.. .it is Marxism and Marxism alone that I believe provides the possibility of a
viable equitable future. (manuscript, p. 13).
Indeed, the inclusion of ‘I believe’ points to part of the problem with Cole’s
engagement with CRT: fundamentally, CRT challenges Cole’s theory of history and
his particular version of Marxism. The latter point is important because Marxism is a
diverse and wide ranging perspective. There are numerous scholars who have worked
productively with a complex array of critical theory in order to better understand -
and oppose - the inequalities that scar contemporary society: Stuart Hall, in the UK,
and Michael Apple, in the US, are two notable examples (see Gillborn & Youdell in
press). Indeed, Apple has argued forcefully for a reappraisal of the potential role of
Marxisms (note the plural) as part of a revitalized critical project (see Apple 2006a;
2008). However, he has also warned of the dangers of rhetorical game-playing:
. white scholars who think that everything of central importance can be fully
understood by somehow merging race as a set of historically determined and
determining relations and realities into a relatively economistic understanding
of Marx—and here I must speak bluntly—risk practicing a form of whiteness
themselves, a form that is based on a privileged position of being white in our
societies. (Apple 2006b: 686).
It has been argued that Marx himself demonstrated considerably more complexity
than is sometimes evident in work done by those who claim his legacy.[3] Charles
Mills, in his reply to another of Cole’s critiques of CRT, explains that a CRT/Marxist
encounter could be productive, if we can move beyond a limited and all-
encompassing version of economic determinism:
.for me and many others, contra Cole, a Marxist version of CRT is entirely
possible, one which locates the emergence of race and white supremacy in the
history of European imperialism, in bourgeois class interests and projects,
while also recognizing that—once created—race achieves a certain autonomy
of its own which requires the rethinking of orthodox white Marxism. (Mills
2009, original emphasis)[4]
Cole’s response to CRT is less about a constructive engagement and unifying debate,
and more about a restatement of his faith in a particular class-reductionist version of
Marxism. Indeed, in the second footnote to his current piece, Cole states
emphatically:
My own view is that CRT and Marxism are basically incompatible . (Cole
2009a: manuscript, p. 15)
A similar path has been taken in the US by Antonia Darder and Rodolfo Torres who,
in their treatment of CRT, are at pains to ‘acknowledge and commend’ the efforts of
CRT scholars (2004: 97) before dismissing critical race scholars’ attempts to apply
‘constructs derived from legal theory to shape arguments related to educational policy
and institutional practices..’ (ibid, 99). Their conclusion is that such work ‘although
well meaning and eloquent, is like beating a dead horse. No matter how much is said,
it is impossible to enliven or extend the debate on educational policy with its inherent
inequalities by using the language of “race”.’ (ibid, 99-100). This response