Has Critical Theory Captured the Right?

Who is in charge? The one who is the final arbiter of the truth. But what does that mean for a “post-truth” age? Do we trust Jesus, who claimed to be the truth? Or Pilate, the forerunner of deconstructionism and critical theory?

Eric Sammons looks at the issue through the lens of the bewildered Catholic layman trying to discern the truths of competing narratives. He seems to see the current questioning of received truths as a phenomenon of a mass awakening after the lie-filled Covid spin cycle. He goes on to list some now-questioned narratives, and in doing so he employs—probably unconsciously—a key interpretive tool favored by the Left, which is to situate everything in terms of power. He writes about the need to question received narratives “especially when those who promote these narratives the most vigorously advance their own power base in doing so.”

In another recent piece in Crisis, Auguste Meyrat takes on the correct approach to disputed narratives when suggesting that the much-discussed Tucker Carlson-Darryl Cooper interview offers food for thought about contemporary American foreign policy. Meyrat makes use of demonstrable facts about U.S. actions abroad since World War II. It is possible to make a counterargument and assert that he is mistaken, but that is not the point I want to make. What needs to be seen is that Meyrat has avoided recourse to conspiracy theories to make his case. Much to the detriment of any rational discourse, especially when it is needed in a chaotic era, other commentators are resorting to explanations of reality with only a tenuous connection to real events.

Thinkers like Roger Scruton have pointed out that the Left, enthralled by legions of “fools, frauds and firebrands,” has devolved into a morass of relativism, so that today it is common to hear talk of “my truth.” The result is that a segment of the population, bereft of any sense of solidarity with others in objective truth and hence increasingly anxious and fearful, is falling prey to authoritarians and totalitarians who offer security. 

Traditionally, the conservative Right has touted family, place, and community as bulwarks against threats from the Left. But, as Patrick Deneen argues, conservatism isn’t what it seems, with many erstwhile conservatives actually holding classical liberal beliefs. Regardless of the accuracy of Deneen’s critique, what is surely true is that conspiracy theories have gained widespread credibility on the Right. Have conservatives succumbed to the siren song of critical theory?

The convinced conservative may object: No. I believe in objective truth. Perhaps, but how do we explain the rise of the following: arguments for the existence of UFOs; the explosion of anti-Semitism; inflammatory narratives about race, privilege, and immigration; assertions about machinations in the election of popes; and reams written about the involvement of the CIA in—well—everything? That’s only a tiny fraction of all extant conspiracy theories, but they have all been proposed and defended by influential individuals in recent months.

So, is this capture of thinking on the Right and the emergence of a hyper-skepticism an example of critical theory? Or is it perhaps the ancient problem of Gnosticism in a new iteration? Could it be St. Pius X’s nightmarish modernism? Is this capture of thinking on the Right and the emergence of a hyper-skepticism an example of critical theory? Or is it perhaps the ancient problem of Gnosticism in a new iteration? Could it be St. Pius X’s nightmarish modernism?Tweet This

Without settling on an exact definition or diagnosis, I think we can conclude that one major reason for this new way of seeing stems from a crisis of authority. Two institutions especially open to blame are the media and the Church. A good recent summary of the descent of the press (media) can be found in The Free Press article by Matti Friedman titled “When We Started to Lie.” Friedman describes how he “watched as the goal of mainstream journalism shifted from describing reality to ushering readers to the correct political conclusion.” When people recognize they are not receiving the truth from the institution supposedly singularly devoted to reporting the truth, they will look elsewhere. Some have always looked to the Church for that deposit of truth.

The Church has long undergone attacks on the truths it holds. Councils have been called over the centuries to define truth as opposed to distortions of the truth preached by heretics. But since the mid-twentieth century, Catholicism has seemingly lost its certainty on any number of issues it once held the line on: communism, the liturgy, the role of women, sexual practice and marriage, and so on. One could compare and contrast the clear, forcefully articulated statements of Popes Pius XI and XII with the debased rhetoric of the current Supreme Pontiff to see what has happened. But even the sometimes-confusing pontificate of John Paul II gives us moral clarity such as that found in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), in which the Polish pope writes with refreshing clarity and unmistakable authority: 

[I]n harmony with my Predecessors and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (65) 

Where wishy-washiness reigns, uncertainty prevails, and where uncertainty prevails, voices promising a hitherto-hidden truth will garner attention and followers. Thus, there is an increasing number of Catholics who question the validity of the last papal conclave, among other things.

It would be futile to pretend that the Church has had no association with anti-Semitism over the centuries, but one must be careful to distinguish different elements of what are and are not truly anti-Semitic. (For a brief look at the gamut of Catholic books on Catholic-Jewish relations, see my Substack post here.) Hating and killing Jews simply because they are Jews is straightforwardly anti-Semitic. Likewise, taking any crisis or problem or injustice and making a link to Jewish individuals or groups as a foolproof scapegoating method is also anti-Semitic. Stating that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and that everyone, Jew or Gentile, needs Christ’s salvific power is not anti-Semitic. Matthew Tsakanikas helps sort out the misunderstandings around Israel, Zionism, and proper Catholic attitudes toward them.

The discipline and time investment of scholarship is hard. Giving vent to feelings and easy answers suits our concupiscence much better. Too many—Catholics and others—would rather listen to rants about pedophile “Frankists” or home in on a “popular historian” asserting that Churchill’s bloodlust for war was partly because he was beholden to “financiers” (aka Jewish bankers).

The crisis of authority is foundational to our struggles in the world and tragedies in eternity. Satan undermined God’s authority when he convinced Eve to taste of the fruit. In the Gospels (cf. Matthew 21 and Mark 11), Jesus offers the Pharisees the answer they supposedly seek: “By what authority dost thou these things?” But His framing of the question around the person of John the Baptist prevents them from getting that answer. And in Acts 19, we read the story of the sons of Sceva, who were using the name of Jesus to exorcise, until one evil spirit called their bluff—to them, the sacred name was merely a tool. It had no other meaning than that. The evil spirit taught them their folly.

We should hope that those blithely following the pied pipers of conspiracies will stop their ears, examine the evidence all around them, and allow the Truth to set them free.