I’ve been trying to write this for a few days now, and as the deadline approaches (yes, I’m writing this on a deadline, which is probably the only reason it’s up on the website right now instead of sitting half finished in Google Docs), I find that the way I’ve been trying to write it just doesn’t work. I’ve been trying to word this article almost like a textbook chapter, as if I’m some kind of expert here to bestow my knowledge on the uneducated masses. That’s not the kind of article I want to write. I’m not an expert. I’m someone who took a class and now wants to talk about what I learned and what it made me think about. With that in mind, instead of lecturing everyone, I’m going to start by introducing myself.
You can call me Dollie. I’ve lived in a suburban neighborhood in Canada all my life. I am a cradle Catholic, but spent some time as a self-identified “Christian omnitheist” as a teenager, during which I joined my school’s GSA and met some very nice LGBT folks who I am unfortunately no longer in contact with. I’m White, middle class, and able-bodied (although I do have ADHD - my deepest apologies if you’ve sent me an email and I haven’t responded). As I write this, I’m finishing the final year of my psychology degree, after which I’ll be studying social work. My faith is a very important part of my life, as is social justice. In order to prepare myself for a career as a social worker, I’ve taken a few courses on social justice, the latest of which was an antiracism class taught from a secular, “woke” perspective.
In recent years, “critical race theory” has become a bit of a buzzword in conservative circles, and, by extension, in Catholic circles. A quick search of Catholic Answers reveals several pieces from Catholic apologists against critical racism and a “woke” mentality. But what do the adherents of “critical race theory” actually believe? Is it necessary, or even fair, for Catholics to completely reject their perspective? My view after taking an antiracism class is that the theories and perspectives associated with critical race theory can indeed be useful for talking about racism and other oppressions.
Before I proceed to the main points of this article, I’d like to clarify what “critical race theory” means. Critical Theory is an area of scholarship that analyzes how society works and how social conditions are affected by various historical and cultural forces.1Critical Theory is skeptical of liberal humanism’s emphasis on individual autonomy due to a belief that emphasizing individual freedom conceals the social structures that marginalize people and restrict their choices.2 “Critical race theory” therefore refers to a way of thinking about race and racism that is rooted in Critical Theory.
In this article, I’m going to address some common arguments I’ve seen against critical race theory. My goal here is not to “debunk” these arguments, but to share what I’ve learned; even if you come away thinking “this is still nonsense, but I understand it better now,” I will have achieved my goal. As the first chapter of the course’s textbook explained, sometimes “I disagree” actually means “I don’t understand."3 It’s important to realize when this is the case and sincerely engage with differing viewpoints in order to arrive at a place of actually understanding what you are disagreeing with and why. Without further ado, I’ll get right into the main points:
Argument one: Not every action or circumstance that disadvantages people of colour is motivated by racism. By attributing so many things to racism, critical race theory assumes malice where there is none.
A major factor behind this criticism is how language is used. How do we define racism? Deacon Harold Burke-Silvers, who has written on how Catholics ought to respond to racism, provided an explanation that I think is fairly representative of how most Catholics would define racism:
"So the first thing we have to recognize as Catholics is that racism is a sin. Very, very clear teaching rooted in the word of God. And so, in order for us to formulate a response, we have to differentiate racism from prejudice, okay. So, prejudice with regard to race is a preconceived notion about someone that’s not based on any factual or objective experience, but just based on just what you think. And racism is that same thing, prejudice and discrimination, rooted in the belief that my race is superior to your race. So let me give you an example. . . Back before COVID, when I was speaking, someone found out that I did my undergraduate degree at Notre Dame. And so they looked at me, they said, “Oh, you went to Notre Dame, what position did you play?” You see? Because here’s the calculus in their mind, big Black guy plus Notre Dame equals football. Now, that was a prejudiced statement because it was based on not any fact or experience, he just saw. Now that wasn’t racist, why? In order for that statement to be racist, he would have to set it with the thinking that I’m saying this because I believe that my race is superior to your race. See? That’s racism."4
To summarize, Deacon Burke-Silvers defines racism as prejudice (defined as preconceived notions not rooted in fact) and discrimination (which he does not explicitly define) that is motivated by a belief in the superiority of one’s own race. This definition distinguishes between prejudice and racism by determining intent: an act of prejudice is racist only if it is rooted in a belief of racial superiority.
