10 Things You Should Know About Critical Theory

What Is Critical Theory?

If you are like many people, for a good while you may have heard the term “critical theory” in the news, in this or that journal, or in your various media sources. And again, if you are like many, you may have thought, “What is critical theory” It is a good question. Here are ten things you should know about critical theory.

1. Critical theory is part of an intellectual tradition reaching back to the early twentieth century.

Critical theory was born in 1923 in Frankfurt, Germany (hence sometimes called the “Frankfurt School”). There were numerous founders, some of the key ones being Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Walter Benjamin. Herbert Marcuse soon joined the effort. Institutionally, the founders of the school of critical theory founded the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. Carl Grünberg was the first Director of the Institute, and was followed by Max Horkheimer, a leading light of critical theory. With the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s, many of the members of the Frankfurt School migrated to the United States. Some founded (a US version of) the Institute for Social Research, associated with Columbia University in New York City. Others travelled further, to California, and had an association with the University of California, Berkeley.

2. Critical theory can be understood as a worldview or basic set of convictions.

Critical theory should be understood as a basic worldview, driven by a basic set of convictions. It had a tangible institutional life (the Institute for Social Research), a journal, Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung (Archive for the History of Socialism and the Labor Movement). Various members would publish numerous articles and monographs. It was a genuine research program with an ambitious research agenda. We will look at some of these worldview issues or basic convictions below.

3. Critical theory is Marxist, but with a twist.

The critical theorists are often called “cultural Marxists.” This is fundamentally correct. But there is something unique about critical theory. The critical theorists are Marxists, but frustrated and perhaps even perplexed Marxists. In the early 1920s, when the Institute for Social Research was beginning to get underway, Russia had already experienced its (1917) revolution, a Marxist revolution. Some German intellectuals (the critical theorists) were asking: “Why has not the revolution occurred here, in Germany?” The critical theorists began to question the received (or traditional) Marxism, and even to re-work it. So, critical theory—at one level—is an attempt to remain essentially Marxist, while reworking and reconfiguring the Marxist system to account for why the hoped-for Marxist revolution had not occurred in Germany. The reason critical theory is sometimes called Cultural Marxism is because critical theory posited that the essential element of a revolutionary transformation of the world was not simply an economic issue. Rather, there were certain cultural issues (e.g., the traditional family and the church) which were impediments to the revolution. There must be indeed a “long march through the [cultural] institutions” (coined by Rudi Dutschke, articulated around 1967).

4. The real, or ostensible “bogeyman” of critical theory is Nazism or Fascism.

One of the most interesting features of twentieth-century political discourse is the tendency by many of the intelligentsia to be extremely concerned about Fascism (real or imagined) while simultaneously being quite accommodating to various forms of socialism or Communism. It is impossible to understand critical theory without grasping how important Nazism or Fascism is to the proponents of critical theory. Though critical theory as a movement precedes the rise of Nazism in Germany, Nazism or Fascism soon (by the 1930s) came to be a chief concern of the critical theorists. A key question for the critical theorists was: How do we stop Fascism in general, and the next Hitler in particular, from arising? This concern goes a long way to understanding Herbert Marcuse’s justification of censoring “right wing” or conservative thought and writing, all in the name of stopping tyranny (see Marcuse’s classic essay, “Repressive Tolerance”).

5. Critical theory, like many traditional Christians, has concerns about popular culture and technology.

The traditional Christian who reads the critical theorist might be struck by several strands of thought which (counter-intuitively, perhaps) seem to resonate with his or her own concerns. One of these concerns relate to the dominance and ubiquitous nature of popular culture and technology. Again, the critical theorists pondered why the revolution had not occurred in their native Germany. They posited that there were cultural and not just economic impediments keeping the revolution from occurring. The critical theorist wrote much about the “culture industry.” The notion of the “culture industry” was that popular culture’s influence was so all-encompassing that persons who were actually economically and unjustly oppressed were anaesthetized (fooled) into not realizing that they were oppressed—and they were anaesthetized or fooled by the influence of popular culture. Traditional Christians will likely resonate—to a degree—with the influence of popular culture (have you seen person after person mesmerized by their smart phone lately?).

