emmacolon's review against another edition
3.0
this book is a very accessible breakdown of nuanced racial issues within social formations and relationships. it's a good, foundational jumping off point based in legal practice, but the issues discussed would be better understood with further reading (of which there is a lot!). it definitely rings true to its title ("An Introduction") and is very valuable in this sense, but i would recommend doing outside reading regarding race/law/social structures alongside it to get a more full picture of the issues and ideas being dealt with!
jnepal's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
4.0
the rating is not for its content, but for its readability. seems to present a helpful overview of critical race theory.
logbook's review against another edition
2.0
Although an introduction to CRT, it was extremely elementary and slightly outdated. But it's exceptionally accessible and a good read for those who are just getting into critical studies and theories.
colin_cox's review against another edition
4.0
Before writing this review, I read several negative reviews for Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. They were, on the whole, illuminating.
One reviewer, for example, claims that CRT is legal propaganda intertwined with activism that attempts to change the world instead of asking if the world needs change. Here is what the book's authors write: "Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it, setting out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better" (7). This reviewer's criticism of CRT is muddled for a few reasons. First, CRT concludes that change is necessary by analyzing laws, legal precedents, institutions, institutional assumptions, and yes, at times, lived experiences. To claim that CRT fails to ask if society needs change misses the rudimentary trajectory of analysis itself. Second, phrases such as "some academic disciplines" suggest that other legal and academic disciples do, in fact, have and celebrate activist dimensions.
But the better question is this: What is legal activist scholarship? What does legal activist scholarship do? Here is David C. Yamada's description of legal intellectual activism in his peer-reviewed essay, "Intellectual Activism and the Practice of Public Interest Law," originally published in The Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice: "In the legal context, intellectual activism involves conducting and publishing original research and analysis and then applying that work to the tasks of reforming and improving the law, legal systems, and the legal profession" (127). Now, why does this sound so scary? This sounds like what scholarship does, right? The point is this: All scholarship, legal or not, attempts to affect change. For example, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia championed an originalist or textualist approach to legal interpretation. Does anyone think he embraced this position as a lark? Of course not. He did it, in part, to provoke change. Therefore, most if not all scholarship is, to some degree, activist scholarship. Activist scholarship only becomes a problem when non-white folk do it.
But the book itself is, well, just fine. At times, it lacks depth, but by design. To its credit, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction cites many important pieces of CRT scholarship for anyone interesting in actually reading the scholarship itself. Furthermore, the book has an entire section on flaws, problems, and limitations to CRT. This act of intellectual honesty is something most of the book's detractors fail to mention.
There are many productive and relevant ways to critique and challenge CRT (again, this book does some of that work itself). However, claims that CRT is activist propaganda or, if implemented (what does that mean?), would trigger the end of the First Amendment, are not productive, relevant, or useful. If anything, those critiques demonstrate the very point Critical Race Theory at large tries to make.
One reviewer, for example, claims that CRT is legal propaganda intertwined with activism that attempts to change the world instead of asking if the world needs change. Here is what the book's authors write: "Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it, setting out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better" (7). This reviewer's criticism of CRT is muddled for a few reasons. First, CRT concludes that change is necessary by analyzing laws, legal precedents, institutions, institutional assumptions, and yes, at times, lived experiences. To claim that CRT fails to ask if society needs change misses the rudimentary trajectory of analysis itself. Second, phrases such as "some academic disciplines" suggest that other legal and academic disciples do, in fact, have and celebrate activist dimensions.
But the better question is this: What is legal activist scholarship? What does legal activist scholarship do? Here is David C. Yamada's description of legal intellectual activism in his peer-reviewed essay, "Intellectual Activism and the Practice of Public Interest Law," originally published in The Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice: "In the legal context, intellectual activism involves conducting and publishing original research and analysis and then applying that work to the tasks of reforming and improving the law, legal systems, and the legal profession" (127). Now, why does this sound so scary? This sounds like what scholarship does, right? The point is this: All scholarship, legal or not, attempts to affect change. For example, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia championed an originalist or textualist approach to legal interpretation. Does anyone think he embraced this position as a lark? Of course not. He did it, in part, to provoke change. Therefore, most if not all scholarship is, to some degree, activist scholarship. Activist scholarship only becomes a problem when non-white folk do it.
