I have been feeling increasingly uncomfortable with some of the ideas and attitudes manifested in discussions around topics of race, gender and other identity groups that have been brought to the forefront of popular culture, academia and public life alike in recent years. My discomfort turned to alarm when I one day caught myself expressing some of the ideas I was so wary of. The problem is I have found it difficult to distinguish a desire to counter injustice from the specific attitudes and methods proposed by Critical Theory and Social Justice (capitalised) movements, and I doubt I am the only one. These ideas have permeated much of the discussion around the issues they address and in some spheres have managed to establish themselves as the only way to right the wrongs of the world. I think having spent 18 months largely restricted at home and with limited organic face-to-face interaction, these ideas had more opportunity to flourish in my mind away from the tempering effects of “real life”. For these reasons, when I came across this book, I decided to read it to try and get a clearer idea of exactly what these theories suggest and hopefully work out what aspects made sense to me and where my unease was coming from.

I will start with a disclaimer of sorts. Although the topic of this book is Critical Theories, it would perhaps be more fitting to describe it as Critical Theories vs Secular Liberalism. The writers make their position clear quite early on: Secular Liberalism is the ideal for societal organisation and the solution to many of the problems we face as societies and humans. Secular Liberalism is positioned as the assumed starting point, or neutral point, in the discussion and it is assumed that the reader agrees with this position. I don’t think this is a problem; rather, knowing the writers’ views clearly is preferable to a hidden agenda. However, it is important to remain aware of this ideological foundation as you read the book. I found that it allowed me to think over the strengths and weaknesses of Critical Theories and Secular Liberalism at the same time, so that could be considered an added benefit!

As I mentioned previously, I read this book as a way to clarify my jumbled thoughts and am therefore not an expert on the topics addressed. This means it is hard for me to attest to the accuracy of the information in the book. However, I did read some one star reviews on Goodreads that suggest that the evolution of Critical Theories and assumptions of post-modernism – the theoretical basis for Critical Theories – are not portrayed accurately and that there has perhaps been some strategic erasure of certain ideas or scholars in the field. These reviews are probably worth reading as well if you decide to read this book. As always, this just emphasises the importance of reading more than one book on any given topic. I am not going to review this book as such, then, but just highlight some of the ways it was beneficial to me and some of the thoughts I had as I listened to it.

Something I always appreciate in a non-fiction book is clear organisation and a logical progression of ideas that make it easy to follow and build my understanding and I think this book has done that well. It starts in a chronological way, providing an overview of Post-Modernism as the basis of Critical Theories and its evolution over time to become the manifestation we see today. It then focuses on different areas where such theory is most prominent: Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, Feminism and Gender Studies, and Disability and Fat Studies. Finally, it looks at how applying Critical Theory impacts the real world, highlighting its negative impacts. The last chapter focuses on why the writers believe Secular Liberalism is the real solution to the problems Social Justice movements look to solve. I would say the last chapter was the weakest in terms of critical analysis and academic rigour; there were a lot of moments where the writers claimed characteristics for Secular Liberalism alone that are by no means exclusive to it. However, perhaps I just recognised the weakness in this chapter more because I am more familiar with Secular Liberalism than Critical Theory. There were similar moments in other chapters, particularly with regard to their disparaging comments on theocracies and religion as irrational and unjust systems. Another aspect I didn’t like was the tone, which is quite often too sarcastic or “rant-like” for my liking. The Coddling of the American Mind, which covers a similar general topic, does a much better job of this; I will write a post about it soon, in sha Allah.

Despite my disagreement with some of the writers’ views, this book helped me to pinpoint some of the reasons I am uncomfortable with the ideas and methods promoted in popular discourse that seems to be inspired by Critical Theories. Here are a few:

• Denial of individualism and universalism: nothing can be the experience of all people or of just one person; it is always linked to an identity group experience. Similarly, responsibility cannot just be attributed to the individual but is based on affiliation with identity groups.
• Cynicism: The idea that there is always injustice taking place and that it is incurable except through accepting the rules set out by this ideology. It also asserts that certain people are innately guilty of injustice simply based on their allotted identities, which means it is outside individual control but the person should be punished for it anyway. This also leads to a lack of empathy between people and heightens inter-group tensions rather than eliminating them.
• Disconnection from reality: Many of the solutions that come up, such as intensive discourse analysis leading to very strict policing of speech, are unnatural. They disregard human nature and human realities, both in the claims they make and the natural and normal reactions people would have to it. For example, while language can impact lived realities, it also emerges from them; to try and police this is both unrealistic and often becomes oppressive. Similarly, telling people from certain identity groups that they are innately unjust and setting up an obstacle course of mistakes to look out for so that whatever they do, they will be blamed, is unlikely to appeal to human nature’s kind side and can instead create resentment and resistance. The book suggests that this is partially due to the fact that these ideas are developed as theories, rather than emerging from practical realities. It also highlights that a fundamental part of these theories is the idea that much of what was previously considered biological fact is actually socially constructed; this is particularly prominent in Queer Theory, with the idea that gender and, increasingly, sex are not biologically real, but has spread to other areas. This is then a built-in and intentional disconnection from reality.
• Victimisation: weakening people from certain identity groups by consistently positioning them as victims and powerless, an attitude which takes away their power rather than increasing it.
• Intolerance: By using guilt and often brute force (through extreme social shaming), Critical Theory does not tolerate dissent. If someone does not agree with the specific ideas and methods promoted through some Social Justice movements, they are accused of perpetuating unjust power structures and racism/sexism/etc.

The intolerance of alternative views and accusations of injustice and insensitivity is something I have experienced multiple times and I’m sure many of you have too. It led me to a lot of self-doubt and loss of confidence in my own ability to judge a situation, to learn more and apply this learning to better understand the world and to endeavour to be an empathetic, just and wise person who can make positive contributions to society. I have been trying to navigate these feelings for a while and this has led me to censor myself out of self-doubt and sometimes to not speak at all for fear of saying something that will be unjust. The thoughts triggered by this book have helped me to re-establish some balance within myself in this regard, although I know I need to work on this further, particularly through Islamic sources. I say this not to elicit pity or to suggest that my opinions are always correct, but to show the effect it can have on people who sincerely want to understand and work towards better circumstances. It’s also to show others who may have felt the same way that they are not the only ones.

Of course, as with any ideology or theoretical framework, they will be applied in different ways by different people when they enter the real world. I am not suggesting that everyone who expresses ideas from Critical Theories has the intention to negatively affect anyone. In fact, it seems to me that many of these ideas have come out of a natural reaction to extreme injustice and, as often happens, has swung towards the opposite extreme. Understanding this is perhaps useful to deciding how to move forward.

Overall, thinking through this has helped me to see more clearly how some of these ideas directly counter the Islamic approach, which is one of all-encompassing mercy and assuming the best of people while ensuring justice and dignity for all of Allah’s creation. Allah has told us that He will judge people on their intentions and Islamic law focuses on actions. This directly contradicts the Critical Theories approach, which could be summarised as “a person is not judged by their actions but by their identity”. Not only does this replicate injustice, but it is also very disempowering and potentially destructive as it breaks down positive interaction between people and takes us further away from real world solutions to the many problems that plague our societies today.