Demonizing of Something Referred to As Critical Race Theory Which Isn’t
Putting smiles back where they belong through phenomenology
With Miroslaw Manicki
Having received one of ‘them thar eddycations,’ I got a little itch in the back of my mind when I started hearing about state legislatures leaping in action here and there to protect innocent youths and children from what they considered pernicious thinking, critical race theory (CRT). Heeding the call, I pulled out my dog-eared copy of Denzin and Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (2000) and looked up the question. This is what I found (on page 159), that CRT…
…seeks to decloak the seemingly race-neutral, and color-blind ways … of constructing and administering race-based appraisals … of the law, administrative policy, electoral politics … political discourse [and education] in the USA.
I remember now. This is an aspect of qualitative inquiry generally. To gain meaning from discourse, from interactions and the mix of relationships and conditions in which we find ourselves, we need to go deep. We need full disclosure to gain full understanding to ultimately act and think and feel appropriately. One of the first concepts one learns in advanced study of this kind is that of phenomenology. Difficult to say, the term refers to an induced embeddedness in the world of another with the purpose of gaining full and meaningful understanding. The point if the effort is to essentially ‘go native’ in another person’s life in order to understand that person, his or her motivations and innate decisions and preferences.
Before you open your mouth with regard to critical race theory, something like ‘phenomenology’ needs to come out if your pronouncement is to be genuine. If you don’t want to take the time and effort to embrace that concept, you shouldn’t pretend to be talking about critical race theory or other forms of qualitative inquiry.
Full phenomenological achievements are very rare, but they bring great gifts to us all in knowing how to act and learning how to live. It is what allows us to distinguish the ‘Darcys’ from the ‘Wickhams’, to take a Jane Austen turn. A lack of real and earnest understanding of who and what would be construed as the “other” gets us all in trouble and minimizes our chances of getting it right, of enjoying peace and fomenting general prosperity.
There is more to the message of the work “Alice in Wonderland” than simply the reminder to not dive into rabbit holes. This is increasingly useful, as there is more rabbit hole diving than phenomenological surmising in our times. That work can also help us to understand what is going on in many ways, or at least what could be going on. Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland, was a deep thinker himself and he embedded many gems of wisdom on the stories for Alice to ponder, even in her young years. Perhaps his message was to all of us.
Carroll thus came up with the idea of the Cheshire Cat. At one point, the cat disappears, but its smile remains. This is representative most directly of mathematics, which can provide precision without context. It has much to do with our quest herein.
Living in fear of and ignorant of the “other” is unhealthful. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, last week in a congressional hearing indicated that he had studied the writings of Mao Zedong, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin. He said that he did this for understanding and that it certainly didn’t make him a Communist.
This reminds me of a young man who enthusiastically told me that he and others got a man fired from teaching about ten years ago because “he was a Marxist”. I asked what that meant. I mentioned I had read a lot of Marx and I found that his work was pretty overwhelming. Marx certainly knows more about capitalism that your garden variety American. I asked him if that made me a Marxist, whatever that is. The kid looked at me as though I might be some kind of alien. I guess that I would be a “whoeverist” as well from the thousands of other works I have read from scores of other writers.
General Milley spoke as an educated man in the Congressional hearing last week. His message was good to hear. He speaks as a soldier to be sure. Can you imagine going up in battle against an opponent that you did not understand? How would you know how to induce that party to permanently quit the battle?
This reminds me of a comment by the historian Leonard Arrington as he considered the challenges of investigating and reporting on history in an ongoing institutional environment. He constantly fought the notion that history was to be inspirational if not motivational. The presumption otherwise was, why would the study of history even be desired?
We are dancing with the book-burning mentality here. Just as we shouldn’t willfully be looking for prurient material to review, we should actively seek out information from a broad range of sources — especially indigenous ones that have survived the tests of time — both natural and social. Lucky are we when we encounter the works of someone who has achieved some form of phenomenological understanding and has converted that knowledge and experience into something that can inform and educate us. There have been good and timely works in this regard. As to race, nothing achieved this objective more than the “Roots” television series when it aired in 1977 and thereafter.