But the book itself is, well, just fine. At times, it lacks depth, but by design. To its credit, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction cites many important pieces of CRT scholarship for anyone interesting in actually reading the scholarship itself. Furthermore, the book has an entire section on flaws, problems, and limitations to CRT. This act of intellectual honesty is something most of the book's detractors fail to mention.
There are many productive and relevant ways to critique and challenge CRT (again, this book does some of that work itself). However, claims that CRT is activist propaganda or, if implemented (what does that mean?), would trigger the end of the First Amendment, are not productive, relevant, or useful. If anything, those critiques demonstrate the very point Critical Race Theory at large tries to make.
davehershey's review against another edition
4.0
The authors of this introduction to Critical Race Theory (CRT) define the it as “a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (3).
Now, if you are a Christian or a conservative in America and you consume conservative Christian media, you have been told CRT is “the thing destroying both Christianity and our culture!” Its the scapegoat and bogeyman and bad guy to battle against.
Unfortunately, that’s how it goes for talking heads who make their living drumming up fear. I’m now old enough to remember when there were other boogeymen to be terrified of: postmodernism and relativism, multiculturalism and Islamic extremism. It seems like every couple of years there is some new idea out there, inevitably being promoted by cultural elites on university campuses, that is going to destroy your children! Be afraid.
And send money.
When I was in college and seminary, around 20 years ago, the big bad guy was postmodernism. Postmodernism was essentially just moral relativism and would ruin everything. Of course, thankfully I had some intelligent and open-minded professors at seminary who encouraged us to go a little deeper. They offered some nuance, recognizing postmodern philosophy consists of diverse ideas that are not all the same. Of course, this deep thinking and nuance might be why they were content teaching at a small Christian seminary. The big name traveling speakers and radio personalities got a large audience but were quite shallow. There’s a sad truth there - deep thinking and nuance rarely receive a large audience. Yelling and fear - that’s where the money is!
Anyway, I digress.
As I’ve heard more and more about CRT, I’ve been interested in learning about what it actually states. This book (this is a book review, I forgot there for a minute!) is a helpful place to start. It is, as the title says, an introduction. The authors take us through some principal figures and spin off movements to hallmark themes of CRT such as revisionist history and a critique of liberalism. They examine the import of storytelling for CRT. There is a brief section looking at and responding to criticism of CRT.
Overall, this is a helpful little book. It is clearly designed for undergrad use in a classroom, as it includes discussion questions and exercises. I think I have a better general understanding of CRT. Perhaps the best thing about this book is it ought to dissuade any honest reader from imagining CRT as a simplistic monolithic beast to be afraid of. There is complexity and conversation within the movement, including disagreement. Not all CRT scholars or activists are the same!
That said, the interested reader could find similar solid summaries on the internet. I will link to one such series below.
Overall, it makes sense why some Christians are worried about CRT. The critique of Liberalism and Enlightenment Rationalism is threatening when you see these as essential to faith. This is part of the problem with much modern Christian apologetics; they buy into modern presuppositions mostly uncritically. Plenty of historians and theologians have shown that modern assumptions are no more a default nor no better than any other assumptions. If anything, these modern assumptions are more detrimental than premodern (or dare we say, postmodern ones).
Another way of putting this is that while some are so worried about CRT, they have totally missed the real threats: White Christian Nationalism and unfettered capitalism. White Christians have made an idol of a mythologized view of American history, and we have seen how this plays out in real ways. Many Christians in this country are more committed to white America than middle eastern Jesus. We need a little revisionist history perhaps. Likewise, when you live in and benefit from empire, thinking capitalism is God’s gift to make you rich, any critiques sound scary. Is it creeping CRT to remember Jesus and the Prophets’ warning against money?
