So you’ve read about critical theory and the essence of the critical problem. How does this problem manifest? We start by looking at the people who find themselves affected by it, and move on to how to deal with different situations.
Good intentions
It’s important to realize that many people who argue for critical theory-inspired positions do so with good intentions. People can unknowingly argue for positions that are undermined by evidence, or self-contradictory. This can happen when people rely on flawed or incomplete information, and when they are influenced by personal biases, beliefs, values, and morals.
Many positions informed by critical theory appeal from a moral perspective, especially to individuals concerned about social justice issues. The moral perspective of critical theory philosophy appears to be based on empathy, compassion, and a desire to create a more just and equal society. However, these appearances can lead to missing the contradictions that underlie critical theory positions.
Do they believe in objectivity?
There are two general groups when it comes to positions affected by the critical problem. Let’s consider good-faith and bad-faith regarding belief in objectivity.
The good-faith person believes in objectivity. They believe, for example, that words have distinct and definable meanings, that there is an objective world about which true and false statements may be made, that one person’s “truth” does not change the truth, etc. The idealized good-faith person will argue accordingly to the best of their ability, while assuming that their position is logical (even though, if it is affected by the critical problem, it is likely not).
The bad-faith person has frequently had prolonged contact with, or even works in, academia. Whether for the sake of argument, or sincerely, they do not believe in objectivity, though they may profess to. Nevertheless they will adopt its language when seeking to convince, because they see no problem in using the tools of objectivity to gain agreement or power. In turn, this is because they see the world from the critical theory perspective, in which the concept of objectivity is merely a tool to establish or maintain power.
While the good-faith person might accidentally contradict themselves, the bad-faith person will do so knowingly and shamelessly if it serves their ends. The bad-faith person will use fallacious reasoning, such as kafkatrapping, without concern. For them, the ends (accepting the critical theory position) justifies the means. On the other hand, a good-faith person may deploy various fallacious reasoning that they’ve been indoctrinated with or otherwise absorbed, but if they do so they simply haven’t examined it enough (or at all) to realize the fallacy.
Dealing with the good-faith person
The good-faith person is in a difficult position. For one reason or another, they make an argument which they believe to be consistent, but which is founded ultimately on a paradox. They may be quite emotionally invested in their contention and even have their identity as a “good person” tied up with it.
Debating with a person who doesn’t realize that their position is fundamentally contradictory or paradoxical can be challenging. Ideally, approach the conversation with patience and respect. It’s also important to stay open-minded: be willing to listen to their perspective and consider their arguments. It is possible that you may learn something new or gain a better understanding of the issue.
The best outcome to aim for here is to begin to reveal how the critical problem is influencing their position. (Note that this does not in itself mean their position is wrong – it might be accidentally right. But, it does mean that the position suffers from paradoxical reasoning.) Depending how emotionally invested they are, uncovering the contradiction will help them start to examine the assumptions beneath their position.
Dealing with the bad-faith person
Note: a subset of bad-faith people are not interested in debate. They may convince themselves that you are operating in bad faith – even simply paying respect to objectivity can be enough to provoke this opinion – and shout you down or otherwise meltdown. They may use kafkatrapping to convince themselves you are an oppressor, and shut down the conversation. Remember: a bad faith person essentially believes “might makes right”. If they have made up their mind not to debate you, be prepared for accusations, shaming, pathologising, and so on.
Otherwise, the bad-faith person is also in a difficult position, but for different reasons. They believe in the supremacy of subjectivity, of lived experience, of feels over reals. Yet, if they want to convince via argument, then they often have to cloak their efforts in the garb of objectivity in order to appear reasonable. This is because other people, by and large, are good-faith: they want the world to make sense, they believe it can, and they have an innate idea of what “making sense” means. They have an idea of a reality to which various claims might more or less correspond.