Many Christians continue to wrestle with developing a biblical framework for justice, especially when it comes to analyzing the problem of racism and for advancing solutions. While many Christians have rightly rejected Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a faithful expression of biblical justice, in this post I’ll briefly explain why I’m skeptical of an adjacent idea called Racial Contract Theory (RCT).
Social Contract Theory: What It Is and Why It’s a Problem
Racial Contract Theory grew out of Social Contract Theory. Even though you may have never heard of Social Contract Theory, you are likely already familiar with its ideas. It’s been used as a basis for creating laws in the United States for a long time. One prominent example is the 1994 “Contract with America,” spearheaded by Republican leaders Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. This contract led to a massive Republican political victory. Trump’s “America First” agenda could also be seen as some version of a social contract.
Social Contract Theory is rooted in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, pioneered by thinkers like Thomas Hobbs, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Social Contract Theory is defined by two ideals; self-interest and subjectivism. Hobbs held that a social contract was necessary because it protects the self-interest of individuals and manages their subjective needs.
The Social Contract is rooted in the ideal that the forces which drive our moral choices are no different than the forces that move the planets. The universe is a machine. Humans are “machines” and therefore our decisions about “good” and “bad” are nothing more than our physiological appetites or aversions. However, because humans are also reasonable, Social Contract theorists believe that we can learn from the mechanistic laws of nature and agree upon a set of rules to govern society. In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton exposes the failure of Social Contract theory this way:
The eighteenth-century theories of the social contract have been exposed to much clumsy criticism in our time; in so far as they meant that there is at the back of all historic government an idea of content and co-operation, they were demonstrably right. But they really were wrong in so far as they suggested that men had ever aimed at order or ethics directly by a conscious exchange of interests. Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, “I will not hit you if you do not hit me”; there is no trace of such a transaction. There is a trace of both men having said, “We must not hit each other in the holy place.” They gained their morality by guarding their religion. They did not cultivate courage. They fought for the shrine, and found they had become courageous. They did not cultivate cleanliness. They purified themselves for the altar, and found that they were clean (123).
Chesterton’s analysis makes clear that Social Contract Theory is incompatible with the Christian worldview. It is a rejection of objective truth and a denial of what makes us responsible moral agents. Humans, according to the Bible, are more than machines. Reason alone cannot help us overcome our selfishness. Without an objective truth to ground our beliefs, every social contract is subject to the ebb and flow of politics. Without a view of humans as free moral agents, politics becomes the consensus of the powerful and justice is no longer the pursuit of the moral good but the pursuit of a moral majority.
Racial Contract Theory: What It Is and Why It’s a Problem
Given this understanding of Social Contract Theory, we now turn to our discussion of Racial Contract Theory. In his book, The Racial Contract, racial justice advocate Charles Mills outlines his political theory. If you haven’t read the book, Mills’ ideas about the racial contract are summarized well in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Charles Mills’ 1997 book, The Racial Contract, is a critique not only of the history of Western political thought, institutions, and practices, but, more specifically, of the history of social contract theory. It is inspired by Carole Pateman’s The Sexual Contract, and seeks to show that non-whites have a similar relationship to the social contract as do women. As such, it also calls into question the supposed universality of the liberal individual who is the agent of contract theory.
Mills’ central argument is that there exists a contract even more fundamental to Western society than the social contract: the racial contract. This racial contract determines who counts as full moral and political persons (Where political persons here can be thought of as persons with power). The racial contract sets the parameters of who can benefit from the societal promise of freedom and equality. According to racial contract theory, some persons, in particular white men, are seen as full moral persons with real power. As such white men are accorded the right to enter into the social contract, and into particular legal contracts. White men are seen as fully human and therefore deserve equality, freedom, and political power. Their full personhood affords them the power to make contracts and to be the subjects of the contract. Whereas, women and non-whites are denied the privileges of the social contract and are relegated to the status of objects of contracts.
Mills is right to reject this social hierarchy based on colorism. There is more to politics and relationships than traditional advocates of Social Contract Theory understood. The social construct of race has without a doubt played a role in how certain groups have been devalued and mistreated in society.
However, the problem with Mills’ Racial Contract is that it does not solve the two core problems of social contract theory: self-interest and subjectivism. Mill’s new Racial Contract simply shifts the goalpost of justice to a different set of considerations based on racial self-interest and racial subjectivism. Humans are viewed as machines driven by racial forces.
In this sense, advocates of both Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Racial Contract Theory (RCT) reduce morality and relationship to a subjective social construct designed to manage purely selfish interests. When the advocates of CRT and RCT say that racism is “ordinary,” they mean that your racial identity is always and forever at the center of every political opinion, every moral choice, and every relationship. And since race itself is a fluid concept, politics, morality, and relationships also become fluid. Humans are not treated as free moral agents but as victims of their racial identity. Both CRT and RCT embrace the social fiction of race and rely on the racial contract to tear down the old systems of injustice by creating new systems. Yet, because race is at the center of their worldview, both CRT and RCT lead to a new subjective system of moral good based on a new selfish racial hierarchy which leads to a different kind of power imbalance and more injustice.
Given these concerns, Racial Contract Theory, like CRT, falls short of the Christian mandate to love God and love our neighbor. RCT, much like CRT, is not compatible with the Christian worldview. Like CRT, RCT is not a new way to see social conflict, it is a racially subjective way of redefining what it means to be a human. Relying on the language of racial self-interest and racial subjectivism to govern relationships in the Church—or relationships with our fellow human beings—RCT dehumanizes those considered “other.” In the name of social justice, activists feel justified in their condemnation and alienation of those considered enemies of the new racial contract.
In stark contrast to RCT, the follower of Jesus Christ recognizes that our relationships are not guided by self-interest and subjectivism. Our battle against injustice is guided by the truth that all men and women are created equal and deserve to be treated with dignity as image bearers of God. Guided by our commitment to the cross of Christ, our Gospel mission is grounded in a trans-cultural and trans-political standard of love, holiness, and justice. Guided by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are free moral agents whose lives are governed by self-sacrifice and sanctification.