These are puzzling statements. Their effect is to give the impression that I have
sought to ignore the criticisms formulated by Cole and some of his colleagues. I look
forward to reading chapter 5 of Cole’s forthcoming book so that I can discover
exactly how I have demonstrated ‘reluctance to engage in debate with Marxists’. In
fact there is a section in my recent book (Gillborn 2008: 37-8) devoted to
acknowledging, contextualising and responding to the initially hostile reception that
CRT has received from some Marxist writers, such as Cole & Maisuria (2007) in the
UK and Darder & Torres (2004) in the US. Cole actually references parts of that
section in the conclusion to his current paper, although he describes the arguments as
‘confusing’. For example, he mentions my citation of CRT scholars Kimbeiie
Crenshaw and David Stovall. He does not, however, comment on a longer quotation
in the same section which perhaps puts some of the attacks on CRT in an
uncomfortable light: the statement in question is by Ricky Lee Allen, a critical race
scholar who has argued that certain forms of contemporary Marxist writing equate to
an exercise of White privilege:
Across all disciplines, white Marxists and their supporters have had a history
of scrutinizing the contradictions of Blacks much more harshly than those of
non-Blacks ... I don’t think that our focus should be on merely bridging the
emergent rift between CRT- and Marxist-oriented critical pedagogists by
concocting some sort of synthesis. I won’t do this because I believe that this
rift marks a historic and much needed shift in the racialized plate tectonics of
critical pedagogy. (Allen 2006: 5 & 9)
In addition to that published engagement with the debate, I also discuss these issues in
person at conferences and seminars, and - not surprisingly - this usually requires that I
‘talk with Marxists’. At a recent conference, for example, I gave a keynote
presentation on CRT and took numerous questions from the audience. On that
occasion the very first ‘question’ came from a colleague of Cole’s who - seated on
the front row - stood, turned his back to me and addressed the audience to inform
them that he wished I had ceased writing in 2000 before I started working with CRT.
This didn’t seem a particularly comradely nor positive engagement to me but I
nevertheless sought to answer the points and I continue to do so (both in public
debates and in private conversations). Similarly I have swapped emails with Professor
Cole. In view of these exchanges (in person, electronically, and in print) it is difficult
to see how I can be accused of ‘reluctance to engage in debate’ with Marxists or
anyone else.
Encounters in critical theory: CRT meets Marxism
Cole (2009a) begins his conclusion by stating:
. the purpose of this paper is not to divide, but to unite. My intention has not
been to question the ideological or political integrity of Critical Race
Theorists, but to open up comradely discussion. (manuscript, p. 14)
These are fine sentiments, though perhaps at odds with his assertion, two paragraphs
earlier, that: