Abstract
This chapter provides a summarized foundation of critical theory organized around leadership as commonly conceptualized that challenges the myths of neutrality and scientific objectivity that encumber fields of study. A critical approach to leadership studies highlights that mere descriptive analysis is not only inadequate, it also reinforces oppressive social relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
A rich strain of political theory deploys this metaphor; most notably Augustine (1994), Hobbes (1994), and Locke (1980). The idea behind the metaphor is to prescribe order into the shape and function of the state, civil society, and the economy into a unified and harmonious whole, guided by the head of the sovereign (be that a god, king or representative of the peoples’ will).
- 2.
This very concern is the basis for critical race theory, and critical legal studies.
- 3.
We argue that the pervasiveness of the “bad apples” defense highlights this unsettled reaction to the gap. By assuming the bad behavior of a few individuals as deficient perpetrators of injustice in a system that otherwise works how it is supposed to is a way to ignore the gap.
- 4.
It is the basis of this immanent critique, and its roots in Hegelian philosophy, that many people assume that critical theory is based on Marxian analysis (Antonio, 1981). This is not an unreasonable assumption, but the role of immanence shows a vital misreading of many of Marx’s detractors. His magnum opus, Capital, was an immanent critique of capitalist political economy. That is, the internal contradictions of a regime of capital accumulation, which he took as given according to bourgeois political economy’s own laws, would necessarily lead to the system’s breakdown. His objection was not ethical (in fact he has high praise for capitalism over what it replaced), but structural. Given what we have established about crisis and critique, it is worth noting that Capital’s subtitle is: A Critique of Political Economy.
- 5.
This is a rather old argument. Consider Plato’s Republic, where he essentially argues that a just or good society is when the people who are the most skilled at ruling should rightfully be the rulers. He makes an argument by analogy that the best person to captain is the best sailor. The same question applies here; namely, under what set of assumptions do we measure the “best” sailor, or the best ruler?
- 6.
Consider here the relational role of foreign policy. It would be absurd on its face to suggest that every country should simply adopt the United States’ (or any other state’s) foreign policy. This suggestion simply does not account for the world as we know it exists.
- 7.
While the generational divide among Frankfurt School theorists can be oversimplified, when we use the term “first generation” we mean Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse. Others were affiliated or involved with the Institute for Social Research, but these three thinkers show the clearest voice and have produced the greatest body of work for a critical theory of society. For an explanation of the generations of the Frankfurt school , see Jay (1996) and Schlembach (2015).
- 8.
We also note here that Aristotle’s Physics also was a forerunner to empirical investigation, but he took pains to say that this area of inquiry could not possibly answer the metaphysical questions of teleology, final causes, or first principles Piccone (1968).
- 9.
Much has been examined about standardized tests and the education system in maintaining oppression in societies. See, for example, Ballantine, Hammack, and Stuber (2017).
- 10.
Environmentalism is an example to understand what Marcuse means. If it is true that environmental degradation is, at least in part, due to overconsumption, then changing consumption habits is important. However, if changing consumption habits is to simply replace consuming one commodity with consuming another “green” commodity, then the logic of overconsumption remains in place, even though we might think that we are doing our part to forestall environmental degradation (Luke, 1997).
References
Adorno, T. W. (1997). Negative dialectics. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing.
Antonio, R. J. (1981). Immanent critique as the core of critical theory: Its origins and developments in Hegel, Marx and contemporary thought. The British Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/589281.
Arato, A., & Gebhardt, E. (Eds.). (1982). Essential Frankfurt School reader. New York: Continuum.
Aristotle. (1999a). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.) (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Aristotle. (1999b). The metaphysics (H. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.) (New ed.). London and New York: Penguin Classics.
Augustine. (1994). Augustine: Political writings (E. L. Fortin & D. Kries, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Ayer. (1959). Logical positivism. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Azmanova, A. (2012). Social justice and varieties of capitalism: An immanent critique. New Political Economy, 17(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2011.606902.
Ballantine, J. H., Hammack, F. M., & Stuber, J. (2017). The sociology of education: A systemic analysis (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bottomore, T. (2002). The high tide of critical theory. In The Frankfurt School & its critics (pp. 27–54). London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice (1st ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature (New ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Brown, W. (2005). Edgework: Critical essays on knowledge and politics. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Carrabregu, G. (2016). Habermas on solidarity: An immanent critique: Habermas on solidarity: Gent Carrabregu. Constellations, 23(4), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12257.
Chandler, J. L. S., & Kirsch, R. E. (2018). Addressing race and culture within a critical leadership approach. In J. L. Chin, J. E. Trimble, & J. E. Garcia (Eds.), Global and culturally diverse leaders and leadership: New dimensions and challenges for business, education and society. Bingley: Emerald.
Chase, M. (2011). Teleology and final causation in Aristotle and in contemporary science. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue Canadienne de Philosophie, 50(3), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012217311000527.
Curtis, R. (2014). Foucault beyond Fairclough: From transcendental to immanent critique in organization studies. Organization Studies, 35(12), 1753–1772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614546150.
