Speaker 1: The concept of critical theory has never been more controversial than it is today. From news outlets fueling nationwide debate over the teaching of critical race theory in schools to outspoken critics like Jordan Peterson who blame critical theory and cultural Marxism for censoring free speech and redefining gender, Americans have never been angrier about philosophical ideas. But what truly defines critical theory, where does it even come from, and why does critical theory evoke such passionate responses? Although critical theory draws inspiration from the philosophical ideas of Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Nietzsche, the concept of critical theory was introduced by the German philosopher and sociologist Max Horkheimer in a 1937 essay entitled Traditional and Critical Theory. To many, Horkheimer is best remembered alongside his friend and colleague Theodor Adorno as the co-author of The Dialectic of Enlightenment, a book famous for its argument that the Enlightenment's optimistic pursuit of rationality and scientific progress paradoxically led to oppressive systems of social control and the erosion of individual liberty. A decade earlier, Horkheimer would lay the groundwork for The Dialectic of Enlightenment during his tenure as the director of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Commonly known as the Frankfurt School, the Institute for Social Research was founded in 1923 as a Marxist-aligned organization dedicated to the academic study of history and sociology. But under Horkheimer's leadership in the 1930s, the Institute would come to adopt a new interdisciplinary perspective that went beyond traditional Marxism by combining Marxist ideas with research into media studies, psychoanalysis, consumerism, and the role of technology in society. Horkheimer called this new interdisciplinary perspective Critical Theory because it aimed to expose and critique the ways that seemingly benign social and scientific practices exert control over the members of society. We can begin to understand why Horkheimer's philosophy has become so controversial almost 100 years later by examining the differences between critical theory and traditional models of scientific research. Horkheimer distinguishes critical theory from these traditional theories in three ways. 1. Traditional theory assumes that facts are categorically different from values. From the perspective of traditional theory, facts are objective claims about what is true or false, while values are subjective judgments about what is good, bad, or important. While it might make sense to ask what we should do about facts like inflation, mortality rates, or climate change, the traditional theorist argues that answers to these questions cannot be deduced from the facts themselves. Thus, the scientific study of a social issue is incapable of telling us what we should do about the types of things that scientists study. To suggest otherwise would be to commit what philosophers sometimes call a category fallacy, a type of logical fallacy that confuses one kind of thing, in this case objective facts, with something completely different, like subjective values. The second characteristic of traditional theory follows closely from the separation of facts and values. 2. Scientific research is, and ought to be, apolitical. If facts are completely independent of values, then it follows that an accurate account of facts must also be politically neutral. This means that scientists should not allow their personal and political beliefs to impact a professional scholarship. Horkheimer cites the immensely influential German sociologist Max Weber as a representative of this approach. In a 1917 lecture entitled Science as a Vocation, Weber had famously argued that

Speaker 2: "...politics are out of place in the classroom. The responsibility of the teacher is to use his knowledge and scientific experience to serve his students, not to impose his personal political views on them. It is one thing to state facts, while it is another thing to answer questions of value. Whenever the man of science introduces his personal value judgment, a full understanding of the facts ceases."

Speaker 1: Thus, traditional theory argues that science ought to be politically neutral and limit itself to objectively reporting facts. The final characteristic of traditional theory concerns the nature of truth and its relationship to the scientific method. 3. Traditional theory assumes that truth is objective and timeless. Although scientists might use observations, theories, and experiments to discover and interpret facts, these scientific methods do not actually create new facts or make these facts true. Traditional theory claims that the facts are the facts regardless of who perceives them or the context in which these facts are perceived. Thus, unlike subjective values which may vary based on social or cultural factors, the truth is unchanging and immune to personal or political biases. Consequently, scientists can and must set their subjective opinions aside to accurately and objectively report the truth. To fail to do so is to do bad science. We can best understand critical theory by examining Horkheimer's objections to these three aspects of traditional theory. In contrast to traditional theory, critical theory argues that 1. There is no categorical distinction between facts and values. 2. Science is a social practice that reflects political interests. 3. What people call objective truth is often the product of social, cultural, and political factors. In other words, truth is not a timeless ideal that transcends subjective judgments and political interests. The concept of objective truth is deeply informed by the human interests that have shaped our approach to the sciences throughout history. Thus, Horkheimer claims that an accurate account of science calls for a radical reconsideration of the knowing individual as such. Here's what Horkheimer means by this philosophical claim. Traditional theory thinks of reason as a tool that enables scientists to distance themselves from their private subjective judgments and take a rational perspective on the facts. Because the subjective perspective is free of subjective biases like personal desires, cultural influences, or political leanings, traditional theory argues that reason allows people to see the same facts in the same way across time and space. Because of this, Horkheimer accuses traditional theory of assuming a dualistic conception of human nature. On the one hand, human beings are depicted as having a subjective nature, conditioned by history and culture, while also having a second, objective nature that depicts reason as a liberating force capable of putting humanity in touch with timeless objective truths. Together, the gap between humanity's subjective and objective natures ensures that science remains unaffected by subjective biases, while humanity remains unaffected politically by objective truth. Critical theorists argue that the dualistic conception of human nature behind this optimistic view of reason is a kind of myth, a myth that uses the language of fact and objective truth to create the illusion of a natural social world in which oppressive political arrangements appear natural and thus unchangeable. Cultural theory aims to replace this myth with a conception of human nature intimately connected to history and politics. Horkheimer argues that

Speaker 3: No one can turn himself into a different subject than what he is at this historical moment. Critical theory is incompatible with the idealist belief that any theory is independent of men. There is likewise no theory of society that does not contain political motivations. Even the way that we see and hear is inseparable from the historical development of social life. The facts that our senses present to us are socially preformed in two ways. The object perceived and the perceiving organ are not simply natural. They are shaped by human activity.

Speaker 1: Here Horkheimer proposes an alternative view of human nature that strives to be conscious of how one's position in history and society influences one's way of thinking. Horkheimer's view of human nature opposes both the dualistic view of human nature that sees reason as entirely separate from history and politics and any deterministic way of thinking that sees human thought as a fixed reflection of something like one's culture or one's biology. This historical view of human nature is also the basis for Horkheimer's claim that all thought is inherently political. If our thoughts and perceptions are shaped by the societies that we inhabit, and these societies are not timeless apolitical utopias, then it follows that our thoughts and perceptions are also shaped by the political conflicts that animate the societies in which we live and think. Thus, critical theorists conclude that there is no politically neutral ground when it comes to reason or scientific thought. We're faced with a choice. Either we uncritically uphold the status quo in the name of staying objective, or we challenge the status quo by questioning the ways that values like objectivity and impartiality prevent political change. Critical theorists like Max Horkheimer argue that true critical thinking requires the latter. In our time, critical theory has become a topic that people often debate about without really understanding. But taking the time to understand what critical theory is makes us better informed about the debates that animate our own political moment while also raising some important philosophical questions about science and the nature of truth. What do you think? Are critical theorists right to suggest that impartial scientific research is impossible because all thought is inherently political? Or do you agree with traditional theory's claim that objective truth can nonetheless rise above the influence of culture and politics? Leave a comment below and let me know what you think. If you enjoyed this video, want to improve your critical thinking skills, or just learn more about philosophy, be sure to like this video and subscribe to the channel. I'll see you in the next one.