Introduction
The importance of a theory being critical may seem so obvious as to almost be glibly affirmed without a second thought. What this chapter aims to achieve is to narrow the scope of what makes a critical theory critical in the first place, as well as the possible effects of critical theory when diagnosing or offering social analysis that is qualitatively different from other theoretical approaches. In other words, we believe that a critical theory is a fundamentally different project than is commonly understood. To achieve this objective, this chapter will lay out the etymological grounding that establishes the urgency of the term critical, in a way that differentiates critical theory from non-critical theory, and also the more broadly understood term critical thinking . We maintain that critical thinking, while a necessary condition, is not a sufficient condition to build a critical theory of society. To build a robust and narrow conception of what a critical theory can accomplish that is different from normative, empirical, or otherwise traditional theory, we base our analysis on the importance of critical theory on its Frankfurt School originators. Therefore, the analysis will revolve around this school and necessarily involves discussing the role of ideology, totality, and the divergence of facts and norms in contemporary society. We trace a genealogy from the Frankfurt School through its conceptual apparatus to see its evolution into its current theoretical, and indeed, methodological force in the current context for studying current phenomena. We use these concepts to build a theoretical frame to assess the current state of leadership theory; is it critical? If not, how might it be and what might we reasonably hope for it to accomplish?
First, an etymology will allow us to distinguish a critical theory of society from a broader notion of critical thinking as a methodology for assessing the truth value of statements or actions, to say nothing of the reduction of critical meaning mean-spirited or spiteful. Showing the social roots and consequences of the concept of crisis sets the stage for a theory built around crisis and the resolution thereof. This is different from critical thinking. Critical thinking, while important, is a prescriptive exercise, but can too often obscure the role of crisis in social analysis, so we will draw a sharp distinction that highlights the socially embedded components of a critical theory focused on human flourishing .
Deriving from the term critical in a simple sense, the supposition of theory or thought being critical is based on the existence of a crisis . An etymology of the term crisis is therefore appropriate if we wish to flesh out the normative content of critical thought. The term crisis is derived from the Greek krisis, which was a medical term that diagnosed a decision point for a physician to determine if the patientâs self-healing properties were enough to overcome an illness and if not, at what point an intervention was necessary (Habermas, 1998). From this, we can draw some initial observations behind the concept of crisis. First, that crises are a matter of autonomy that deprives the subjects in crisis their individual capacity for self-governance; the physician is the one who determines the point at which the subjectâs self-regulation and volition is insufficient, making the outcome of the crisis dependent not on the individual will of the patient. As opposed to say, when a patient has a cold and undergoes a regime of rest and hydration. Rather, the crisis is an objective force that deprives the victim of the capacity for self-determination as they lose their constitutive ability to take meaningful action at the juncture described above (Habermas, 1998, p. 1). That loss of an ability to make a decision for oneself marks the critical juncture, so it acts as a bright line. Before this juncture, the subject has full range of choices, and can exercise autonomous decisions; after this juncture, the subject is incapable and instead must be acted upon. Second, in this medical etymology, a crisis also represents a chance at liberation as a result of the necessary intervention. If the intervention is successful, and proffers a resolution of the crisis, this means the subjectâs constitutive self-determination as a free subject is restored. While this may seem obvious, this means that recognizing a critical juncture and resolving the crisis means diagnosing the intolerable external conditions on the subject, and that the intervention is normative insofar as the course of action is done on the patientâs behalf, or for their own good (Habermas, 1998). The intervention has a certain direction , geared toward human flourishing, so we may then infer that not all interventions are desirable or carry equal weight, but a critical juncture weighs those options and makes an intervention.
