It's never too late to learn about what we are getting ourselves into. Although, in this case, that statement is not quite accurate because it's not "we ourselves" who are the principals involved but it's a group of philosophers and academics who have picked up a trendy train of thought and run with it in all directions, so harming social institutions and personal lives by trying to impose a whole new culture.
The British-born American journalist and political and social commentator, Andrew Sullivan, is one who has stoutly opposed this trendy attempt to foist a new regime on society, noting the outbreak of a new kind of language in mainstream American media in the mid-2010s: "Here’s a list of the most successful neologisms: non-binary, toxic masculinity, white supremacy, traumatizing, queer, transphobia, whiteness, mansplaining. And here are a few that were rising in frequency in the last decade but only took off in the last few years: triggering, hurtful, gender, stereotypes."
As to the ominous nature of this explosion of new terms,
Sullivan writes: "Maybe some of these terms will stick around. But the linguistic changes have occurred so rapidly, and touched so many topics, that it has all the appearance of a top-down re-ordering of language, rather than a slow, organic evolution from below."
Then comes his anguished observation:
We need to understand that all these words have one thing in common: they are products of an esoteric, academic discipline called Critical Theory, which has gained extraordinary popularity in elite education in the past few decades, and appears to have reached a cultural tipping point in the middle of the 2010s.
Most normal people have never heard of this theory—or rather an interlocking web of theories—that is nonetheless changing the very words we speak and write and the very rationale of the institutions integral to liberal democracy.
Sullivan,
in his 2020 essay I am quoting from, which is entitled "The Roots of Wokeness", draws on the book
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity. He
summarises the book's achievement:
What the book helps the layperson to understand is the evolution of postmodern thought since the 1960s until it became the doctrine of Social Justice today. Beginning as a critique of all grand theories of meaning—from Christianity to Marxism—postmodernism is a project to subvert the intellectual foundations of Western culture. The entire concept of reason—whether the Enlightenment version or even the ancient Socratic understanding—is a myth designed to serve the interests of those in power, and therefore deserves to be undermined and “problematized” whenever possible.
Postmodern theory does so mischievously and irreverently—even as it leaves nothing in reason’s place. The idea of objective truth—even if it is viewed as always somewhat beyond our reach—is abandoned. All we have are narratives, stories, whose meaning is entirely provisional, and can in turn be subverted or problematized.
Interlocking oppressions as key theory
The applied form of Critical Theory, termed Social Justice, taps into its Marxist ancestry in declaring that "truth was a mere function of power, and then in seeing that power used against distinct and oppressed identity groups". Sullivan explains:
The core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss.
It's worth noting that Social Justice activists have been accused of cowardice in the face of corporate power because of their abandonment of the Marxist class struggle. They have done so, as Sullivan observes, "in favor of various oppressed group identities, [....] And in this worldview, individuals only exist at all as a place where these group identities intersect. You have no independent existence outside these power dynamics. [...] An assertion of individuality is, in fact, an attack upon the group and an enabling of oppression."
This brings us to the rationale for Critical Theory's assault by means of a soft totalitarianism on the foundations of Western civilization, in fact, on those of all models of human society that offer the possibility of personal fulfillment, which Wokeism doesn't:
Just as this theory denies the individual, it also denies the universal. There are no universal truths, no objective reality, just narratives that are expressed in discourses and language that reflect one group’s power over another. There is no distinction between objective truth and subjective experience, because the former is an illusion created by the latter. So instead of an argument, you merely have an identity showdown, in which the more oppressed always wins, because that subverts the hierarchy.
These discourses of power, moreover, never end; there is no progress as such, no incremental inclusion of more and more identities into a pluralist, liberal unified project; there is the permanent reality of the oppressors and the oppressed. And all that we can do is constantly expose and eternally resist these power-structures on behalf of the oppressed.
Truth is always and only a function of power. So, for example, science has no claim on objective truth, because science itself is a cultural construct, created out of power differentials, set up by white cis straight males. And the systems of thought that white cis straight men have historically set up—like liberalism itself—perpetuate themselves, and are passed along unwittingly by people who simply respond to the incentives and traditions of thought that make up the entire power system, without being aware of it. There’s no conspiracy: we all act unknowingly in perpetuating systems of thought that oppress other groups. To be “woke” is to be “awake” to these invisible, self-reinforcing discourses, and to seek to dismantle them—in ourselves and others.
