical Theory, critical social theories, nor Critical Race Theory in particular, and (3) these “tenets” themselves do not accurately distinguish “contemporary critical theory” from traditional theories, both those preceding (e.g., Douglass, Du Bois, Julia Anna Cooper, etc.) and running parallel to critical theories (e.g., egalitarian liberalism).

Given the importance of this discussion within evangelicalism, I am hoping you might be willing to comment on Dr. Shenvi’s fourfold construction above, especially whether they are accurate, definitive, and/or distinguishing—do they represent the “core tenets of contemporary critical theory”? Do they accurately represent the core of your own work? [Last sentence removed if their work has not been cited by Shenvi.]

Okay, so what is here?

(1) Shenvi’s own words and links to his articles for reference and fuller context.

(2) The statement that I and others do not believe his tenets are the core of “Critical Theory, critical social theories, nor Critical Race Theory in particular.”

(3) A request of the recipient: “I am hoping you might be willing to comment on Dr. Shenvi’s fourfold construction above, especially whether they are accurate, definitive, and/or distinguishing—do they represent the ‘core tenets of contemporary critical theory’?” (It has been my intent all along to dispute this very point.)

I am at a loss as to where the supposed “error” is here. And to claim that Dr. Shenvi has not been attempting to characterize “critical theories” (plural), a point on which he is currently camping, is plainly false, in light of his many quotes above; see, e.g.,

It originated with the Frankfurt school in the 1930s but has evolved considerably since then. In all its iterations, it is principally concerned with hegemonic power and how that power is wielded by dominant groups. [Emphasis his]

… Post-Colonial Studies, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Whiteness Studies, and Critical Race Theory, among others. These fields can be placed within the larger discipline of “critical theory,” an ideology more popularly known as “cultural Marxism.”

…critical theory forms the basis for numerous academic disciplines such as critical pedagogy, critical race theory, gender studies, and queer theory.

I’m willing to employ another phrase like ‘critical social justice’ or ‘critical race theory,’ since these are used as well….

Either he is talking about various “critical theories” in these posts, or he is now claiming there is one very modern critical theory that retroactively has informed whole fields of critical theory past. Or, more likely, he is just drawing the lines of what he is addressing ever tighter to avoid the obvious objection that what he has been attempting to characterize is not critical theory as such, nor any “critical theory” as such, but a few ideas from a specific group of modern scholars (ignoring also that every one of them believes there is something identifiable which makes their theories properly “critical,” and they tell us what it is.)

(I might also add that the specific email sent to Dr. Bronner only attributed characterizing “critical theories” [plural] to me.

But, as I’ve shown, Shenvi has most definitely been trying to characterize “critical theories” [plural] for months anyhow, and this addition only goes to his claim that I was somehow “misleading” Dr. Bronner.)

Scholar Responses, Bronner in Particular

Next, I hear back from some of these scholars:

These so-called tenets read to me as caricature. They carry minor grains of truth, but they simplify and obscure. … no, I don’t think they capture the “core” of critical social theories. I think the Intro to my book gets closer to doing that “properly.” (Dr. Bradley A Levinson)

I would only guess that our clarifications & responses would be further distorted by those with an interest in distorting them. (Dr. Muarianne Adams)

It sounds like your community is engaged in some deep dialogue, which is wonderful to hear about. That said, there are enough problematic elements in the 4-point summary of critical theory below, that I would not [be] able to substantively engage in each point over email. Nor would it be possible to explain the problematic summarizations themselves without those interested in critical theory engaging in fuller academic study of the subject. (Dr. Ozlem Sensoy)

Thank you for your message. I know that there are people who disagree with my writing (and that of others), and Dr. Shenvi, in his summary of “contemporary critical theory”, seems not to have understood it.  However, I am not inclined to try to explain again via e-mail that which I have explained quite clearly in my books.  I encourage those who have questions to read what I have written. (Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum [received yesterday])

[Update: see also, “A Critical Caricature? : Dr. Peggy McIntosh Responds to Dr. Shenvi’s Characterization of Critical Theory.“]

Now, to the current matter, Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner. Remember, the substance is the same email:

(1) Shenvi’s own words and links to his articles for reference and fuller context.

(2) The statement that I and others do not believe his tenets are the core of “Critical Theory, critical social theories, nor Critical Race Theory in particular.”

(3) A request of the recipient, “I am hoping you might be willing to comment on Dr. Shenvi’s fourfold construction above, especially whether they are accurate, definitive, and/or distinguishing—do they represent the ‘core tenets of contemporary critical theory’?”