Curzer, C. (1996). A defense of Aristotle’s doctrine that virtue is a mean. Ancient Philosophy, 16(1), 129–138.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
DiSalle, R. (2002). Reconsidering Kant, Friedman, logical positivism, and the exact sciences. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1086/341049.
Doddington, C. (2007). Critical thinking as a source of respect for persons: A critique. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00350.x.
Elias, N. (2000). The civilizing process (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Farr, A. L. (2009). Critical theory and democratic vision: Herbert Marcuse and recent liberation philosophies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Foucault, M. (1982). Archeology of knowledge. London and New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (2005). The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the college de France 1981–1982. New York: Picador.
Gabel, J. (1978). False consciousness: An essay on reification (1st Torchbooks Ed. Publ. 1978 edition). New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.
Galloway, A. R. (2006). Protocol: How control exists after decentralization (New ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Giddens, A. (1975). Positivism and sociology. London: Heinemann.
Groarke, L. (2015). Aristotle’s contrary psychology: The mean in ethics and beyond. Review of Metaphysics, 69(1), 25.
Habermas, J. (1998). Legitimation crisis. Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (2000). On the pragmatics of communication (M. Cooke, Ed.) (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harrison, C. (2018). Leadership theory and research: A critical approach to new and existing paradigms. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan (E. M. Curley, Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(36), 11199–11204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505329112.
Horkheimer, M. (1975). Critical theory: Selected essays (M. J. O’Connell, Trans.) (1st ed.). New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation.
Jay, M. (1977). The concept of totality in Lukacs and Adorno. Telos, 1977(32), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.3817/0677032117.
Jay, M. (1996). The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the institute of social research, 1923–1950. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kellner, D. (1984). Herbert Marcuse and the crisis of Marxism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kirsch, R. (2016). The “digital revolution” reconsidered. New Political Science, 38(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2015.1125635.
Kosik, K. (1969). The concrete totality. Telos, 1969(4), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.3817/0969004035.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Lukács, G. (1972). History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics (R. Livingstone, Trans.) (MIT Press edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luke, T. W. (1990a). Screens of power: Ideology, domination, and resistance in informational society (Reissue). Urbana and Chigago: University of Illinois Press.
Luke, T. W. (1990b). Social theory and modernity: Critique, dissent, and revolution. Newbury Park: Sage.
Luke, T. W. (1997). Ecocritique: Contesting the politics of nature, economy, and culture (1st ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Macdonald, B. J. (2017). Traditional and critical theory today: Toward a critical political science. New Political Science, 39(4), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2017.1378857.
MacKenzie, D. (2008). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Boston: The MIT Press.
Marcuse, H. (1968). One-dimensional man (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon.
Marcuse, H. (1969). Negations: Essays in critical theory. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, H. (1971). The concept of negation in the dialectic. Telos, 1971(8), 130–132. https://doi.org/10.3817/0671008130.
Marcuse, H. (1999). Reason and revolution (100th Anniversary Ed.). Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
Mason, M. (2007). Critical thinking and learning. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00343.x.
Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 44(5), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x.
Natale, S., & Ricci, F. (2006). Critical thinking in organizations. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 12(7/8), 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590610711822.
Papastephanou, M., & Angeli, C. (2007). Critical thinking beyond skill. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(6), 604–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00311.x.
Piccone, P. (1968). Towards a socio-historical interpretation of the scientific revolution. Telos, 1968(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.3817/0368001016.
Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rose, N. (2006). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rovatti, P. A. (1968). Marcuse and the crisis of the European sciences. Telos, 1968(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.3817/0968002113.
Ruja, H. (1936). The logic of logical positivism. The Journal of Philosophy, 33(15), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.2307/2015867.
Sabia, D. (2010). Defending immanent critique. Political Theory, 38(5), 684–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591710372864.
Särkelä, A. (2017). Immanent critique as self-transformative practice: Hegel, Dewey, and contemporary critical theory. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 31(2), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.31.2.0218.
Schlembach, R. (2015). Negation, refusal and co-optation: The Frankfurt School and social movement theory. Sociology Compass, 9(11), 987–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12321.
Surin, K. (2006). The Frankfurt School, the marxist tradition, culture and critical thinking: Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), Theodor Adorno (1903–1969), Jurgen Habermas (1929–). In J. Wolfreys (Ed.), Modern European criticism and theory: A critical guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Waltershausen, W. S. V. (2018). Gauss: A memorial. Sacramento, CA: Sagwan Press.
Wolin, S. (2004). Politics and vision: Continuity and innovation in western political thought (Expanded ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wolin, S. (2016). Fugitive Democracy: And Other Essays (N. Xenos, Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wrenn, M. V. (2016). Immanent critique, enabling myths, and the neoliberal narrative. Review of Radical Political Economics, 48(3), 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613415605074.
Yanchar, S. C., Slife, B. D., & Warne, R. (2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Review of General Psychology, 12(3), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.3.265.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chandler, J.L.S., Kirsch, R.E. (2018). Why Critical Theory Is Important. In: Critical Leadership Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96472-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96472-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96471-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96472-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)