All this to say, CRT is no more a danger to Christianity than any other ideology. Like any other, we ought to not just uncritically accept everything. Nor should we simplistically throw it all out. We should listen for insights that point out blind spots we may not have noticed. We should be willing to put CRT in conversation with Christian intellectual history. Of course, we should also recognize that the biggest opponents to CRT tend to be white evangelicals which might just prove the need for CRT since some of what they are saying is echoed by black pastors, theologians and teachers.
Can we be humble enough to admit CRT might have something to teach us?
The Christian and Critical Race Theory, Part 1: A Survey of Traditional Civil Rights Discourse - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/06/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-1-a-survey-of-the-traditional-civil-rights-discourse/
Part 2 - Segregationist Discourse and Civil Rights Retrenchment - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/07/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-2-the-segregationist-discourse-and-civil-rights-retrenchment/
Part 3 - A Bridge: Derrick Bell - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/07/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-3-a-bridge-dr-derrick-bell/
Part 4 - Alan Freeman and the Contribution of CLS - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/08/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-4-alan-freeman-and-the-contribution-of-cls/
Part 5 - A Misalignment of Frames: Integrationism - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/10/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-5-a-misalignment-of-frames-integrationism/
Part 6 - A Misalignment of Frames: The New Right - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/11/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-6-a-misalignment-of-frames-the-new-right/
Now, if you are a Christian or a conservative in America and you consume conservative Christian media, you have been told CRT is “the thing destroying both Christianity and our culture!” Its the scapegoat and bogeyman and bad guy to battle against.
Unfortunately, that’s how it goes for talking heads who make their living drumming up fear. I’m now old enough to remember when there were other boogeymen to be terrified of: postmodernism and relativism, multiculturalism and Islamic extremism. It seems like every couple of years there is some new idea out there, inevitably being promoted by cultural elites on university campuses, that is going to destroy your children! Be afraid.
And send money.
When I was in college and seminary, around 20 years ago, the big bad guy was postmodernism. Postmodernism was essentially just moral relativism and would ruin everything. Of course, thankfully I had some intelligent and open-minded professors at seminary who encouraged us to go a little deeper. They offered some nuance, recognizing postmodern philosophy consists of diverse ideas that are not all the same. Of course, this deep thinking and nuance might be why they were content teaching at a small Christian seminary. The big name traveling speakers and radio personalities got a large audience but were quite shallow. There’s a sad truth there - deep thinking and nuance rarely receive a large audience. Yelling and fear - that’s where the money is!
Anyway, I digress.
As I’ve heard more and more about CRT, I’ve been interested in learning about what it actually states. This book (this is a book review, I forgot there for a minute!) is a helpful place to start. It is, as the title says, an introduction. The authors take us through some principal figures and spin off movements to hallmark themes of CRT such as revisionist history and a critique of liberalism. They examine the import of storytelling for CRT. There is a brief section looking at and responding to criticism of CRT.
Overall, this is a helpful little book. It is clearly designed for undergrad use in a classroom, as it includes discussion questions and exercises. I think I have a better general understanding of CRT. Perhaps the best thing about this book is it ought to dissuade any honest reader from imagining CRT as a simplistic monolithic beast to be afraid of. There is complexity and conversation within the movement, including disagreement. Not all CRT scholars or activists are the same!
That said, the interested reader could find similar solid summaries on the internet. I will link to one such series below.
Overall, it makes sense why some Christians are worried about CRT. The critique of Liberalism and Enlightenment Rationalism is threatening when you see these as essential to faith. This is part of the problem with much modern Christian apologetics; they buy into modern presuppositions mostly uncritically. Plenty of historians and theologians have shown that modern assumptions are no more a default nor no better than any other assumptions. If anything, these modern assumptions are more detrimental than premodern (or dare we say, postmodern ones).
