Critical Theory is Destroying the Left

The Inconsistency and Hypocrisy of Identitarian ideology, Pt 1.

Critical Theory, at its genesis, emerged as a vital intellectual corrective. It offered a lens to examine and dismantle the uncritical embrace of ideologies that, despite grand promises, frequently fell short of their proclaimed ideals. It served, in essence, as a necessary flywheel, pushing back against what it termed "grand narratives” like Marxism, capitalism, and other “isms”.

However, a troubling irony has taken root: the very criticality that defined its origins has, in many quarters, devolved into uncritical acceptance and proselytization. This hasn't merely blunted the sharp edge of left-wing causes; it has hobbled them. Instead of fostering material progress, it often reduces vibrant communities to an impotent chorus of lament. Moreover, this shift inadvertently hands an accessible weapon to the political Right, enabling them to easily discredit otherwise popular leftist and left-liberal ideas.

While volumes could, and have, been dedicated to the myriad shortcomings of contemporary Critical Theory, I want to focus on two specific aspects that render the contemporary Left uniquely susceptible to exploitation by bad-faith interlocutors: its incompleteness and its inconsistency. This post will address the first; I’ll tackle the second in part two.

The Peril of Partiality: When a Theory Claims Omniscience

Critical Theory begins with a profoundly reasonable assertion: cultural artifacts—a category expansive enough to encompass virtually every human construct—are invariably imbued with and reflective of existing power relationships. It posits that hegemonic powers subtly define "normality," leveraging dominant cultural narratives to perpetuate systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, and myriad other forms of oppression, thereby reinforcing their dominance. So far, so good. This foundational premise remains a valuable and relevant analytical tool, capable, at least in theory, of good-faith intellectual engagement.

The insidious shift occurs, however, with a subtle and critically unsubstantiated implication: that these underlying power dynamics entirely and exclusively explain every cultural artifact. Rather than serving as an additional, enriching framework for understanding the world, Critical Theory is frequently presented and internalized as the sole, exhaustive explanatory paradigm.

Consider, for a moment, my academic journey. During my undergraduate years, I pursued a minor in religious studies. While my primary intellectual affinity lay with philosophy, a requirement of the minor was immersion in various disciplinary approaches to the study of religion. Thus, I delved into the psychology of religion, the literature of religion (including the Bible as a literary work), the histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the sociology of religion. It became strikingly clear that there was no singular "better" or "worse" way to approach the study of religion; each offered valuable explanatory and, to varying degrees, predictive insights. While religion undoubtedly exists as a verifiable phenomenon, each discipline offered a distinct, yet valid, interpretive framework. These diverse methods, insofar as they avoided contradiction, were coherent and consistent, yet none, individually, could claim to be exhaustive.

This realization underscores a fundamental intellectual principle: anytime a framework for understanding the world—be it an "-ology" or an "-osophy"—asserts exclusive access to truth, a healthy skepticism is not merely warranted, but essential. Yet, this is precisely the posture often adopted by many adherents of contemporary Critical Theory (in direct contradiction of its own tenets). According to this perspective, there is no knowledge that isn't, at its core, a manifestation of power. Indeed, Michel Foucault famously coined the portmanteau "power-knowledge," underscoring his assertion of the inextricable relationship between these concepts. Consequently, anything "known" is inherently tainted by the dynamics of power.

While initially intriguing, this idea quickly leads to an intellectually and emotionally desiccated worldview. It allows for no positively motivated social change. Consider the profound societal paradigm shift exemplified by the legalization of gay marriage. In the early 1980s, as a high school student actively campaigning for gay rights in statewide student government, I found myself in a stark minority. The opposition was overwhelming, and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment was deeply entrenched; few could have envisioned the eventual mainstream acceptance of gay rights. I didn't imagine that gays and lesbians would be allowed to marry in my lifetime. Yet, in 2016, the Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision effectively removed a significant legal obstacle to LGBTQ+ equality.

A Critical Theory reading of this momentous victory might argue that gay marriage, by seeking to replicate the form of heterosexual marriage, inadvertently reinforces the underlying heteronormative power dynamics embedded within the institution. It might be interpreted as extending the reach of this "regulative power" to new populations, rather than fundamentally dismantling it. Thus, instead of a cause for genuine celebration—a moment where LGBTQ+ individuals gained access to previously denied legal protections and society took a significant (if incomplete) step towards universal equal treatment under the law—Critical Theory, in its most rigid application, insists that the only valid interpretation of this legal development is as a function of hegemonic power.

Such an unyielding framework leaves no room for:

• Justice

• Love

• Solidarity

• Truth or the love of truth

• Genuine improvement or progress

• Care

• Empathy

• Equality

• Freedom

Only power. Power, in this constricted view, is solely wielded by white people, straight people, male people, and so forth. Because of this, the framework actively precludes attributing people's ideas to a genuine desire for a more just society; any such belief, according to this strict interpretation, is merely an illusion.

