One thing that keep popping up in this discussions of Critical Theory(CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion(DEI), and other issues of “social justice” in Evangelical Circles is that people often do not understand the methodology of CRT, and therefore fail to see the extent that this agenda has indeed infiltrated Evangelicalism. Many leaders of the Evangelical Complex or “Big Eva” have committed the same error as the SBC in their approach to CRT and other social justice issues. They decided they could reject the Marxist worldview but affirm the methodology of CRT. CRT employs a Marxist dialectic as its methodology, so those who use it become dialectical thinkers and therefore Marxists or Neomarxists.
Background.
Critical Theory emerged out of the Frankfurt School of German Intellectuals in the 1930s. They believed that classical Marxism was inadequate because its analysis was limited to economics, and sought to apply Marxian analysis to broader issues of culture. This changed approach to Marxism cam to be called Neo-Marxism. Some Neo-Marxists added a cultural dialectic to pre-existing Classical Marxist economic theories. other focused exclusively on cultural issues or a specific subset of cultural analysis. Critical Race Theory focused on applying Marxism to racial analysis, Feminists would apply Marxism to feminist issues, Queer Theory would apply Marxism to LGBTQ issues, etc.
Classical Marxists would deploy Karl Marx interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic to analyze history. Hegel believed history was a struggle between a thesis and its antithesis, which would later merge into a synthesis, which would then be opposed by another antithesis to merge to form another synthesis, etc. Hegel regarded this dialectic as an evolutionary march of the Hermetic god in history until god on earth is re-united with the godhead in Heaven. Whereas Hegel was a Hermeticist, Karl Marx re-interpreted this in atheistic materialistic terms. In Marx’s analytical scheme, history is seen as a meta-narrative of dialectic struggle between oppressor classes (Beourgeosie) and oppressed classes (Proletariat), which would end in a violent revolution that would abolish the classes and produce a Communistic utopia.
In Classical Marxism this was a strictly economic struggle and was always resolved through physical violence. Marxian analysis was a very crude analysis of history. All dialectical analyses are crude and strictly illogical as history does not necessarily flow as a dialectic . Thesis and antithesis of simple objects cannot merge as that would violate the law of non-contradiction, and complex object can interact in many different possible ways. The thing about dialectic is, that while it is a poor predictor, it can be a powerful tool to manipulate conflict.
By the 1930’s the weaknesses of Marxism were becoming increasingly evident even to many Marxists. in Germany a movement known as “The Frankfurt School came together. They concluded that the weakness of Classical Marxism is that its analysis was limited to economic variables. They proposed that a robust Marxian analysis include an analysis of cultural variables. The classical struggle between beourgeosie and proletariat was replaced by oppressor and oppressed classes of every socioeconomic taxonomy, which would include such things as nationality, gender, and race in additional to wealth. Neo-Marxist struggle would also be more nuanced than classical Marxism. Neo-Marxist struggle could also include lawfare and culture war as means of conflict.
By the 1960’s Postmodernism provided several tools that would become useful to Neo-Marxist dialectic: Denial of absolute truth, denial of meta-narratives, and weaponization of language (deconstruction.) The denial of absolute truth makes everything relative. If everything is relative, then everything is subject to situational manipulation. Denial of an objectively true meta-narratives logically follows from denial of absolute truth. Both of these present both a practical and philosophical problem. The philosophical problem is that these are self-refuting. The denial of absolute truth is either not an absolute claim – and therefore unable to deny absolute truth – or it is an absolute claim that affirms absolute truth. If absolute truth exists, there is an objectively existing history and therefore an objectively existing meta-narrative. This goes deeper than the technical philosophical problem. Human minds are hard-wired to think in terms of meta-narrative. Even Postmodernists cannot escape this reality. Postmodernism replaced the singular meta-narrative with a singular conversation that involves the many perspectives of the many micro-narratives. The Conversation becomes the de facto meta-narrative in Postmodernism. In this context language is seen as a weapon through which dominant perspectives dominate. Postmodernist use deconstruction to exploit ambiguities in language to re-frame interpretation to overthrow the original intent of an author and hijack the meaning of texts and conversations. Deconstruction allows a postmodern-trained operative to rig conversation to assure that it reaches a desired endpoint. It is the incorporation of these Postmodern methodologies into Neo-Marxism on both an analytical and political level that informed the emergence of derivative movements such as Feminism, LGBTQ+, and Critical Race Theory.
The Neo-Marxist Dialectic
The Neo-Marxist can re-frame Postmodern conversation as a Neo-Marxist dialectic. The Neo-Marxist will invite others into conversation. This conversation, however, will not be an open-ended conversation but will employ methodologies that will invariably lead all participants to the pre-ordained conclusion in a manner not unlike the conversation top Nazi brass had at the Wannasee Conference (depicted in the movie Conspiracy) which manufactured consensus for the Final Solution. It is this nature of Neo-Marxist conversation that makes the approach of the southern Baptist Convention to embrace Critical Theory as a mere methodology a failure. Engaging in a Neo-Marxist dialectic conversation will inevitably result in becoming a Neo-Marxist as it requires dialectical thinking.