Another way of putting this is that while some are so worried about CRT, they have totally missed the real threats: White Christian Nationalism and unfettered capitalism. White Christians have made an idol of a mythologized view of American history, and we have seen how this plays out in real ways. Many Christians in this country are more committed to white America than middle eastern Jesus. We need a little revisionist history perhaps. Likewise, when you live in and benefit from empire, thinking capitalism is God’s gift to make you rich, any critiques sound scary. Is it creeping CRT to remember Jesus and the Prophets’ warning against money?
All this to say, CRT is no more a danger to Christianity than any other ideology. Like any other, we ought to not just uncritically accept everything. Nor should we simplistically throw it all out. We should listen for insights that point out blind spots we may not have noticed. We should be willing to put CRT in conversation with Christian intellectual history. Of course, we should also recognize that the biggest opponents to CRT tend to be white evangelicals which might just prove the need for CRT since some of what they are saying is echoed by black pastors, theologians and teachers.
Can we be humble enough to admit CRT might have something to teach us?
The Christian and Critical Race Theory, Part 1: A Survey of Traditional Civil Rights Discourse - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/06/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-1-a-survey-of-the-traditional-civil-rights-discourse/
Part 2 - Segregationist Discourse and Civil Rights Retrenchment - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/07/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-2-the-segregationist-discourse-and-civil-rights-retrenchment/
Part 3 - A Bridge: Derrick Bell - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/07/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-3-a-bridge-dr-derrick-bell/
Part 4 - Alan Freeman and the Contribution of CLS - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/08/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-4-alan-freeman-and-the-contribution-of-cls/
Part 5 - A Misalignment of Frames: Integrationism - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/10/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-5-a-misalignment-of-frames-integrationism/
Part 6 - A Misalignment of Frames: The New Right - https://thefrontporch.org/2020/11/the-christian-and-critical-race-theory-part-6-a-misalignment-of-frames-the-new-right/
guilherme_bicalho's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
kahawa's review against another edition
3.0
This was a pretty good overview of critical race theory. It wasn't polemic; it was a clear explanation of what it is and how to teach it and address it, with a strong emphasis on how it relates to law and policy making. I particularly liked the discussion questions. I would love to know how the authors themselves answer some of those. I think CRT (the theory, not the book) has flaws, and this book doesn't quite deal with those.
One issue I have is that CRT claims to be anti-essentialist. I think they get that backwards. I think CRT promotes essentialism through identities. In addressing anti-essentialism and intersectionality, the authors write, "No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity ... Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances." I think what CRT is unconsciously doing here is expanding essentialism, not eschewing it, by implying, 'these identities are real, but there's a LOT more of them than we initially thought' (this is, incidentally, why the letters after LGB keep growing (not a criticism, just an observation)). CRT sees identities everywhere as real, intrinsic parts of individuals, and keeps coming up with new ways to address these essentialistic identities. This is the invisible water in which CRT unwittingly swims.
When it comes to individual vs systemic responsibility, CRT's PoV misunderstands conservative thinking, and seems to misapply the failings of systems to the failings of individuals, as seen in the following quote: "is affirmative action a case of “reverse discrimination” against whites? Part of the argument for it rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white displaced by affirmative action. The narrative behind this assumption characterizes whites as innocent, a powerful metaphor, and blacks as—what? Presumably, the opposite of innocent. Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent." I don't think people who are critical of affirmative action are thinking in terms of innocence and guilt, especially not individual innocence and guilt. Perhaps CRT is trying to say that all white people are benefactors of white privilege, but white people, as far as I know, are thinking in terms of individual merit and opportunity, not terms of innocence and guilt. This is a paradigm that I think CRT is projecting on others, because of CRT's inability to understand the conservative perspective. (Note: I think conservatives equally misunderstand CRT when they mistakenly assume the issue is about personal responsibility where systemic responsibility is actually the key issue - take 'apologising' for the actions of predecessors.)
