This lecture jumps to Chapter 9 of Arrigo: "Critical Race Theory and Social Justice," by Katheryn K. Russell. Starts on p. 178.

Some facts we think you need to know about Critical Race Theory (CRT):

• Critical race theory has its origins in Critical Legal Studies (CLS). As more and more Republicans were tapped during a Republican era (Reagan), most of the Federal judges appointed were conservative, leaving many, many more liberal colleagues behind them teaching in the law schools. Those liberal legal scholars, who believe that the system of law reflects the privileged subjectivity of those in power, and who believe that the system of law cannot be unbiased, neutral, without a perspective, formed critical legal studies. Russell mentions particularly Duncan Kennedy, about whom we will have more to say later, particularly on his reflections on the hierarchical injustices of institutions and the legal system, and Roberto Unger. p.178.

• Critical race theory criticizes critical legal studies for its undue emphasis on class and economic structure, insisting that race is more critical. Critical race theorists consider race up front and personal. They use narrative to provide the stories that bring some understanding of the unstated assumptions of privilege. They want more than the theorist's contemplation of doctrine and principles. They want change. And they want it now. Thus their style and their approach is more immediate than the oft criticized stuffiness of CLS.

• What do the critical race theorists actually mean by their complaint that CLS too often "places economic and class structures at the center of its analysis?" Let me explain that in terms of a more general approach to sociological theory. As you study a social problem, you need to ask yourself "How do you see the problem?"

  • Where do you see the problem? In the individual? In the social structure?
  • And where do you see the solution? In the individual? In the social structure?

  Joan Kemp, in Women's Work, particularly in her theory summary in Chapters 3 and 4, breaks her analysis of gender and work to show that most theories tend to focus on either the individual or the social structure approach. Oddly enough, though one often thinks of the radical feminist as one who views social problems structurally, Kemp finds just the opposite in her analysis. To the extent that one believes that it is the individual woman who has "false consciousness" and must be made to see the falsity of her position, the approach indeed sees both the problem and the solution to some extent in the individual herself.

  This theoretical approach has very useful policy effects. If we believe that by providing security, basic needs, a family environment, and support for adolescents, they will not fall into delinquency, that is a structural approach. But if we believe that if we teach morals and strength of integrity to our young people, they will not fall into delinquency, that is an individual approach. We will find different policy approaches depending on the different theoretical perceptions of the social problem and the way it can be expressed as a function of tension between the individual and the social structure.

  More to come . . . Try applying the differing approaches to race.