The Erosion of Empathy: Inconsistency and Its Consequences

The past decade or so has witnessed a concerning shift in the behavior of certain elements within the Left, actions that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. We have seen credible reports of bomb threats, rape threats, and murder threats coming not from the Right, but from the Left. Worse still, these threats haven't been against Nazis or Fascists, but against fellow leftists (and left-liberals). There has been violent (or threatened) suppression of dissenting views and demonstrably unfair dismissals of university professors for viewpoints that were not even heterodox two decades ago. Indeed, they would often not even have been controversial. This seems profoundly out of step with a movement that historically prided itself on its humanity and empathy. However, once one descends deeply into the rigid ideology of Critical Theory, humanity and empathy can, disturbingly, be reduced to mere performative postures.

This framework allows adherents to preemptively assume that the intent of those who disagree with them is always to oppress, to weaponize "white, male, straight" reason and science to "erase" them. There can be no simple, good-faith disagreement; every divergence of opinion is reinterpreted as an act of oppression.

As a lifelong left-liberal, I confess to perpetual surprise at this disconcerting turn. Figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Berrigan brothers, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela populate my memories of the Left. These were individuals who believed in the profound power of moral imagination and courage to change minds, not only of sympathizers but also of their most intractable opponents. They harbored no illusions about the overwhelming force of power; they experienced it in ways far more impactful than many of today's campus-based activists. Yet, crucially, they believed the world consisted of more than just power. Through principled direct action, they believed that minds could be changed, and society could be genuinely transformed for the better. The more rigid interpretations of Critical Theory, however, leave little to no room for the good in people, either individually or collectively within societies.

Consequently, we observe a noticeable absence of prosocial behaviors from those segments of the Left most deeply ensconced in Critical Theory—behaviors that have historically been central to traditional, solidarity-oriented leftist movements. In the union movement, the civil rights movements, and anti-colonial liberation struggles, political mobilization against oppressors was consistently backstopped and strengthened by the sharing and provision of the material needs of one's comrades. We saw:

• Strike funds

• Legal aid

• Food distribution and soup kitchens

• Housing and eviction defense

• Bail funds

• Picket line support

Today's Critical Theory-influenced Left engages in little of this tangible, on-the-ground support. The "work" within these communities is often performed predominantly by upper-middle-class college students and the faculty who have committed educational malpractice by teaching them what to think rather than how to think. The whole of political action consists of deconstructing language in seminar rooms and an ever-expanding tabulation of words and concepts deemed, in themselves, oppressive. Protest, “calling out,” “cancelling”, and other actions that require no sacrifice or hardship to oneself, are the primary ways in which Critical Theory is manifested. Instead of providing actual aid for the genuinely suffering while building actually diverse communities, Critical Theory adherents claim that their very "safety" is threatened by the mere act of engaging with those who hold differing opinions. This constrained worldview, wherein there is only one singular way of analyzing the world, leaves precious little space for solidarity, fellow-feeling, or any other positive communal characteristic that has historically defined and energized the Left.

Perhaps the worst part of Critical Theory’s view itself as the only bona-fide framework for interpreting the world is that its excesses, which are obvious and legion, allow the Right to paint all of the Left as brittle, unreasonable, effete, censorious, and inconsistent. While I’ll deal with some of these in part 2, it should be obvious to anyone who steps back a moment that virtually no one is attracted to Critical Theory’s actuality. They aren’t fun. (I’m put in mind of the famous Emma Goldman quote: “If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution!”) The dripping scorn for anyone who doesn’t agree with the entirety of Theory’s intellectual project is rhetorically unpersuasive. No one has ever been persuaded to join a political movement when their good-faith inquiry or disagreement was dismissed as bigotry. The Right know this and have ridden the broad antipathy for the Critical Left’s judgmental attitude all the way to the control of all three branches of the American government.

And who suffers? Not the people in the professional managerial class who are some of Critical Theory’s most enthusiastic proponents. Not the professors and the students at Ivy League universities paying upwards of $70,000/year for attendance. Not the people in the upper echelons of cultural production who have been so tin-eared to preach to the very people they claim to be fighting for. No, those people are just fine. The people who are suffering are the:

• Brown people who are being snatched off the street and sent to torture prisons with no due process.

• Poor who have had larger and larger percentages of their income skimmed by the Musks, the Trumps, the Bezos, and the Zuckerbergs.

• Economic precariat, which has grown from just the lower and lower-middle classes to encompassing almost anyone without substantial generational wealth

• Young people who have developed the worst mental health in history by being told that everything and everone is manifesting aggression toward them.

The Left, when it has been successful, is built on solidarity and mutual aid. Critical Theory gives us the opposite. It’s an ideology that offers a deceptively and seductively simple way of understanding the world, but it does nothing to improve it. It discredits and supplants the actual Left. I hope this post has helped illustrate how its certainty and intellectual hubris lead to pragmatically worse outcomes for everyone for whom the Left has traditionally advocated.