Philosophy

The paper discusses the basic principles of Critical Racial Theory (CRT). The reasons, for which CRT is superior to other legal philosophies, are evaluated. Five reasons, for which CRT can be viewed as inferior to other legal philosophies are provided. The paper seeks to create an objective picture of what place CRT occupies in the current system of philosophic beliefs in the legal domain.

Legal philosophy treats Critical Race Theory (CRT) as one of the basic elements of philosophic analysis in legal studies. Because American society remains deeply racist and such racism is fundamentally a matter of the racial inequalities that result from the normal functioning of American institutions (Altman, 2001), CRT is often considered as a successful attempt to apply the principles of realism and rationalism to the evaluation of the current racial situation in society. CRT can be viewed as superior to other philosophies for five essential reasons (1) CRT recognizes the presence of racism in society (2) CRT uses this recognition of racism for the purposes of further philosophic legal analysis (3) affirmative action as another legal philosophy is impossible without CRT (4) CRT tries to balance racism with the striving of society to social equity and (5) CRT makes it possible to institutionalize the existing approaches to racial injustice. However, what looks like CRTs strengths readily turns into its weaknesses and turns CRT into a philosophy that is inferior to the rest of modern legal theories (1) CRT does not provide criteria, which society should meet to be considered non-racist (2) CRT promotes disobedience to law (3) CRT relies on narratives that border on subjectivity (4) CRT does not guarantee the effectiveness of the affirmative action procedures and approaches and (5) by recognizing the permanence of racism, CRT implies that the existing anti-racist approaches and institutions created by the state are never effective.

Critical Race Theory and Philosophic Superiority
CRT is based on the premise that racism is the critical component of social performance in America (Altman, 2001). That is why CRT can be viewed as a legal theory that is superior to other philosophies. The fact is in that CRT is the only legal philosophy that does not deny racism as such and can potentially become the starting point in the development of anti-racist approaches. Needless to say, the belief that the American society is colorblind cannot help create more effective pathways to racial equity nor can it lead to the development of more effective approaches to racial justice (Altman, 2001). However, CRT can become a good starting point in the analysis of the existing racial structures and the impact they produce on the quality of justice.

That CRT can become a good prism for the analysis of the present day racial structures and the impact which they produce on the quality of justice is the second reason, why CRT should be viewed as superior to other philosophies. CRT represents a form of legal realism, which can be used as a relevant philosophic criticism to the traditional legal science. The latter does not recognize the problems that currently exist in the system of impartial judging and the role of racial relationships in it (Mills, 1999).

CRT can be viewed as superior to other legal philosophies because CRT creates conditions necessary for the development of affirmative action approaches. It would be fair to assume that affirmative action is impossible without CRT, as well as without recognizing the existence of racism, which affirmative action is expected to combat (Altman, 2001). These, however, are not the only reasons of why CRT is superior to the rest of legal philosophies.

The fourth reason is in that CRT is the only legal theory that seeks to balance the permanence of racism with the philosophic striving to establish racial equity in society. CRT is beneficial in a sense that it not only recognizes the presence of racism, but also advocates for the development of various approaches against racism and racial inequality. Altman (2001) writes that CRT should improve the conditions of minorities through the combined use of social activity, political mobilization, creative legal interpretation, and disobedience to the rule of law. All these benefits and superior features are logically followed by the fact that CRT confirms the need to institutionalize the existing and new approaches to racial injustice.

CRT confirms the need for institutionalizing the existing approaches to racial injustice. The problem is in that theories that do not recognize racism and do not take is as an inseparable component of modern social structures naturally reflect the overall inflexibility of justice and the lack of responsiveness to the most controversial social issues, including racism. Mills (1999) is confident that such irresponsiveness to racial issues turns simple oppression into violence, because minimizing racism is impossible without recognizing its permanence and the need for developing more effective approaches to justice.

Critical Racial Theory and philosophic issues
What is considered as CRTs philosophic strengths can readily turn into its weaknesses, which will position CRT as inferior to other legal theories. To begin with, where CRT recognizes the existence of racism as the essential feature of the modern social structures in America, it, unfortunately, does not offer the criteria which society should meet to be considered as non-racist. Although Altman (2001) is confident that the aim of CR theorists is to uncover, analyze, and combat the racial subordination that they see throughout society, it is not clear how society should look like to be considered as non-racist.

CRT is inferior to other theories because it promotes disobedience to law (Altman, 2001). This is one of the major problems and the main sources of CRT criticism. What CRT offers to anti-racists is deflating the importance, which is attached to the rule of law (Altman, 1991), and it is natural to assume that the deflation of laws can become a serious obstacle on the minorities way to establishing equity and justice. The deflation of laws can become the driving force of turning oppression into violence, because CRT neither directly advocates for violence, nor directly opposes to it what CRT expresses and promotes is a pragmatic view that justifies every action possible to make equity real (Altman, 2001). A legal theory that defends the need for deflating law and does not openly prohibit violence cannot be superior to other legal theories, including affirmative action and Dworkins Interpretive Theory.

CRT is inferior to other legal philosophies because it relies on narratives, which border on subjectivity. Narratives can be a potentially useful instrument of encapsulating and expressing different views on racial inequality and racism (Altman, 2001), but it is clear that these views are difficult to systematize, and in no way can they promote the objectivity of different legal approaches to justice.

The fourth major problem with CRT is in that although it creates conditions necessary for the development and use of affirmative action approaches, it cannot confirm the effectiveness of these approaches against racism. CRT is inferior to other legal theories on the premise that it does not guarantee that political activism and disobedience of law, as well as affirmative action, can work for the benefit of racial equity in society nor does CRT affirm the relevance of affirmative action as the driver of legal impartiality in justice. Affirmative action claims to take race into account and to seek greater inclusion in the mainstream institutions of our society for racial minorities who had been historically excluded from them (Altman, 2001), but it often results in unreasonable benefits given to racial minorities only on the basis that they are minor as such CRT and its recognition of racism can hardly help in resolving contemporary racial issues.

Finally, CRT is inferior to other legal theories because by emphasizing the permanence of racism in society, CRT actually implies that everything the state does to combat racism is either ineffective or irrelevant. In other words, CRT denies the states ability to combat racism as such. However, CRT does not also justify the effectiveness of legal steps which it proposes, including political activism and law disobedience. As a result, CRT neither gives the state a chance to eliminate racial inequality nor does it offer relevant instruments of maintaining racial equity in society, thus creating a vicious circle of issues without any single chance to resolve them.

Whether CRT is superior or inferior to other legal philosophies depends on the number of factors. CRT can be viewed as superior to other legal theories on the premise that (1) it recognizes racism (2) it uses this recognition as the starting point of philosophic analysis (3) it makes affirmative action theory possible (4) it tries to balance racism with the striving to social equity and (5) it confirms the need to institutionalize the existing and new approaches to racial justice. However, CRT can also be considered as inferior to other philosophies because it (1) does not provide criteria which society should meet to become non-racist (2) promotes disobedience to law (3) relies on subjective narratives (4) does not guarantee the effectiveness of affirmative action approaches and (5) implies that everything states do to combat racism is either irrelevant or ineffective. As such, CRT actually creates a vicious circle of issues in need for effective resolution.