As an aside at this point in Sullivan's analysis, it seems more logical to talk about "Wokeism" rather than "Wokeness". The use of "-ism" denotes the existence of a manifesto of ideas and theories lying behind a social movement, whereas "-ness" suggests simply an alertness or concern relating to the subject under discussion. Would anyone use
Marxness as a descriptor? The woke world sucks from an ideology affecting all of society. Activists seek a revolution, one affecting institutions but also complete acceptance of their definition of the nature of the human person. That's what's at play here, not a push for a mere take-it-or-leave-it change in social custom.
Distorted view of diversity
Back to the main exposition. Attention to material reality goes by the board under the "woke" regime, and Sullivan is at his eloquent best in exposing the implications:
There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen. That’s partly why diversity at the New York Times, say, has nothing to do with a diversity of ideas.
Within critical theory, the very concept of a “diversity of ideas” is a function of oppression. What matters is a diversity of identities that can all express the same idea: that liberalism is a con-job. Which is why almost every NYT op-ed now and almost every left-leaning magazine reads exactly alike. Language is vital for Critical Theory—not as a means of persuasion but of resistance to oppressive discourses. So take the words I started with. “Non-binary” is a term for someone who subjectively feels neither male nor female. Since there is no objective truth, and since any criticism of that person’s “lived experience” is a form of traumatizing violence, that individual’s feelings are the actual fact. To subject such an idea to, say, the scrutiny of science is therefore a denial of that person’s humanity and existence.
To inquire what it means to “feel like a man”, is also unacceptable. An oppressed person’s word is always the last one. To question this reality, even to ask questions about it, is a form of oppression itself. In the rhetoric of Social Justice, it is a form of linguistic violence. Whereas using the term non-binary is a form of resistance to cis heteronormativity. One is evil; the other good.
Becoming “woke” to these power dynamics alters your perspective of reality. And so our unprecedentedly multicultural, and multiracial democracy is now described as a mere front for “white supremacy.” This is the reality of our world, the critical theorists argue, even if we cannot see it. A gay person is not an individual who makes her own mind up about the world and can have any politics or religion she wants; she is “queer,” part of an identity that interrogates and subverts heteronormativity.
A man explaining something is actually “mansplaining” it—because his authority is entirely wrapped up in his toxic identity. Questioning whether a trans woman is entirely interchangeable with a woman—or bringing up biology to distinguish between men and women—is not a mode of inquiry. It is itself a form of “transphobia”, of fear and loathing of an entire group of people and a desire to exterminate them. It’s an assault.
No respect for personal agency
Sullivan's essay is rich with ideas that have been borne out by events since he wrote it. The next quotation from it is historically pertinent:
For me, these theorists do something less forgivable than abuse the English language. They claim that their worldview is the only way to advance social progress, especially the rights of minorities, and that liberalism fails to do so. This, it seems to me, is profoundly untrue. A moral giant like [Black activist and politician] John Lewis advanced this country not by intimidation, or re-ordering the language, or seeing the advancement of black people as some kind of reversal for white people. He engaged the liberal system with nonviolence and persuasion, he emphasized the unifying force of love and forgiveness, he saw Black people as having agency utterly independent of white people, and changed America with that fundamentally liberal perspective.
The gay rights movement, the most successful of the 21st century, succeeded in the past through showing what straights and gays have in common, rather than seeing the two as in a zero-sum conflict, resolved by prosecuting homophobia or “queering” heterosexuality. The women’s rights movement has transformed the role of women in society in the past without demonizing all men, or seeing misogyny as somehow embedded in “white supremacy”. As we have just seen, civil rights protections for transgender people—just decided by a conservative Supreme Court—have been achieved not by seeing people as groups in constant warfare, but by seeing the dignity of the unique individual in pursuing their own happiness without the obstacle of prejudice.
Though the United States is enveloped in the most toxic display of Wokeism, this cult-like ideology has spread among the educated elite of most WEIRD countries, and the rest of the world is being ravaged by the aggressive cultural colonialization of institutions under the hegemony of the American academic and political system.
Moreover, though it's common to see now the fightback conducted by women, parents, consumers and political leaders, those who occupy the commanding heights of Western cultural and corporate entities will not give up lightly on their crusade. We can expect the soft totalitarianism of Wokeism to stiffen as an act of self-preservation.
Ω For those with access to Andrew Sullivan's blog on Substack, see his essay here.
Ω Leave a comment
and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth
newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be
notified when a new post is published.
Delightful originality in the bunching and shading. What can you see in the shapes?.JPG)
It's time to look upward and to enjoy the gift.
