The devil himself can speak truth when it serves his purpose. #𝟏 Is it true? #𝟐 Are knee-jerk assumptions and accusations that the speaker's motivation is the ism of your perceived oppressor helpful or proof of falsehood? #𝟑 Does the purpose or motivation of the speaker make something that is true false?
After saying all that, do the results of something true or false being spoken matter? What is CRT really? My understanding of critical theory in general is a thorough examination of something, often specifically the conventional views of a subject. Honest history is a good goal since history is often biased to the point of falsehood by omission. We should know the truth. If the result is increased hostility, is it helpful in leading to a better society for all? That leads to the question, can honest discussion take place in the 21at century or is that now impossible?
I recently read an article where the idea that many on the right prefer a Trump victory to another Republican victory because if would cause more anguish, wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left. I think it is true. By the same token, many on the left vindictively wish to tear down all things precious to the right to inflict the same emotional anguish. Heavy sigh!
"Does the purpose or motivation of the speaker make something that is true false?"
This has become an impossible needle for a depressing number of people to thread. Some people simply can't appraise information on its merits anymore. Maybe because they're too lazy to do the legwork required to appraise *any* information. So they just check if the speaker is on "their side" or not and go from there.
"My understanding of critical theory in general is a thorough examination of something, often specifically the conventional views of a subject."
I think you're thinking of critical *thinking* here. Critical theory is kind of an umbrella term for a range of academic work analysing how different identities and societal constructs create or maintain power dynamics (I swear, I did my best to make that description sound as unpretentious as possible and I'm still slightly upset with my fingers for having typed it).
My first encounter with critical theory was the writings of Bart D. Ehrman. The key word critical in academic studies can be applied to a broader range than you mention. What you wrote is not so different from where I'm coming from. A sample:
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥-𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥” method. It is completely different from the “devotional” approach to the Bible one learns in church.
The devotional approach to the Bible is concerned about what the Bible has to say—especially what it has to say to me personally or to my society. What does the Bible tell me about God? Christ? The church? My relation to the world? What does it tell me about what to believe? About how to act? About social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make me closer to God? How does it help me to live?
The historical-critical approach has a different set of concerns and therefore poses a different set of questions. At the heart of this approach is the historical question (hence its name) of what the biblical writings meant in their original historical context. Who were the actual authors of the Bible? Is it possible (yes!) that some of the authors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed, or were claimed, to be—say, that 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul, or that Genesis was not written by Moses? When did these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day? How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there are irreconcilable differences among them?
Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (pp. 4-5). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
[Clarification addition: Is critical theory pertaining to America's history "historical-critical" vs the history being challenged as devotional history?]
"𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘰. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐’𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘥, 𝘐 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘙𝘶𝘧𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭."
The devil himself can speak truth when it serves his purpose. #𝟏 Is it true? #𝟐 Are knee-jerk assumptions and accusations that the speaker's motivation is the ism of your perceived oppressor helpful or proof of falsehood? #𝟑 Does the purpose or motivation of the speaker make something that is true false?
After saying all that, do the results of something true or false being spoken matter? What is CRT really? My understanding of critical theory in general is a thorough examination of something, often specifically the conventional views of a subject. Honest history is a good goal since history is often biased to the point of falsehood by omission. We should know the truth. If the result is increased hostility, is it helpful in leading to a better society for all? That leads to the question, can honest discussion take place in the 21at century or is that now impossible?
I recently read an article where the idea that many on the right prefer a Trump victory to another Republican victory because if would cause more anguish, wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left. I think it is true. By the same token, many on the left vindictively wish to tear down all things precious to the right to inflict the same emotional anguish. Heavy sigh!
"Does the purpose or motivation of the speaker make something that is true false?"
This has become an impossible needle for a depressing number of people to thread. Some people simply can't appraise information on its merits anymore. Maybe because they're too lazy to do the legwork required to appraise *any* information. So they just check if the speaker is on "their side" or not and go from there.
"My understanding of critical theory in general is a thorough examination of something, often specifically the conventional views of a subject."
I think you're thinking of critical *thinking* here. Critical theory is kind of an umbrella term for a range of academic work analysing how different identities and societal constructs create or maintain power dynamics (I swear, I did my best to make that description sound as unpretentious as possible and I'm still slightly upset with my fingers for having typed it).
My first encounter with critical theory was the writings of Bart D. Ehrman. The key word critical in academic studies can be applied to a broader range than you mention. What you wrote is not so different from where I'm coming from. A sample:
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥-𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥” method. It is completely different from the “devotional” approach to the Bible one learns in church.
The devotional approach to the Bible is concerned about what the Bible has to say—especially what it has to say to me personally or to my society. What does the Bible tell me about God? Christ? The church? My relation to the world? What does it tell me about what to believe? About how to act? About social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make me closer to God? How does it help me to live?
The historical-critical approach has a different set of concerns and therefore poses a different set of questions. At the heart of this approach is the historical question (hence its name) of what the biblical writings meant in their original historical context. Who were the actual authors of the Bible? Is it possible (yes!) that some of the authors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed, or were claimed, to be—say, that 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul, or that Genesis was not written by Moses? When did these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day? How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there are irreconcilable differences among them?
Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (pp. 4-5). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
[Clarification addition: Is critical theory pertaining to America's history "historical-critical" vs the history being challenged as devotional history?]