This normative dimension is an important carryover when shifting the register of crisis from the individual and the medical into the social and the structural. Before doing so though, the metaphor can be drawn out in an explicit way; the body of the subject can be extended to the body politic.1 Much in the same way that an ailment can progress to a critical juncture that requires the normative intervention, so can a political society suffer a degradation that requires intervention as well. This ushers in a systems approach that highlights the institutional structures of society in its capacity to sustain the body politic, and a juridical approach that highlights the stateâs sovereign ability to be the entity that can diagnose the ailment and act in a restorative manner. Habermas (1998)continues that in a systems approach, crises emerge when, ââŠa social system allows fewer possibilities for problem solving than are necessary to the continued existence of the systemâ (p. 2). Taken from a medical crisis, the ability of the social systemâs normal operating procedures to fix what ails it is insufficient. In extension to the structural component of crisis is a juridical one. Much like the individualâs subjective sovereign self-determination is impaired at the critical juncture, a societyâs sovereign apparatus may be unable to fix what ails it through its normal operating procedures.
This shift from individual to social carries the etymology from crisis to critique. Critique is the juridical art whereby problems in the body politic were identified by members of that political society, and through deliberation, offered the restorative means to repair society (Brown, 2005). Again, we see that there is a directional thrust to this social intervention. If society ails, the restorative action is to heal it. We pause to make a provisional observation concerning leadership, that the citizens who step forth to name the problems and to offer restorative action are exhibiting critical leadership. We also note that this shift to critique in crisesâ social existence, is very different from the way critique or critical thinking is deployed in the current context. Before moving on to what a critical theory of society may entail, it is necessary to distinguish critical theory from critical thinking.
A theory based on critique requires, of course, critical thinking . We will expand on this more below. For now, we only note that the notion of critical thinking is so ubiquitous across so many discourses of everyday life, to say nothing of disciplinary specialties, it would be impossible to catalogue them all. However, as a working concept, we might say that critical thinking is using evidence-based reasoning to determine the truth value of a knowledge claim. Regardless of the strain of critical thinking, it usually revolves around the ability to thoughtfully discern the truth, through the rigorous use of a method. While the ability to discern truth makes this concept share an etymological root with critical theory, it is important to note that the judgment is not necessarily made in the direction of fixing what ails a body, individual or politic. We do not seek to diminish the important role of critical thinking, but putting the strands of critique next to crisis can highlight the importance of the context of critical thinkingâwhat truths are valorized? What methods are appropriate to determine the truth value of statements? In other words, de-linking critical thinking from its social context of intervention for the sake of healing what ails a society can reduce it to an instrument that might otherwise complement domination; in other words, critical thinking is a necessary, but not sufficient, component for a critical theory of leadership specifically or society generally.
To have a critical theory of leadership, or indeed a broader critical theory of society, means fleshing out the contours on which thought is induced, where value judgments are upheld or not upheld, and perhaps most important; to what end the value judgments are working toward an articulated vision of a society. By establishing the role of crisis as a social intervention toward fixing what ails the body (individual or socialized), we may now argue that critical theory must envision, theorize, and set the foundations for an intervention in society that goes beyond the normal operating procedures to fix a problem that has been diagnosed. Our foundation of critical theory will therefore necessarily have to go beyond a conception of theory that relegates it only asa tool for empirical findings and will simultaneously have to surpass the easy affirmations of common sense, since regardless of whether common sense is true, it is essentially a reification of the normal operating procedures under investigation. A critical theory (of leadership or anything else) will instead have to diagnose something that is wrong and offer a restorative course of action to correct it.
Critical Theory: A Preliminary Definition and Some Possible Objections
In many academic disciplines and other fields of study, it is common to come across theories of that field of study, and then a critical variety of that same field of study, like a kind of mirror image. We want to address what makes a theory critical as opposed to traditional (be that normative, or formal, or experimental), with the ambiguities and difficulties that come with it that goes beyond a reactionary or mirrored lens of analysis. Our goal is not only to give an overview of what is currently categorized as critical leadership studies, but to show how such categorizations are made in the first place, and then to establish the importance of a critical theory therein. The importance of such a categorization is to uncover the normative foundations as well as direction of a field of study, and opens a vista for that vision and diagnosis, as outlined above. In other words, a critical intervention forces a confrontation with the question, âWhat is this for?â This exploration of critique and critical theory is therefore not meant to be exhaustive, but rather a basis for determining whether a theory is cr...