6. Critical theory, like many traditional Christians, has deep concerns about the Enlightenment.

One of the most important books in critical theory canon is Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments (1947). This book expresses a sentiment or conviction that runs through much of the work of the critical theorists: the Enlightenment, which promised freedom to Western man, has actually led to, or contributed to, a lack of freedom. That is, the Enlightenment, which was (ostensibly) rooted in notions of freedom, liberty, self-expression, and opportunity, has betrayed its great promises. Instead, the Enlightenment has resulted in slavery (of a sense), a lack of liberty, a lack of true individuality, and a lack of opportunity. This is bound up with the critical theorists’ insistent criticism of capitalism—an economic system or program which likewise made great promises of freedom, but which (again, ostensibly) has only led to economic misery and oppression. Some critics have responded to the critical theorists by essentially saying, “Three cheers for the Enlightenment” (e.g., the work of James Lindsay). The Christian might find himself (uncomfortably, perhaps) agreeing with the critical theorist and asking, “Is there a better response to the failures of the Enlightenment besides simply returning to the Enlightenment? Might there be a more distinctly Christian social theory which should be at the heart of a Christian view of reality?”

Critical theory should be seen as a kind of alternative religion, a worldview parasitic upon, but not in agreement with, biblical Christianity.

7. Critical theory has its own view of reality, in a sense a doctrine of creation.

Critical theory should be seen as a kind of alternative religion, a worldview parasitic upon, but not in agreement with, biblical Christianity. As such, critical theory has its own view of reality, its own metaphysic, its own “doctrine” of creation. That is, critical theory has its own view or doctrine of the nature of reality. However, the doctrine of creation lurking in the writings of critical theory is quite different from a traditional Christian doctrine of creation. For critical theory, rather than there existing a kind of pre-fall era which exists before sin emerges, for critical theorists, the problems with the world go back to before (or nearly so, in some critical theory writings). As such, the critical theorists can be seen as contemporary advocates of Gnosticism—an ancient heresy which posited that the material world is inherently bad or sinful. The critical theorists are “gnostics” in that they seem (almost always) to posit that the problems with reality are inherent to reality itself.

8. Critical theory has its own view of sin, in a sense a doctrine of sin.

On the one hand, critical theory sees the deep problems and pathologies of our era as having existed from the beginning (hence the charge of Gnosticism). At the same time, the critical theorists can at times look at things from another, but related, perspective. The critical theorists, since they posit that the problem with the world is inherent in the nature of things, tend to emphasize that the problem with the world is in the system of things, not with persons per se. Thus, the critical theorists, when diagnosing the various problems of our day, tend to emphasize the problem with systems. For the Christian, there may be a place for this, but the unfortunate result of the work and logic of critical theory is that their tendency is to look at the system and to not look at the human person. We will return to this.

9. Critical theory has its own view of how to make things right, in a sense a doctrine of redemption and even eschatology.

Critical theory has not only a certain “doctrine” of creation and sin, but it also has a kind of doctrine of redemption, and even a kind of view of history and eschatology. Marx is famous for saying that the goal (of the Marxist) is not to understand the world but to change it. The critical theorists, since they certainly followed this maxim, to that extent remained faithful Marxists. Herbert Marcuse, especially, was quite explicit. Marcuse believed that what was needed was a new “reality principle.” Following Sigmund Freud, Marcuse held that the “reality principle” (the need for order, sexual morality, restraint, etc.) was always in competition with the “pleasure principle” (the deep desire for pleasure, especially virtually unencumbered sexual experience). The only answer to this ongoing conflict, as Marcuse saw it, was a new reality principle, and this new reality principle essentially means the world must be fundamentally changed. This new reality principle, this fundamental change of the universe, could be accomplished if all things were sexualized and persons were allowed to experience unfettered sexual pleasure. Essentially, “redemption” (a new “reality principle”) was to be accomplished through sexual pleasure.

10. Critical theory is not critical enough.

Lastly, and this may seem counterintuitive, but the greatest weakness of the critical theorists is that they did not get to the heart of the matter. That is, the critical theorists were not critical enough. The critical theorists offered their own doctrines of creation, sin, and redemption. Given that all persons are created in the image of God, and that God has set eternity in the hearts of men (Eccl. 3:11), we should not be surprised if the critical theorists offered an understanding of reality which simultaneously borrowed Christian themes and categories while also twisting and corrupting them. The writings and efforts of the critical theorists are a real (albeit sad) testimony to the truthfulness of the Christian view of God, man, and the world. So, the theorists were correct to try to understand what is wrong with the world, but they were ultimately not critical enough. The critical theorists tended to see the problem as embedded in a “system”; that is, the problem was “out there” (in the system). Therefore, they failed to recognize that the problem is deeper. The problem is much deeper and more profound—and more (almost) intractable. They were right to posit that what was needed was a new “reality principle”—quite right indeed. But they failed to see that the “new man” which is so truly needed will not come through any sort of violent revolution, but it most certainly will come through death. It will come through the death (and resurrection) of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ. The world will indeed be changed (and not just understood), but it will be a change flowing from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who makes all things new.

Bradley G. Green is the author of What Is Critical Theory?: A Concise Christian Analysis.

Related Articles

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.