Sam Adler-Bell published a critique of (let’s all groan inside, for different reasons) wokeness. I think it’s an interesting and at times trenchant critique. But because it’s about wokeness, there’s been another big controversy over the term “woke” and whether white people are ever allowed to use it. As usual, that tired meta-debate has obscured the actual politically load-bearing issues in the essay.
The great irony is that the loudest proponents of social justice politics are usually the same people who insist that everything, absolutely everything, from your taste in art to where you buy tires to the smell of your farts, is political. Of course that claim is mostly deployed against political opponents (in the circles I move in, it's the go-to counterargument whenever anyone even slightly conservative grumbles about TV and movies being too "political"). When it comes to their own views, social justice politics types snidely insist that anything they want is just politeness, and what kind of monster would disagree with politeness? No politics here! Not at all, and doesn't it prove how dumb and stupid anyone who disagrees with them is? Sneer, sneer, sneer, mutual high-fives and back-slappings abound.
...I've had a lot of bad experiences with this. Can you tell?
None of this dreary navel-gazing, none of these interminable debates over how many LGTBQXYZPDQ can dance on the head of a pin, none of this ends the stupid wars or changes the way the pie is sliced.
But also, my kvetch about the Adler-Bell essay is the same as my critique of Ben Burgis "Give Them an Argument". There's a whole genre of this stuff in which "wokeness" or "cancel culture" gets critiqued on the purely instrumental grounds of persuading the normies, while assuming that everyone ought to agree with the actual issue positions at issue. Which is goddamn ridiculous. Of course people sometimes disagree on substance rather than style -- that's just politics.
The problem being, as you point out, that lots of people with left-leaning views or in liberal institutions disagree on substance. But somehow it's some biiig victory that we're now allowed to critique the style.
My suspicion is that insofar as "wokeness" is an institutional politics, it's basically an aesthetic radicalization of liberal technocracy. It's just Clinton 2016 all over again, or Harris 2020 if you prefer referencing the most recent election.
As a companion to Adler-Bell's critique (and to Freddie's) I recommend giving Nellie Bowles' recent Atlantic essay a read. It's about the decline and fall of San Francisco. I see it as a real world critique of the results of social justice politics ruining a city.
I'll add: I'm sooooo glad to see Chesa Boudin recalled. It gives me hope that my 2 favorite west coast cities, Portland and Seattle, can be saved.
I find myself sort of frustrated by the dichotomy that we have a social justice movement that has beautiful ends and no means. And then like an operative political movement that seems to have no ends to speak of beyond like hey we're going to tinker with this or that movement.
The class first left have a clear program at least that they can say hey tax these people at this percent, seize this and that. But if you give me a choice between a very significant multiple on my income or never ever having to deal with abusive prejudices I'd take the second one every time.
This whole movement wants the respect that comes with being a political project, without any understanding or appetite for actual politics. Especially once there was a degree of institutional capture beyond college campuses, and the infamous military industrial complex started pretending like it's all in.
I don't know what you'd call this - it seems something like an unholy fusion of naivete, opportunism and stupidity to me, but I'm deeply cynical like that.
Social justice politics are doomed. The woke make no effort to convert anyone to their causes, they don’t pivot to meet the moment and their heroes are primarily assholes. They insist that Chesa Boudin lost because of right wing activists. They think Gavin Newsom would be an excellent presidential candidate (read that this morning), they see nothing wrong with the leaders of BLM spending a little money on themselves, and they have zero problem with death threats against Supreme Court justices and their families. They never admit error, they just shriek louder.
Meanwhile, we’re spending an extra $500 a month on gas, our children haven’t been ok in two years, and violence is suddenly everywhere. But please, tell me how the Washington Post is oppressing you over a bad joke.
"What underlies all this is the phlogiston of contemporary progressive politics: the immense condescension with which racial politics are treated. To the extent that America’s racial politics have become more emotional and linguistically radical, they’ve also become wrapped in a layer of pandering and head-patting on the part of benevolent white liberals who have little need for material change (as they’re already affluent themselves) and much to lose from appearing not to kowtow to social justice norms (as their lives are unusually dependent on reputation."
I have mentioned this before, but my local Koreatown has a creation myth. When Korean immigrants first arrived and started settling themselves there was a lot of pushback from the local black community. Eventually tensions reached the ignition point and the matter was settled with a massive brawl involving dozens of combatants on each side. They met in a parking lot armed with clubs, knives and fists. The Koreans were victorious, drove the other side off and after that they were able to establish a community unmolested.
The worst part about the woke view of race is that it views blacks, Orientals and Hispanics as natural allies. On what basis? There is no shared culture, or language, or experience. What they are is not white, and if you yourself are white that is likely to be the biggest distinguishing factor.
This is a contest between true vs false against good vs. evil. Many people adopt a morality as good and believe it to be true. And because it becomes a moral issue, anyone who points out it isn't "true" is immoral.
Most people like to place their disagreements into morality rather than truth. A cousin recently talked to me about a legal dispute he is in. He is an extremely bright individual who made a foolish choice and now us suing to fix it. Under true/false analysis, he is correct and deserves to win. However, he wants to place it morality terms and claims the other side is uniquely evil and immoral. He struggles to even hear anything different.