The definition of racism I learned in my antiracism course also distinguishes between racism and prejudice, but it does so in a different way. Similarly to Deacon Burke-Silvers, my textbook defines “prejudice” as a simplistic, uninformed assumption or judgement about members of another group.5 Discrimination is defined as “action based on prejudice,” 6 which also seems to match up with Deacon Burke-Silvers’ definition. However, the textbook also defines a third term that isn’t mentioned in the above-quoted passage: oppression.
Oppression is prejudice and discrimination directed from one group (the dominant group) to another (the minoritized group) and enforced by institutional power.7 Prejudice becomes oppression when it occurs on a societal scale and is backed up by the dominant group’s current and historical power in society.8 We can see one example of oppression in the Bible, in the Book of Esther: Haman’s actions are rooted in prejudice against Mordecai’s Jewish religion, but he is only able to enact his prejudice into a royal decree because the Jews’ status as a “people scattered and separated among the peoples”9 means that very few Jews are in a position of power that would allow them to resist being formally categorized as a threat to the kingdom. This is antisemitism, a form of oppression that is still evident today.
Importantly, it is not the level of destruction or malice that makes something oppression, but the fact that there is a power imbalance between the dominant and minoritized groups. So, violence against Jews is antisemitism, but so are more everyday effects of power imbalance, like a Jewish student being expected to hand in assignments during important Jewish holidays because the structure of the school year was created with the culturally Christian majority in mind. In this example, nobody is actively motivated by prejudice, but the way the school year is structured reflects a prejudiced assumption that everyone celebrates their culturally important holidays at the same time. This assumption becomes oppression when it is ingrained into social structures such as the school system.
Everyday effects of oppression, like the example above, are obviously nowhere near as dangerous and destructive as more overt acts of discrimination. However, a critical theorist would argue that the former still causes harm by perpetuating oppression and reinforcing the cultural assumptions that make more visible forms of oppression possible10 I would compare it to the difference between resenting someone and murdering them: they are vastly different actions on vastly different scales, but they both stem from the same source, and one can lead to the other.
Racism, from the critical race theory perspective, is a type of oppression.11 Through this lens, the example of prejudice that Deacon Burke-Silvers gives is an example of racism, because the man’s assumption that a Black man who went to Notre Dame must have played football occurs within a cultural context in which anti-Black prejudice is and has been ingrained into the culture. Note that this doesn’t say anything about the man’s intentions or character: racism, in this view, is societal rather than personal, so the fact that he said something racist doesn’t mean he’s a bad person who wants to cause harm. What it does mean is that he should think about why he made that assumption.
I should clarify that I’m not saying Deacon Burke-Silvers is wrong about what he experienced, or that he’s using the word “racism” the wrong way. Words can mean different things in different contexts. The distinction he makes between innocent and malicious prejudice is a useful distinction, but it’s important to understand that that’s not the distinction many academics and activists are making when they talk about racism. When these groups talk about racism being present in every aspect of society, their intention usually isn’t to claim that there’s some sort of widespread conspiracy of overt hostility against ethnic minorities. Instead, they’re saying that our society has historically centred the values and experiences of White people and discriminated against people of colour, and that this imbalance of power continues to influence our culture.
