On Respectability Politics, Identity, and the Influence of Critical Theory
The term "neo-Marxism" is frequently used in imprecise or careless ways. However, one contemporary phenomenon that can be clearly traced to critical theory and neo-Marxist foundations is the growing opposition to so-called “respectability politics.”
This critique—often aligned along racial and gender lines—rejects the expectation that grief, frustration, or outrage should be expressed in ways deemed socially acceptable. The rationale? These norms are viewed as constructs developed by those in positions of power—historically white people, men, and, in some contexts, Christians in the West. From this perspective, adopting such conventions is tantamount to engaging with injustice on the oppressor’s terms, which seems both incoherent and complicit.
Beneath this argument lies a central tenet of neo-Marxist and critical theory: that dominant groups preserve their power and privilege by establishing and enforcing social norms that suppress dissent and ensure the subjugated remain in their place. On this view, all societal dynamics are fundamentally rooted in power relations.
Certainly, it’s fair to acknowledge the reality of racial bias, the self-preserving tendencies of those in power, and the dangers of tone-policing those expressing legitimate hurt. But to go further and argue that standards of respectful expression are merely the byproducts of oppressive power structures is not only a sweeping generalization—it is a potentially harmful one. There are at least three major concerns with this line of reasoning.
1. It Assumes Identity Politics as Foundational
Opposition to respectability politics is often built upon the presuppositions of identity politics: that one’s social identity is primarily or even exclusively defined by group membership—whether as oppressed, oppressor, or some intersection of the two (e.g., Black men). This framework reduces individuals to representatives of their demographic groups, implying that their personal stories, motivations, and actions can be known or judged solely by these affiliations.
For example, as a white male, my social identity under this view would carry predetermined implications—not only about my beliefs and behaviors but also about my psychological state, level of cultural conditioning, and even things I might deny about myself in honest self-reflection. Individual complexity is sacrificed for the sake of ideological consistency. Group membership tells the story; individual experience becomes secondary or irrelevant.
Tragically, many well-meaning Christians have adopted a softened form of this thinking in a sincere effort to reckon with American history and demonstrate compassion. They are not malicious; they genuinely seek to listen, learn, and advocate for the marginalized. However, this framework—despite good intentions—undermines essential Christian doctrines. It diminishes the theological significance of the Imago Dei in each person, overlooks the sanctifying and preserving grace of God, and ultimately furthers injustice by evaluating individuals not on their actions but on assumed group-based characteristics (cf. Leviticus 19:15).
2. It Confuses Causation with Correlation
Critiques of respectability politics often conflate correlation with causation. The fact that certain values or practices are commonly upheld by members of a dominant group does not logically entail that these values exist because of that dominance, or that they serve only to reinforce power.
The assumption—that expressions of civility, restraint, or decorum are tools of oppression—only holds if one already accepts the power-centric lens of critical theory. But many alternative explanations for such social norms are available: communicative pragmatism, mutual respect, altruism, theological ethics, or even simple relational wisdom. To conclude that “power” is the sole or primary explanatory factor requires significant evidence and argument—evidence that is often presumed but rarely provided.
3. It Erodes Objective Moral Norms in Communication
The most concerning implication of this line of thinking is that it relativizes moral responsibilities in communication. If norms surrounding respectful dialogue are dismissed as mere constructs of power, then even biblically grounded guidance for how we speak can be undermined.
But for the Christian, standards of speech are not optional or socially constructed—they are commanded. Scripture is clear: We are to avoid corrupting talk, instead speaking in ways that edify and fit the occasion (Eph. 4:29). Our words should be gracious, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6), and our disposition marked by humility, patience, and restraint (James 1:19; Proverbs 17:27). These imperatives do not shift based on group identity or power structures—they are moral obligations grounded in God’s character and commands.
To the extent that such traits are reflected in broader social conventions, we should not adopt them because they reflect dominant cultural values—but because they align with biblical truth.
A Final Word
This is not a defense of tone-policing, nor a call to silence the hurt and the angry under the guise of procedural decorum. It is, rather, a caution against embracing a reductive view that sees all social interaction through the lens of power and oppression. To collapse the concept of respectable discourse into a mere mechanism of control is not only intellectually uncharitable—it is spiritually misleading.
It may preach—but it doesn’t preach from the Bible.