I know that there is great fear of loss by the entitled ones. There are essentially two aspects to entitlement, social and economic. The European colonial era forced both onto the world, with the British, more particularly the English, in the lead. Not willing or able to resolve their own social and economic disputes among themselves after their civil wars of the 17th century, they elected to force them onto the world — a veritable Pandora’s box of misunderstanding and mayhem. This, as I have commented on before, is the Lockean Heartland (LH) phenomenon, where policy is to protect the prerogatives of the (currently) rich and one culture and race is to predominate over them all.
The LH plan failed at least two hundred years ago, but its death spiral has proven to have a very long tail. The American Revolution was one of the early blows to the LH, but since, there has been a good deal of cozying up to it in US policy, if not the law. If contemporary cinema and streaming options are any indication, LH is very much on the minds of Americans, with their obsessing and binging on all things royal.
Marx’ writings were in reaction to LH. They were a commentary on the excesses and injustices of that time and place. An artifact of the 19th century, it’s name became a wrecking ball for the 20th century. What was called Marxism was nothing more than thuggery in the Soviet case, a cover to keep the foreigners out in the Chinese one.
I would like to engage in two thought experiments with you. Thought experiments have a long and useful history. Einstein was a master of this. He would think of odd time-based relationships, for example, to try to figure out how time worked. It often involved trains and speeds and interesting effects that we have commonly experienced, but perhaps have not thought about. He had to learn a lot of math to go the distance with his work, but his greatest ideas started out with thought experiments.
I will introduce two aspects of history to you that would be difficult to find in any literature or textbook. In both cases, the items have something to do with something or someone that you are quite sure to have a strong opinion about or at least a strong feeling about. Then, I would like to see if the information you receive has some effect on that opinion or feeling.
Thought experiment #1
What if there was a country where the leaders were skilled at adapting to the needs and wants of their constituents, keeping in mind all knowledge of nature and of social commitments?
First, you might say — “Ah, you are talking about utopia, the cardinal sin of hopeless romantics everywhere.” You would have a difficult time convincing Anthony Wallace of that, as he spent a lifetime documenting just such conditions in indigenous tribes of North America. His point is that it is only hopeless romanticism if it hasn’t existed before. If it has existed before, it is well to study it to see what can be learned from it.
Things about that
The country in question would support the wants of the people without compromising on their needs. Here is a quotation by a man well-acquainted with this task:
In all practical work… correct leadership can only be developed in the principle of “from the masses to the masses.” This means summing up (i.e. coordinating and systematizing after careful study) the views of the masses (i.e. views scattered and unsystematic), then taking the resulting ideas back to the masses, explaining and popularizing them until the masses embrace the ideas as their own, stand up for them and translate them into action by way of testing their correctness. Then it is necessary once more to sum up the views of the masses, and once again take the resulting ideas back to the masses so that the masses give them their whole-hearted support. . . And so on, over and over again, so that each time these ideas emerge with greater correctness and become more vital and meaningful.
Before we consider who said this, I am interested in how you react to it. What do you think of the message? What implications can be drawn about the author based on the nature of the message? Does this seem like the thinking of a tyrant or a thug?
It is a quote from the early 1940s by Mao Zedong. It represents a throughline in his life and his beliefs and represents a key as to how his movement came into power in China. I was introduced to this perspective by a scholar named Chalmers Johnson, who first learned about the nature of Mao’s work by studying the messages from Japanese military leadership on the Chinese front as such document stores became available after World War II. The missives painted a picture of a people committed to restoring their national pride and elements of their traditions who didn’t mind using Western ideas and symbols as a front to do so on their own. This served them in part because it froze out any LH seepage that might assert itself as it had before, with great pain and suffering to the Chinese.
Am I saying that China represents that hypothetical idealized country? Not to me, but to the Chinese it might. We had all better hope this comes close, because if it isn’t, we are all in trouble. The last thing the world needs is an unstable China — other than perhaps an unstable United States of America. Perhaps we could take a good look at our own LH tendencies, as they do not serve us well.
Of course, the answer is not to be anti-LH. That was Marx’s problem. That is why it took the Russians fourteen years to decide what to do when they took offer. Marxism provided no answer. Lenin tried to sponsor entrepreneurs, including Armand Hammer. Ultimately, they chose thuggery under the cloak of communal goals. The answers are to be found in things that have worked successfully for long time periods.