The Neo-Marxist, like the Postmodernist, will deconstruct language to make it fit the narrative. A Neo-Marxist will frame every story in terms of a dialectical struggle between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. They will also see their own analysis as part of the story as an oppressor or an oppressed class engaging in the struggle. The Neo-Marxist implementation of deconstruction will have three distinctively Marxist features: Standpoint epistemology, gatekeeping, and invoking “The Bailey and the Motte.” Standpoint epistemology will determines which classes are in the dialectic struggle and which ones are the oppressor classes and which ones are the oppressed classes. in very complex conflict intersectional analysis will be used to make a cumulative determination of which side is the oppressor. For example, if a group of black males is battling a group of white females, both sides have a mix of oppressor and oppressed class. Black males are members of an oppressor gender but are also members of an oppressed race. once that analysis is complete, gatekeeping, which includes agenda setting, priming, and framing of the narrative, will be used to puff up one class and marginalize the other by selecting and filtering information that is politically advantageous to the Neo-Marxist. The term “Black Lives Matter” is gatekeeping, as it is using terminology that filters meaning in favor of a Neo-Marxist understanding of value. In this case, the value of a life is that it is a black life that is a member of an oppressed class. On the part of intellectual and political leaders of the Black Lives Movement, it is not rooted in universal human values but in a Neo-Marxist dialectic that promotes blacks BY demoting whites, indicting ALL whites as oppressors.
The Bailey and the Motte is a fallacy in which deconstruction is used to bifurcate an idea into two distinct definitions. One definition is easy to debunk while the other is difficult. The term for this fallacy came from medieval defense, where communities would have two tier defense. The bailey would be a light fence that lightly guarded the area where people lived, while the motte had strong fortification to withstand attack but was otherwise not very hospitable. This type of deconstruction will invoke a motte definition to defend against philosophical attacks, but the bailey definition would be the actual day-to-day definition of a given terms or phrase.An example of this can be found in JD Greear’s response to the allegations that his embrace of Black Lives Matter means he has gone woke. When Grear said “Southern Baptists, we need to say it clearly: As a Gospel issue, black lives matter. Of course, black lives matter. Our black brothers and sisters are made in the image of God. Black lives matter because Jesus died for them,” he was giving a motte definition for “Black Lives Matter.” This definition is not how the term is used among the intellectual and political leaders of the movement, who have consistently framed it in Neo-Marxist terms. Greear is engaging in deconstruction using the bailey and the motte to downplay the problems with Black Lives Matter. He doubles down on this, saying that Black Lives Matter has been “hijacked by some political operatives whose worldview and policy prescriptions would be deeply at odds with my own.” Black Lives Matter has NOT been hijacked, but is a textbook implementation of the thought outlined in such works as Robin de Angelo’s White Fragility. In de Angelo’s work the term “Black Lives” derived its meaning from the black class identity, and the use of the term “Black Lives Matter,” is employing gatekeeping to puff up the black class as the oppressed class and downplay the white class as the oppressor class – in accordance to her Neo-Marxist dialectic. In the Judeo-Christian world-view terms like “Black Lives Matter” and “White Lives Matter” have very little meaning, as the universal value of ALL human life as created in the image of God is the ground for liberty, which promotes the liberty and welfare of both blacks and white. As Paul wrote, “Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (also Col 3:11)”
NeomarxistConversationalDialectic in a nutshell.
- The Neo-Marxist will invite people into a closed-ended conversation. This call to conversation can be used to initially disguise their true intentions.
- The Neo-Marxist will use deconstruction to rig the conversation, which may include gate-keeping and the use of the The Bailey and Motte Fallacy.
- Gate-keeping is used to hype desired voices and downplay undesired voices. It can also be used to minimize the sins of the supported narrative while magnifying the sins of the opposition. The plan for gatekeeping will be informed by the results of the standpoint epistemology. The results of the gatekeeping, when done effectively, will rig the outcome of the conversation.
- The Bailey and Motte Fallacy will often be employed as a technique of deconstruction to deflect criticism.
- The Conversational dialectic allows for embedding language that disguises the true purpose. One might nominally oppose that which they are effectively and intentionally promoting. They might alternately say they just want a respectful conversation without disclosing that the conversation will be rigged to favor their outcome.
- The gate-keeping in such conversations will be limited to manipulating language at first while employing force or open advocacy is inconvenient. As the conversation either approaches consensus or those in power otherwise attain a level of power where they no longer need to talk, then the gatekeeping will increasingly involve the employment of force to compel compliance and persecute the resistance.
Modes of the Neo-Marxist Conversational Dialectic.
Neo-Marxism rarely exists alone nowadays, but is embedded as foundational elements in derivative movements such as Feminism, the LGBTQ+ movement, and Critical Race Theory.
In the mode of Feminism, “women” are the oppressed class, and men are the oppressors. Gatekeeping will re-frame the murderous act of abortion as “reproductive freedom,” with “my body, my choice” being applicable only to women seeking abortions and never to the pre-born child. In the dialectic of abortion rights, the child is a member of the oppressor class who is oppressing the mother by simply living inside her body. Anything other then Matriarchy is cast as Patriarchy. Biblical Complementarianism is cast as Patriarchy in spite of the face there are significant differences between Complementarity – which posits areas in which women reign – and Patriarchy that makes men supreme in all things.
In the mode of LGBTQ+, various non-heteronormative categories are the oppressed class and hetero-normal is the oppressor class. Gatekeeping typically involves promoting “allies” and labeling everything else bigotry. As the LGBTQ+ movement sees itself as part of a dialectical struggle, there are no middle categories or room for disagreement. Everyone is either an ally or a bigot in LGBTQ+ narratives.
In the Mode of Critical Race Theory, the Neo-Marxist Dialectic is a dialectical racial struggle. Racism is the meta-narrative. Non-white races are the oppressed classes and white are the oppressors. Guilt over racism is systemically distributed to whites as a group, and gate-keeping dismisses any attempt to defend against such indictments white fragility and dismiss prejudice or discrimination against whites as simply removing privilege.