3.2 | truth and critical theory

III | TRUTH

In the Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, truth is defined this way:

Recognition of the merits of cultural pluralism also stemmed from the intellectual, artistic, and cultural developments that, together, are referred to as postmodernity. Postmodern thinkers rejected the confidence and hubris of the Enlightenment and Positivism, both of which presumed that truth could be known and discovered and that truth was universal and constant. Postmodernists are much more skeptical about truth. For them, no direct, necessary correspondence exists between reality and ideas about it—because there is no unitary, unified reality. A center does not exist, ontologically, epistemologically, or culturally. As a result, postmodern thinkers reject the idea of a dominant voice or metanarrative with claims to authority. This rejection of a dominant voice legitimized different voices rather than strengthened the dominant culture. An outgrowth of this intellectual turn is that cultural minorities or enclaves began to be and are valued as different voices, each voice with its own claim to partial, provisional truth. (Thompson 2015, 192)

Let me paraphrase that. Critical Theory teaches us that truth is socially validated statements about reality produced by power structures within a culture. Truth is knowledge that is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it. “Truths” are socially constructed by the systems of power (and the powerful within them) in society and then used to dominate, particularly in the attempt to maintain their power and exclusive status.

Postmodern thought, and by extension Critical Theory, rejects the idea that truth can be known and discovered and that truth is universal and constant.

The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice goes on to say that “no direct correspondence exists between reality and ideas about it because there is no unitary, unified reality.” What does this mean? Objective facts about anything, including existence itself, do not and cannot exist. There are only subjective facts.

Why is this so important to CT? Go back to the worldview questions. The problem that Critical Theory is trying to solve is one of oppression. Therefore, if we subscribe to the worldview of CT, anything that someone in a position of power tells us is true is only meant to further subjugate us. This could be a parent, a police officer, a judge, or a teacher. Potentially, anyone who holds a position of power and tells us “the truth” is only attempting to maintain their power over us. People in power have created things that are “true” to dominate and oppress the marginalized.

CT says facts are not factual. At best, unbiased reality does not exist. At worst, what we know as truth was created for the purpose of controlling and oppressing the marginalized.

What is truth, according to Critical Theory? Subjective. Socially constructed. The truth is just a matter of perspective, the perspective of those in power in society. Oppressors.

Each one of us has our own truth, our own facts. And our truth is just as true as any other person’s truth because it is true to us. If something is true to me, any “facts” I might be presented with are irrelevant. Ultimately, someone—or even society itself—trying to change my “truth” is their attempt to dominate and oppress me. Especially if they are in a position of power.

Applying CT will help us realize that truths about society, morality, and even reality have been created by the oppressor to oppress the marginalized. When a person in authority tells me the truth, their motive is to oppress and marginalize me.

Does that mean that CT denies the existence of objective facts? Not at all. CT asserts that an individual’s opinion or perspective on a fact is more important than the fact itself, especially if that person is considered oppressed or marginalized. There can still be facts, but our interpretations of those facts are the most important.

We “cheese-fryians” like the idea of subjective truth. Subjective truth means that I can be completely confident that cheese fries are an acceptable form of nutrition. The “truth” of salad being “healthier” than cheese fries is created by the oppressors—those “healthy eaters” trying to dominate and oppress us.

Cheese fries are no better or worse than salad. People may use things like cholesterol, calories, and nutrition to make a truth claim. But all that data exists only to create and further the oppression of the cheese-fryians. You can’t measure the state of my mental health when I eat cheese fries; therefore, your data and perspective are only in service of your truth. My truth is that cheese fries make me happy. If I had to eat salad for every meal, I’d live in a perpetual mental health crisis. Therefore, cheese fries are healthy for me. And my truth is just as good as your truth.

Growing up, when I got my feelings hurt, my parents would tell me that feelings aren’t facts. In other words, just because you got your feelings hurt, doesn’t mean a person intended for that to happen. [BH1]  How many of us know a person (or are a person) who gets offended at innocuous or flippant comments? When I was a child, when I would get corrected, I would have a tendency to overthink it and get my feelings deeply hurt. Normal correction – like my parents telling me that I needed to stop complaining about something I didn’t like -  would affect me deeply to the point that I would think they didn’t “love me for who I am.” As if my negativity is somehow a positive part of my identity. My parents’ intent was to help me be more positive. However, I took their intent as if it was to hurt me. Offense is something we all have to struggle with. People often get offended without us having been offensive towards them.

In the worldview of Critical Theory, feelings might not be facts, but feelings are more important than facts. The “truth” about subjective truth is that it is inherently biased. It’s not based in facts; it’s based in judgments and opinions of facts.

On April 27, 2018, Dawn Hilton-Williams was driving through Brunswick County, Virginia on her way home to South Carolina. She was pulled over by a Sheriff’s deputy for going seventy miles per hour in a zone where the speed limit was fifty-five. Afterward, she made an emotional cell phone video that she later posted to Facebook stating that she was "just bullied by a racist cop, who threatened to pull (her) out of the car.” In the video Hilton-Williams talked about being afraid because she was “in a rural little town” and said “This is where we got lynched.” (Source) After receiving calls from people who had seen the Facebook video Brunswick County Sheriff Brian Roberts decided to review the body-cam footage which showed a by-the book traffic stop with no evidence of racism. Instead of admitting that she had misrepresented the stop Hilton Williams maintained her assertion that it as racism even claiming the cop ticketed her "for going 5 miles over then speed limit." (She was actually fifteen over.) Her claim of racism was not based on the facts of what happened. They weren’t based on the actions the police officer. Her claim was based on her feeling that racism took place.

In the world of Critical Theory, racism took place because Dawn Hilton-Williams believed that racism was happening. And if that was true for her, based on how she felt, then it constitutes truth.

Feelings change, perspectives come and go. It is foolish for us to allow our feelings and temporary perspective to form our highest level of truth. My feelings can – and do – manipulate me. My feelings can – and do – manipulate the people around me. We can also be manipulated by the feelings of others. We can all be manipulated by feelings into believing and even seeing things that go against fact.