A related subject of miscommunication is “reverse racism,” sexism against men, and other proposed “-isms” against dominant groups. Many people are confused at the statement that “reverse racism” doesn’t exist and that people of colour can’t be racist against White people. This may be because, under Deacon Burke-Silvers’ definition of racism, which seems to be more widespread than the alternative, there’s no reason why people of colour couldn’t be racist against White people. After all, anyone is capable of believing that their own race is superior. Suggesting otherwise seems equivalent to denying that minorities are human beings who are capable of sinning. It’s important to remember that most people who say that White people can’t experience racism are defining racism as an oppression. They are aware that people of colour can be prejudiced, but are making the distinction that, in our society, people of colour don’t have the societal power to enforce their prejudice on a large scale.13 Regardless of this distinction, the question of whether critical race theory is prejudiced against White people is an important concern for many people, so I will take a moment to address that.
Argument two: Critical race theory is prejudiced against White people.
There are no doubt many reasons why critical race theory is sometimes criticized as anti-White. However, I will focus on the use of language because that is of particular interest to me, and is probably the only aspect of the issue that I’m really able to discuss with my level of knowledge.
An aspect of critical race theory that may be surprising to many people (it was certainly surprising to me, although it does make sense within the wider framework of how these authors talk about race) is that “Whiteness” isn’t used to mean “the condition of being White.” According to Sensoy and DiAngelo, critical scholars instead define Whiteness as “the specific dimensions of racism that elevates White people over all peoples of colour”.14 “Whiteness” therefore refers not to being White, as the average person would probably define it, but to the social implications of being White. It’s therefore reasonable to conclude that most people who criticize “Whiteness” aren’t trying to make any kind of statement about what White people are like or how to feel about us. They’re critiquing social structures, not people. Likewise, “White supremacy” refers not to a belief that White people are superior to other races, but to “the pervasiveness, magnitude, and normalcy of White privilege, dominance, and assumed superiority."15
Of course, whether or not it’s a good idea to use terminology this way is a different question entirely. Even some authors who are generally accepting of critical race theory have expressed concern that its sometimes unintuitive use of language could create miscommunication and conflict.16 In any case, it’s important to make sure you understand what people mean before you make any judgments. If someone (especially someone from a different background than you, like a left-wing university professor) makes a statement that seems strange or offensive to you, it may be a good idea to ask clarifying questions to make sure they’re not just using terminology in a way that you’re not used to.
Argument three: Focusing on race creates division. We should focus on our common dignity as human beings instead.
This seems to be a fairly common criticism. Deacon Burke-Silvers, for example, expresses it in the same interview quoted above. His concern is that centring race has the potential to worsen racism by granting undue attention and legitimacy to the divisions between races.17 In this view, the idea that race is relevant is what fuels racism, and the path to dismantling racism involves abandoning our tendency to focus on race and learning to see one another only as human beings.
Critical race theorists argue that, because the dominant group (in this case, White people) is socialized to see their own experiences as neutral and normal, trying to focus on our common humanity without first acknowledging race just leads to the erasure of non-White experiences, including experiences of oppression.18 In this view, acknowledging the differences between races is what allows us to analyze where those differences come from and work to dismantle oppression. 19 To give you a sense of what this looks like, I’m going to briefly analyze some passages from one of the readings I was assigned this semester.