Thought experiment #2
What if there was a country where people from many cultures could coexist, where there was prevailing respect for them and their chosen culture based on the norms and practices of that culture?
Things about that
Is that possible? Is it even desirable? What about the melting pot?
Well, we have had centuries of migrations and social transformations, made famous by Karl Polanyi. These have taken place on the backdrop of the short history of the Enlightenment, which was built on what of Greek thought as could be gleaned, given that the Romans took great effort to destroy it all. Fortunately, Islamic scholars had preserved it and passed it to the Europeans via connections, mostly in Spain.
The melting pot amalgam is compelling, but the people have not found it to be satisfying — at least, not under LH assumptions. The choice of culture is a fundamental one. Can everything really be averaged out into one unity? Are we willing to surrender our individuality and freedom to that? Just as you would not want the traditions and practices of others forced on you, you shouldn’t have the right to force yours onto them. As everyone cannot follow all traditions, it is possible that everyone might end up with none — at least from an effectiveness standpoint.
Of course, living in an open, mostly permissive society does have its benefits. The food is good. The music is good. Song and dance benefit; there is interesting and varied architecture. There is a certain cohesiveness in achieving forms of unity in diversity.
There is a shallowness, though, with respect to process. Traditions represent these, as do convocations, ordinances, prayers, and acts that upon repetition result in mental stability, physical and mental health, social cohesion, and collective benefit. The long history is a rich panoply of these — thousands of cultures and traditions that represent desired lifestyle patterns, proven through time. Some of these do not stand up with regard to Enlightenment ideas of fairness and morality; these need to be considered in such a light and possibly adapted. Those traditions that depend on coercion and inhumanity are surely questionable. In many cases, it is likely a matter of simply modifying the particular actions or acts in question, while retaining the core beliefs and actions.
The presumed short history was a faint shadow of the world’s long history, which we are now in a much better position to understand and evaluate. The best collective record has been the Bible, which we now can see intertwines with contemporaneous and much earlier writings of Mesopotamia. Substantive translation and evaluation of those have taken place over longer than a century. They disclose complexity, nuance, and sophistication in governance. There are explicit references to and dependance on knowledge and authority in the exercise of power. Social diversity was supported, particularly over time. There is particular consonance in those works between the ruling Sumerians and their subordinates — then partners — the Semites, who have undeniable Biblical heritage.
After long rule, the city states of the lower Tigris/Euphrates valley lost power and influence, which worked its way to the north, to Babylon, to Assyria, and to the east, to Persia. Changing soil conditions are held as one cause. Traditions from this old civilization from our perspective spilled out to the north, through the Caucuses and then to the east and to the west. It was like a big popcorn popper of culture and tradition, peopling the rest of the world in progressive waves for centuries.
Meanwhile, there are peoples in that region have lived in uninterrupted tradition from very early times. Many of these continue to be nomadic, but not all. The very invention of cities took place in that region. After the fall of the city-states of Sumer, which were highly urbanized and highly organized, the main cities were built up along the trade routes, where oils and spices and other valuables were transported.
This was the environment that brought Islam to life in the 7th century CE. Right out of the gate, multiple traditions were supported as to the “People of the Book” — essentially descendants and followers of Abraham. Such duality of governance was extended to other traditions with time under the names dhimmi and dhimma. Basically membership in good standing with one’s religious or social group brought citizenship in good standing with the state.
This was extended in the Ottoman Empire from the 1500s to the 1800s under the Turks under the name millet. Under this program, various Jewish traditions, various Islamic groups, Armenians, Kurds, and others lived in and among one another in peace for centuries. Old and teetery by the end of the 1800s, the Ottoman Empire fell sway to the English and French and Russians after the First World War. Ultimately, a mostly peaceful place became mostly turbulent; economic gains brought social disruption that lasts to this day. Along with all other corners of the Earth, LH has had its way with that part of the world.
How did the thought experiments go? Did they put a smile on your face — or at least, for a few lingering moments? Do you sense that the world is a more cohesive place and that the future brings greater promise by embracing our long history, by learning more about it?
