Does Critical Theory Actually Matter for Me Today?

What Is Critical Theory?

For a number of years, the terms or phrases “critical theory,” or “critical race theory,” or “cultural Marxism” have been fairly dominant in the blogosphere and news cycles and the various news feeds that pour into one’s computer or devices. While “critical race theory” may have been more up front and center since the summer of 2020, it is the deeper and older (and more philosophically profound) reality of “critical theory” which is behind the various other “critical theories” (like critical race theory).

In short, critical theory is a kind of worldview, or set of convictions, which tries to make sense of the world. It also (ideally) wishes to change the world. The early critical theorists (going back to the 1920s in Frankfurt, Germany) established a research center, The Center for Social Research, devoted to a kind of research project. This project can be stated in different ways, but it started with a problem: Why had the hoped-for Marxist revolution occurred in Russia (with the Russian revolution of 1917), but had not occurred in Germany? The critical theorists proceeded to retain their Marxism while simultaneously questioning it, interrogating it, and reworking it. That is, the critical theorists were frustrated Marxists who were having to recast and rethink their Marxism, since the hoped-for revolution (at least in Germany) had not emerged.

One might very well say: “This is all interesting, but life is pretty full. Why should this all interest me?” Fair question. What then happens is why all of this matters for us today. The critical theorists were Marxists, so economic forces were central to their analysis of culture and society and (ostensible) injustice. But since the hoped-for revolution had not emerged, was there something missing from their Marxist analysis? The critical theorists asserted that there were other realities at work which were impeding the revolution. These other realities, which were impeding the revolution, were largely cultural (hence one term for the critical theorists, “cultural Marxism”).

The cultural forces which were keeping the revolution at bay were most centrally the traditional family and traditional religion—especially the Christian church and the moral vision which is associated with the traditional family and traditional Christianity. But another cultural factor was at work impeding the revolution: the so-called “culture industry.” The critical theorists lamented that the influence of popular culture was so ubiquitous and all-consuming that this dominance of pop culture was another factor—it mesmerized and bewitched people. That is, popular culture was so influential and so powerful that it was one more piece of the cultural puzzle. And this “culture industry” was one more piece of the cultural set of forces which kept people from realizing their plight. But what is the plight that Western and modern man finds himself in?

And now we get to the heart of things. As the critical theorists saw (and see) things, the average person is oppressed and blind to their oppression at the very same time. Let’s take an “average” person: middle-class, married, with three children, most of whose basic needs are met. This person can even afford to travel some and take one or two vacations per year. According to the critical theorists, this person might think he is “free,” but he is really oppressed by modern capitalism, having no idea he is in fact oppressed. As the critical theorists see it, that is the problem: persons who think they are “free” but are actually trapped in their own particular historical moment and do not even know they are trapped and oppressed. As long as that is the situation, one should not be surprised if the revolution never comes.

So, the critical theorists argued that the problem is not less than economics, but it is certainly more than economics. All of these cultural factors contribute to bewitching, confusing, and numbing the modern person, such that they do not know their own oppression. This line of thinking will lead persons in the critical theory tradition to speak of the “long march through the institutions” (Rudi Dutschke). That is, Dutschke (and others) came to think that what is needed is significant cultural change, and so what was needed was this “long march” which would slowly transform and capture key cultural institutions—for example, schools and departments of education. Here, the critical theorists (and their heirs) were true to their Marxist roots, which also affirmed that the control of education (and challenging parental authority) was central to long-term cultural change and revolution.

Critical theory is a kind of worldview, or set of convictions, which tries to make sense of the world.

Let’s add one more piece to this strange brew, then I will close with one contemporary manifestation of critical theory. Herbert Marcuse offered his own particular slant on critical theory by making sex and sexual desire front and center. He followed Sigmund Freud in arguing that there are two fundamental “principles” which are at the heart of human experience. First, there is the “pleasure principle”—the fact that what people really want is pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, and unfettered sexual pleasure at that. But there is also “reality principle”—which is the fact that in order to have some kind of order and stability in society, people agree. essentially, to behave and not attempt to fulfill the “pleasure principle” in every possible way. Freud saw these two principles in fundamental conflict and that there simply was no way to really overcome the tension or conflict that exists between the two principles. However, Marcuse tried to do one better than Freud. Marcuse argued that we could actually create or forge a new reality principle. That is, through virtually unfettered sexual experience, we could forge a kind of new sexualized reality principle. In short, Marcuse was arguing for a kind of redemption through sexual pleasure.

Once one grasps what Marcuse is arguing, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “sexual revolution.” The sexual revolutionaries of the 1960s (and through to today) may not always be reading Marcuse, but Marcuse held that virtually unfettered sexual experience could actually form a kind of “new man” and new (sexualized) “reality principle.”

Let me just give one example of how this affects the everyday person. It has become fairly commonplace (at least in the US) for public school officials to be reticent to inform parents when Johnny thinks he is really a girl or when Jill thinks he is really a boy. Some public school administrators and teachers have been quite explicit that it is their moral duty to not inform Johnny’s (or Jill’s) parents of what is going on. Why? At least to the extent that the ghost of Marcuse is haunting our current cultural moment, the thinking is rather straightforward (and we must add a rather typical, garden-variety emphasis to the solitary, sovereign individual here as well). In order for Johnny to be truly free and happy, he must follow his sexual impulses (virtually) wherever they lead. To, in virtually any way, discourage certain sexual proclivities or desires is inherently to oppress Johnny and to hinder his true happiness. And if the overcoming of the old “reality principle” is predicated on encouraging (and engaging in) virtually unfettered sexual experience and pleasure, why would anyone want to discourage Johnny from “transitioning” or Jill from “transitioning”?

We could multiply examples at some length, but our current cultural moment vis-à-vis various sexual pathologies and crises is perhaps one of the greatest marks of the influence of critical theory. Of all the critical theorists, Herbert Marcuse was the most important and influential here. I argue that critical theory offers its own “doctrines” of creation, sin, and redemption. And redemption through sexual experience is a shallow and flat pretender compared to the Christian gospel, where redemption is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Critical theory offers a parasitic and deracinated theological vision, which can only be responded to with a full-orbed biblical and theological understanding of creation, sin, and redemption. It is worth taking the time to understand critical theory. You may not be interested in the critical theorists, but they are interested in you and in your children.

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.