Dr. Bronner then responds with what I published in my last post. Knowing that his perspective is clearly Frankfurt, I premised the quotation of his email in my post with,

Though his approach is very traditional and rooted in the Frankfurt tradition, I do believe his voice and perspective is nevertheless important in contemporary discussions of critical social theories. [Emphasis added] Nearly every (if not every) book on critical social theory identifies the Frankfurt tradition as the source of critical theories and still a defining perspective of what makes theories properly “critical.” Dr. Levinson begins with Frankfurt when defining “critical social theory” in his own work (see “Demystifying Theory, Demystifying Critical” in Beyond Critique), and Sensoy and DiAngelo likewise acknowledge the same:

Our analysis of social justice is based on a school of thought known as Critical Theory. Critical Theory refers to a body of scholarship that examines how society works, and is a tradition that emerged in the early part of the 20th century from a group of scholars at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany (because of this, this body of scholarship is sometimes also called “the Frankfurt School”). These theorists offered an examination and critique of society and engaged with questions about social change. Their work was guided by the belief that society should work toward the ideals of equality and social betterment. (Is Everyone Really Equal?, p. 25)

We read also in Patricia Hill Collins’ most recent book, Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory, that,

The Critical Theory advanced by Frankfurt school scholars provides an important benchmark for subsequent discussions of critical social theory. Other perspectives build on its foundation, identifying various aspects of the concerns of Frankfurt school scholars as foundational to critical social theory writ large (Agger 2013; Bohman 2016; Calhoun 1995; Held 1980). (Location 1382)

(See also the modern influence of Angela Davis, in her own right a Frankfurt theorist.)

That is, I acknowledged that his perspective is Frankfurt from the very outset, yet argue that it is “nevertheless” relevant. I am surprised that Shenvi noting it is Frankfurt is a source of scandal; I said so from the start. Again, as I wrote, his perspective is in fact Frankfurt School; but I do think it is nevertheless very important given that “contemporary” critical theorists likewise think it is very important; Sensoy and DiAngelo say their “analysis of social justice” is based on it, Collins calls it “an important benchmark for subsequent discussion of critical social theory,” and Levinson argues similarly.

There were no shenanigans here, and I am bewildered that Shenvi and others seem to think there is.

Conclusion

The fact of the matter is, when DiAngelo and Sensoy give a “Brief Overview of Critical Theory,” stating that their view of social justice is based on it, they do not give Shenvi’s “core tenets”; when Levinson gives “defining characteristics” of critical social theory—including the group of scholars on whom Shenvi claims to base his construction—he does not give Shenvi’s construction; when Stefancic and Delgado answer (in more than one place), “What is critical race theory?,” they do not give Shenvi’s construction; and when both traditional and contemporary critical theorists are presented with his construction, they deny that they are “core tenets of contemporary critical theory” and call them misrepresentations. And these are the very scholars he claims he is characterizing!

I am not sure what else a layman is to do. I’ve read the works Shenvi cites and they don’t present his “tenets” as a “core,” as definitive, as a representative overview, nor as an answer to “What is…?” Further, when I read the works in question, it appears to me that Shenvi is also misstating their individual ideas. Dr. Shenvi nevertheless remains committed to his description. So, last, I decide the best course is to ask the actual scholars being discussed, “do they [Shenvi quote] represent the ‘core tenets of contemporary critical theory’?,” to which they reply, “no.”

How is the scandal here not Dr. Shenvi inaccurately presenting supposed “core tenets of contemporary critical theory” in many articles, speeches, and interviews, all with the intent to sound an alarm about individuals within the Church? I myself have critiqued critical theory from a Christian perspective, so I am not intent upon defending it. But when it comes to attributing it to other evangelicals, the burden is high to (1) properly characterize critical theory and distinguish it from other traditions and (2) prove that evangelicals hold to this unique ideology once identified and don’t just share in common some of the non-distinguishing ideas.

This conversation can be had in the Church, but not with such dogged commitment to one’s own characterization. Maybe just pick one of the definitions, or identifying descriptions, offered by the critical theorists Shenvi claims to be characterizing? Any of them would be a better start. (He has rejected this offer.)

A Couple Reactions to Shenvi’s Email Exchange

In Brad’s email to you, he didn’t mention that I had stated that there are many critical theories, not just one critical theory. (Shenvi)

Again, in the email I said, “critical theories,” “Critical Theory,” “critical social theories,” and “critical race theory,” and attributed directly to Shenvi, “contemporary critical theory,” and gave links.

Whether they are actually “critical” — or, better, whether they privilege “critique” and the dialectical method is another matter. (Bronner)

Dr. Bronner thinks that many modern ideas called “critical theory” are not properly “critical,” but post-structural (as he stated at the beginning of the email I posted). I certainly did not suggest otherwise, just that it was still “nevertheless” important, as I explicitly said.

2. To clarify, was I correct that your original comments were applicable to the “classical” critical theory of the Frankfurt School, but were not as applicable to “critical theories” in the broader sense, such as those advanced by the scholars I cited? (Shenvi)

2) Yes: my original comments were applicable to classical critical theory rather than “critical theories” in the broader sense (Bronner)

I agree (and I agreed) and wrote specifically of the same. I pointed to contemporary critical theorists—specifically, Levinson, Sensoy, DiAngelo, and Collins—to demonstrate that the Frankfurt School tradition is “nevertheless” quite relevant to modern critical theories. See again also, from Bronner’s email to me, his direct reaction to Dr. Shenvi’s four “tenets”:

Insistence upon “social location” as decisive is just another way of invoking the need for relativism and sabotaging a utopian perspective; challenging the idea that violence is not the only form of domination is as old as religion and the critique of it; this view has nothing which is unique to critical theory; the division of society into dominant/subaltern classes is also as old as the hills, and has more to do with different forms of populism than critical theory.

I highly doubt Dr. Bronner thinks that “contemporary critical theory” is as old as the hills.

Follow @AlsoACarpenter