We hear the terms “Critical Race Theory” and “Critical Theory” all too often, without knowing what they mean. Does “critical” mean really important, or essential, as in a critical step in an experiment? Does it mean disastrous, as in a critical condition? Or does it mean critical, as in criticize, as in a person who criticized a lot?

Well, a check of dictionaries might list all three. So, what does “critical” mean in terms of critical theory? 

A check of sophisticated descriptors is quite abstract, having to do with looking at all aspects of a society or culture and changing one’s perspective or attitude. It is often described by giving it its “original” use, as a Marxist technique to undermine a society. 

However, what does it mean operationally? That is, what or how do you do it? 

If one listens to those carrying out this “theory”, it means to criticize, to criticize anything and everything in an existing system or culture or person, supposedly leading to a different, often described as “better” society or culture. 

In our personal lives, a critical person tends to divide others. If one criticizes an idea you have, there is an implied better idea, because yours is a bad idea. 

Now, what’s the “theory” part? Well, that’s rarely – never- explained. 

To put it all together, it means that if one criticizes everything, then, in theory,  there will be division. The society will see itself as bad, and collapse.

As a psychiatrist, I must take this one step further. You see, people using critical theory imply that what they criticize is “bad”. For example, if my idea is criticized, it must be a bad idea. This leaves us with the question of what, then, is good? 

People using criticism politically tend to see the current system as bad, and thus needing change. Change to a what? A good system. 

Bad and good, bad and good. 

Now, all of us saw the world in good and bad terms early in our lives, as a toddler. If mommy did something the toddler didn’t like, mommy is bad, all bad. She deserves the toddler’s anger. If it was something the toddler liked, mommy was good, all good. She deserves praise.

However, we all – at least the healthy ones of us, transition into a stage in which people , ideas, etc. have both good (desirable) and bad (undesirable) aspects. This is called ambivalence. As we mature, we can tolerate this. Mommy is good/bad. Mommy just is. We don’t have to get angry at her, and we don’t have to praise her. Sure, if on balance, Mommy is bad, we might be angry at her. Most of the time, we understand that people, ideas, etc. will have both good and bad qualities.

So, how does this relate to critical theory as used today? Well, critical people tend to see others, others’ ideas, as bad or good. The result is often a psychological phenomenon called splitting.  In a psychiatry ward, if there is a splitter,  the other people in the unit might come to see one person as bad and the others as good. The splitter might see nurse 1 as mean, not like that nice nurse 2. After a while, the unit and even nurse 1 see themselves as bad or mean, while the others see Nurse 2 as good or kind. In this kind of clinical situation, the unit becomes dysfunctional. However, the clinicians can rectify this by showing the splitter that Nurse 1 and Nurse 2 see each other as OK, neither all good nor all bad, but as people. They really see and do things in about the same way. Neither is all bad or all good. After a while, the unit also realizes this, and it resumes proper function. The splitter may even come to see how his perceptions were overdone and really take a look at himself.

However, in society, splitters just split others, to the degree that they see the other side as all good or all bad. 

In today’s world,  this is where our society is. It is split. The splitters have won. The only thing is that the splitters aren’t doing their criticizing and splitting as part of their personality, but rather, quite consciously. Of course, they may be natural splitters, which is why they see splitting as a useful tool.

To take this one step further, one can assume that really good conscious splitters are also unconscious splitters. That is, they have not progressed enough from the splitting stage of childhood development to the more mature, ambivalent stage. 

By the way, the “theory” part of critical theory seems to mean that, in theory,  criticizing everything will split a society to the degree of civil war, whether physically or mentally. 

And, as we can see that criticizing every thing about the other side does in fact  lead to “war”  the theory is proven.

And that’s critical theory.