Some of what CRT accuses 'whiteness' of is actually pretty ubiquitous among many different cultures. "Whites do not see themselves as having a race, but being, simply, people. They do not believe that they think and reason from a white viewpoint, but from a universally valid one—“the truth”—what everyone knows." This is certainly not unique to white people or white culture or European culture. The Kwaya people of Tanzania, among whom I lived for a decade, use the term for 'people' to refer to their people, and all non Kwaya are 'others'. They're not unique in this. It's hard to know what CRT is suggesting societies do about this kind of universal ethnocentrism.
I could go on, but I'll leave it here. Although 20 years old and getting a bit dated, this is a good book for an intro to CRT, and as a tool for teaching it to others, especially with its discussion questions and legal perspective. It won't bash the reader into submission, but it also doesn't quite grasp the 'other' side, and conservative (and non-'woke') readers might feel frustrated and misrepresented. If conservative readers can set that aside for a bit, they might realise that CRT (and other critical theories) makes important points about justice, equity, systemic influences, power, privilege, and supporting the oppressed.
Note: I read 'Critical Race Theory, An Introduction' shortly after reading 'Cynical Theories', a critique of critical theories. Review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4074618787?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1
One issue I have is that CRT claims to be anti-essentialist. I think they get that backwards. I think CRT promotes essentialism through identities. In addressing anti-essentialism and intersectionality, the authors write, "No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity ... Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances." I think what CRT is unconsciously doing here is expanding essentialism, not eschewing it, by implying, 'these identities are real, but there's a LOT more of them than we initially thought' (this is, incidentally, why the letters after LGB keep growing (not a criticism, just an observation)). CRT sees identities everywhere as real, intrinsic parts of individuals, and keeps coming up with new ways to address these essentialistic identities. This is the invisible water in which CRT unwittingly swims.
When it comes to individual vs systemic responsibility, CRT's PoV misunderstands conservative thinking, and seems to misapply the failings of systems to the failings of individuals, as seen in the following quote: "is affirmative action a case of “reverse discrimination” against whites? Part of the argument for it rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white displaced by affirmative action. The narrative behind this assumption characterizes whites as innocent, a powerful metaphor, and blacks as—what? Presumably, the opposite of innocent. Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent." I don't think people who are critical of affirmative action are thinking in terms of innocence and guilt, especially not individual innocence and guilt. Perhaps CRT is trying to say that all white people are benefactors of white privilege, but white people, as far as I know, are thinking in terms of individual merit and opportunity, not terms of innocence and guilt. This is a paradigm that I think CRT is projecting on others, because of CRT's inability to understand the conservative perspective. (Note: I think conservatives equally misunderstand CRT when they mistakenly assume the issue is about personal responsibility where systemic responsibility is actually the key issue - take 'apologising' for the actions of predecessors.)
Some of what CRT accuses 'whiteness' of is actually pretty ubiquitous among many different cultures. "Whites do not see themselves as having a race, but being, simply, people. They do not believe that they think and reason from a white viewpoint, but from a universally valid one—“the truth”—what everyone knows." This is certainly not unique to white people or white culture or European culture. The Kwaya people of Tanzania, among whom I lived for a decade, use the term for 'people' to refer to their people, and all non Kwaya are 'others'. They're not unique in this. It's hard to know what CRT is suggesting societies do about this kind of universal ethnocentrism.
I could go on, but I'll leave it here. Although 20 years old and getting a bit dated, this is a good book for an intro to CRT, and as a tool for teaching it to others, especially with its discussion questions and legal perspective. It won't bash the reader into submission, but it also doesn't quite grasp the 'other' side, and conservative (and non-'woke') readers might feel frustrated and misrepresented. If conservative readers can set that aside for a bit, they might realise that CRT (and other critical theories) makes important points about justice, equity, systemic influences, power, privilege, and supporting the oppressed.
Note: I read 'Critical Race Theory, An Introduction' shortly after reading 'Cynical Theories', a critique of critical theories. Review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4074618787?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1