Critical theory, phenomenology, and ‘stepping in things’
By demonizing a research methodology, the naysayers with regard to critical theory have ‘stepped in it’. Fearful, their adventure in book-burning now makes us aware of the very path that should bring us back to confidence, to new arenas of understanding. The melting pot was never about society, but about governance. We are strong because of the ways that we get together to resolve our problems and establish norms and laws for the future. We agree to disagree where necessary, but we carry out the cycles of our lives with mutual understanding and respect.
Respect is not to be a free gift, but something that is to be earned. It is not just about the individual, but also about societies, religions, associations, cultural organizations, and binding ties that reflect on mutual conditions or characteristics. One thing is clear, lone wolves are dangerous to themselves as well as to society.
Salvation for members of one group might represent condemnation for another. Neither should intrude on the other; this is indeed the definition of a healthy cultural and national milieu. Freedom means in this sense an ability to define one’s own constraints, to engage in one’s own “pursuit of happiness” — hopefully following what Anthony Wallace refers to as a “mazeway,” a source of guidance as provided by a culture or society to which one may belong. Government is there to evaluate key civil and health conditions. It is not there otherwise to judge.
Getting all super empathetic should not be a requirement of all people in all cases. It isn’t critical that all people get phenomenological. In fact, that can well be one of the binding ties of a group — ignorance and social distancing from the “other”. This is a vulnerability, just as aloneness in an individual is problematic. Bumping up against other societies and traditions is a lot like stretching and strengthening exercises, it keeps one flexible and mobile and resilient.
Forcing empathy if not phenomenology on someone would actually be cruel. Not to put too fine a point to it, though, deep phenomenology is exactly what Jesus Christ is understood to have accomplished with regard to the rest of us according to conventional Christian doctrine. There are additional examples in the history of philosophies and religions of means of addressing oneness and wholeness of us individually and in collectives.
It is important that someone has deep empathy when it comes to establishing policy and, ultimately, the law. It is powerful medicine and should not be carried out blithely. I ran into a problem of this kind as a young missionary in South America. I had a companion that took great umbrage at my attempts to gain understanding of him and ‘what he was going through’. His script for our relationship went otherwise. The last thing he wanted was that I would come to ‘understand him’. Famously, there was a noted researcher in the qualitative/phenomenological tradition named Harry Wolcott that found his house burned down by taking in and caring for and studying a person in distress.
The inner soul of a person is sacred ground. The same can be said for the various human collectives that come into existence in one form or another. Our whole contemporary conundrum exists as one result of this sacredness and tenderness. If you were to decide to develop deep empathy, even engage in phenomenology, this should be done with great care. Perhaps you can do it without unwanted intrusion, which can backfire spectacularly, if not shamefully.
It is not important that you understand in all cases, but it is critical that you acknowledge that someone does. Whether the findings are to be condoned is another thing, something that ultimately is to be judged by the norms of the collective in question along with legitimate official judgments as to their humanity and health effects. Ultimately, but not exclusively, such judgments form the basis for policy and the laws of the lands.
Ultimately, it comes down to beliefs and habit patterns. Two writers come to mind. The first is Miguel Ruiz, a proponent of old native traditions of the Olmec people of Central America. He wrote “The Four Agreements” on this subject. He recommends a deep reconciliation with one’s self and fending off of ‘lies’ of another that project their own problem-sets onto the world. The second is Og Mandino, the author of the motivational school of the 1970s that provided ten scrolls in “The Greatest Salesman in the World” to be read aloud three times a day for a month each to reprogram bad habits with good ones. These are both useful.
Social groups that form and make the case that they are a ‘thing’ are to be judged on their ability to achieve and support desired goals within their membership. Whatever it is that binds them, the group needs to be supportive of beneficial outcomes of this kind. This is not a particularly good role for the state, as government itself tends to be cumbersome and thoughtless and autocratic.
A functional state should provide mechanisms for mutual activities of societies within it that are formed of people who make collective choices and commitments. There is an arbiter role to be carried out here, one that is possible under a variety of political and governance environments. It is the state that can provide protection, while societies work toward salvation as desired by their various members.
That should bring smiles in all of the right places on all of our faces.