Settler: Identity and Colonialism in 21st Century Canada is a book about settler colonialism written by a pair of self-identified Settler Canadians. If you’ve never heard the term before, that’s understandable - I hadn’t, either. The basic concept behind identifying as a Settler Canadian is that Canada is built on colonialism and that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people still have competing claims to the land. Self-identifying as a Settler Canadian communicates an understanding that Canada is still a colonial society, and the oppression of Indigenous people has not stopped.20 At this point, you may be rolling your eyes, particularly if you’re more conservative-leaning. After all, this kind of thing sounds exactly like the stereotype of the racism-obsessed critical race theorist who draws undue attention to the divides between ethnic groups, preventing solidarity from forming. To be fair, this criticism does have some merit: simply labelling oneself as a settler doesn’t really do anything about colonialism, and not all Indigenous Canadians consider the term helpful or necessary.21 However, the rationale that the authors give for self-identifying as Settler Canadians reflects that causing division is not their intention:
Identities are complex, shifting, and multiple. To speak of identity is to speak of the point at which we make assumptions and pre-cognitive decisions. It is to speak of the part of our selves where the individual meets society and says “I belong here” while internalizing important lessons for how to belong. . . We use identity to refer to how people recognize other members of shared groups, how people distinguish differences in perceived “others,” and how these complex belongings are expressed by individuals and groups in particular ways of living, discourses and narratives, and political relationships. . . We want to focus on identity as something lived and embodied, as something that can be mobilized to shape everything from states to systems of capital, for better or for worse.22
In other words, the purpose of identifying as a Settler Canadian is to highlight the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians, but not in a way that creates division. Rather, the goal is to draw attention to the divisions that already exist and examine how those divisions can be shifted to shape Canadian society. Furthermore, the authors’ concepts of “Settler Canadian” and “Indigenous Canadian” are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually hostile: they write that “Indigenous and settler peoples are defined not by their distances and differences, but rather their relationships to each other and to the land."23 Their intention is not to promote conflict, but to “make space–even just a little–for thinking beyond this present colonial conflict, to a future defined by reciprocity, responsibility, and restitution."24
Argument four: Critical race theory is a Marxist ideology that has no place in Catholic spaces.
This is a valid concern. Critical Theory does have some roots in ideologies that aren’t compatible with the Catholic faith, including Marxism, and therefore has the potential to clash with a Catholic worldview on some points.25 However, this doesn’t necessarily mean it has no value from a Catholic viewpoint. There is nothing inherently Marxist about analyzing social structures and examining the cultural forces that perpetuate inequality. In fact, the courses I’ve taken on social justice from a Catholic perspective have all had some level of emphasis on how sin can become systemic and embed itself in social structures. Deacon Burke-Silvers, who rejects the idea that systemic racism currently exists in the United States, still acknowledges and advocates against the continuing presence of racism in American culture.26 Our terminology may be different, but our interests and goals are often aligned.
A piece of writing that’s really helped me understand how aspects of critical race theory can fit into Catholicism is the 2021 article “We’re all Woke Now: Catholics and CRT” by D.W. Lafferty. Lafferty makes some excellent points about how systemic forces similar to how critical theorists conceptualize racism act on a smaller scale to exclude Catholics from secular liberal-dominated spaces. It’s a good introduction to what people mean when they talk about systemic racism, and makes very effective use of the situational prejudice that many of us experience to encourage solidarity with minoritized groups. I also recommend reading the other sources I’ve cited in this article.
Conclusion
I hope this article has helped you better understand where proponents of critical race theory are coming from. I found my experience in the class to be rewarding, informative, and intellectually challenging, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to try to pass on some of what I learned. If nothing else, I want to communicate that, regardless of how we define or talk about it, racism is a real problem in our society and we, as Catholics, should be discussing it. If you have any questions or would like further clarification of something in this article, feel free to email me at emodollie@vivaldi.net (keep in mind that I do have ADHD, so it may take me a while to respond). Antiracism is not my usual area (I’m more interested in disability rights and the consistent life ethic), but I can clarify some basic things on the level of this article.
References
Battell Lowman, E., & Barker, A. J. (2015). Settler: Identity and colonialism in 21st century Canada. Fernwood Publisher.
Burke-Silvers, H. (2021, July 19). Catholicism and Race [Video]. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/catholicism-and-race
Cuthand, S. (2021, August 30). Introducing yourself as a ‘settler’ creates division. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/calling-yourself-a-settler-pov-1.6151582
Lafferty, D.W. (2021, July 20). We’re all woke now: Catholics and CRT. Where Peter Is. https://wherepeteris.com/were-all-woke-now-catholics-and-crt/
New Revised Standard Version Bible. (2008). Hendrickson Publishers. (Original work published 1989)
Sensoy, Ö. & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. Teachers College Press.