Critical theory: Here's how CS Lewis would've dismantled it.
| Getty Images/ selimaksanOxford scholar and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis coined the term Bulverism in an essay from his book God in the Dock. In that essay, he mused on how atheists attempt to debunk belief in God by appealing to wish fulfillment. “Of course you believe in God,” says the atheist, “because he is a psychological projection of your need to feel loved. He is a coping mechanism arising from a guilty conscience. He is the result of wish fulfillment that arises from your desire to escape death.”
Lewis pointed out that the atheist had committed a common but disastrous logical blunder in making such claims. Lewis wrote:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
Lewis is correct. Bulverism is fallacious. Even if someone does have an ulterior motive for making some claim, it does not follow that this claim is false.
The kind of cynicism that Bulverism demands is a universal acid that will ultimately dissolve and deconstruct all truth claims. If we are permitted to dismiss the truth of a claim on the grounds that the person making the claim has some hidden desire that supposedly motivates the claim, what claim will emerge unscathed?
Do you believe that God exists? That’s just wish fulfillment.
Do you believe that Jesus existed? That’s because you’re a Christian. If you admitted that he’s a myth, your world would crumble.
Do you believe that the Earth is a sphere? Ha! No wonder! You’re probably getting kickbacks from Big Geography lobbyists.
Do you claim that 2 + 2 = 4? That’s because you’re a mathematician; you have to say that or you’d lose your job.
While anyone, regardless of their ideological leanings, can engage in Bulverism, it is almost unavoidable for those who embrace contemporary critical theory. Recall that the critical tradition, stretching all the way back to Marx, has always insisted that people were socialized into a “false consciousness” by being immersed in the ideology of the ruling class. Thus, in modern times, Whites are blinded by the system of white supremacy that dominates our country. Men are blinded by the patriarchy. Straight people are blinded by heterosexism and cisgenderism. The rich are blinded by capitalism and classism.
Given this foundational assumption, contemporary critical theory can’t avoid appealing to Bulverism to explain the dissent of straight white men:
“Of course Whites don’t believe in systemic racism; it’s invisible to them! They have both conscious and subconscious reasons to deny the existence of a system that advantages them.”
“Of course men don’t believe in the patriarchy! It has so colonized their minds that they can’t see it. Admitting that they are oppressors would require them to give up their privilege.”
“Of course straight people don’t believe trans women are women. They are used to living in a world that valorizes their own gender identity.”
But what happens if a conservative Black woman rejects the idea of systemic racism, the patriarchy, or transgenderism? Again, critical theory supplies the answer: She is suffering from internalized oppression. She has imbibed the norms and values of the ruling class and has not yet attained a critical consciousness. Her beliefs can also be explained away as manifestations of her proximity to power.
Critical theory, therefore, enshrines Bulverism, a fallacious form of reasoning, at the very heart of its approach to knowledge. Its pronouncements become unchallengeable. No matter who you are, your claims can be dismissed either as an attempt to protect your privilege or as a symptom of your internalized oppression. In both cases, the critical theorist effectively bypasses any engagement with your arguments and can ignore any evidence you might present in defense of your claims. Your identity alone is sufficient to show that your beliefs are false.
How to respond
As we’ve seen, Bulverism is so foundational to contemporary critical theory that it often won’t be perceived as a fallacy at all. The belief that our culture is suffused with oppressive narratives that dictate what we believe and what we can know is not seen as corrosive anti-knowledge but as a mark of sophistication. Several responses are possible, all of which aim to expose the dangers of this way of reasoning.
First, try explaining why Bulverism is a flawed approach to knowledge. If your interlocutor is a Christian, citing C.S. Lewis’s use of the term and his explanation of it may be useful. It may also be useful to point out how this approach to knowledge will undermine basic Christian doctrine. For example, if a Christian endorses Bulverism, what will they say when a progressive tells them, “You only believe in the Trinity because you’ve been brainwashed into white Western theological norms,” or “You only believe that Jesus died for your sins because you feel guilty about all the sins you’ve committed”?
If your interlocutor is not a Christian, you can point out that this deconstructive approach to knowledge has no stopping point. Do you think that hard work is the key to success? You only believe that because that’s an “aspect and assumption of Whiteness,” as the Smithsonian Institute recently informed us. Do you think that science is a reliable method for determining truth? That’s because you’ve internalized the discourses of Western patriarchal colonialism. It’s easy to get on the train of Bulverism, but much harder to get off.
Alternatively, you could simply accept the accusations made against you, for the sake of argument, and then ask whether your claims are true. For example, imagine you claim that the gender income gap is largely the result of personal choices, and are told, “You believe that only because you want to retain your male power and privilege.” You can respond, “Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct. I am an awful, sexist bigot who is solely motivated by a desire to retain my male power and privilege. Are you now willing to look at the evidence that the gender income gap is largely the result of personal choices?” Of course, they may simply respond, “No, I am not willing to look at the evidence!” But you will have severed the connection between your supposed motivations and the truth of your claim.
Another approach is to turn Bulverism around on your interlocutor, demonstrating how useless it is. The claim “You say that only because you’re a straight White male” can be met with a counterclaim: “You say that only because you’re a critical theorist.” Hopefully, your conversation partner will realize that these kinds of schoolyard rejoinders should be left on the playground, where they belong.
Originally published at The Worldview Bulletin Newsletter.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