Woke is almost 100% moralizing. It cannot even consider they others don't share their newly found morality. When people flaws in their morality, they get angry and seem unable to process even basic arguments to the contrary.
Agree with everything you said. I'd just add that a politics that treats other people as intrinsically unworthy of voicing an opinion on what our collective life should be (because they're white, cis, hetero, etc.) is at a profound level un- or anti-democratic. It's not strategically wise, for all the reasons you said, but it's also immoral from a democratic perspective. It seems reasonable to me to ask people who have had great good fortune in life (perhaps because of their race or gender) to be thoughtful about how to participate in the discourse, and how and when to wield whatever outsized power they may possess, but it's not okay to tell anyone to shut up when it comes to important issues of our common political life. Not if you believe in democratic principles, in any case.
Nothing enrages the cultthink-addled wokes more than being told that they aren't allowed to exempt themselves from the rules of rhetoric. Of course, the fact that they think they can just shows that they don't understand those rules. Ultimately I've noticed that deapite somehow having attained impressive educational credentials, they tend to be pretty fuckin stupid.
I've thought for a while now that most of what we consider stupid isn't about a lack of education or information, it's about a childish inability to critically think when one's emotions are activated, which they always seem to be when people refuse to participate in socially confirming a preferred orthodox narrative.
I love all the chin scratching these people do when they're struggling to understand the lack of popular support around a movement that barely has any coherent political messaging at all beyond "fuck all normies".
Really hard to explain why that isn't catching on outside of very elite circles! Someday, we may figure it out.
The thing is, Voldemorting often works great on a micro level, in the short term at least; that’s part of the reason it’s so popular. Politics in my town are dominated by leftist Democrats who use the “stay in your lane, bigot” approach to great effect. They have routed the Democratic moderates and pretty much get to do what they want. The local shenanigans contribute to backlash on the state and national level, but they don’t seem much concerned about that.
The great irony is that the loudest proponents of social justice politics are usually the same people who insist that everything, absolutely everything, from your taste in art to where you buy tires to the smell of your farts, is political. Of course that claim is mostly deployed against political opponents (in the circles I move in, it's the go-to counterargument whenever anyone even slightly conservative grumbles about TV and movies being too "political"). When it comes to their own views, social justice politics types snidely insist that anything they want is just politeness, and what kind of monster would disagree with politeness? No politics here! Not at all, and doesn't it prove how dumb and stupid anyone who disagrees with them is? Sneer, sneer, sneer, mutual high-fives and back-slappings abound.
...I've had a lot of bad experiences with this. Can you tell?
None of this dreary navel-gazing, none of these interminable debates over how many LGTBQXYZPDQ can dance on the head of a pin, none of this ends the stupid wars or changes the way the pie is sliced.
frist ps0t
But also, my kvetch about the Adler-Bell essay is the same as my critique of Ben Burgis "Give Them an Argument". There's a whole genre of this stuff in which "wokeness" or "cancel culture" gets critiqued on the purely instrumental grounds of persuading the normies, while assuming that everyone ought to agree with the actual issue positions at issue. Which is goddamn ridiculous. Of course people sometimes disagree on substance rather than style -- that's just politics.
The problem being, as you point out, that lots of people with left-leaning views or in liberal institutions disagree on substance. But somehow it's some biiig victory that we're now allowed to critique the style.
My suspicion is that insofar as "wokeness" is an institutional politics, it's basically an aesthetic radicalization of liberal technocracy. It's just Clinton 2016 all over again, or Harris 2020 if you prefer referencing the most recent election.
As a companion to Adler-Bell's critique (and to Freddie's) I recommend giving Nellie Bowles' recent Atlantic essay a read. It's about the decline and fall of San Francisco. I see it as a real world critique of the results of social justice politics ruining a city.
I'll add: I'm sooooo glad to see Chesa Boudin recalled. It gives me hope that my 2 favorite west coast cities, Portland and Seattle, can be saved.
I find myself sort of frustrated by the dichotomy that we have a social justice movement that has beautiful ends and no means. And then like an operative political movement that seems to have no ends to speak of beyond like hey we're going to tinker with this or that movement.
The class first left have a clear program at least that they can say hey tax these people at this percent, seize this and that. But if you give me a choice between a very significant multiple on my income or never ever having to deal with abusive prejudices I'd take the second one every time.
Great piece, Freddie.
This whole movement wants the respect that comes with being a political project, without any understanding or appetite for actual politics. Especially once there was a degree of institutional capture beyond college campuses, and the infamous military industrial complex started pretending like it's all in.
I don't know what you'd call this - it seems something like an unholy fusion of naivete, opportunism and stupidity to me, but I'm deeply cynical like that.
Social justice politics are doomed. The woke make no effort to convert anyone to their causes, they don’t pivot to meet the moment and their heroes are primarily assholes. They insist that Chesa Boudin lost because of right wing activists. They think Gavin Newsom would be an excellent presidential candidate (read that this morning), they see nothing wrong with the leaders of BLM spending a little money on themselves, and they have zero problem with death threats against Supreme Court justices and their families. They never admit error, they just shriek louder.
Meanwhile, we’re spending an extra $500 a month on gas, our children haven’t been ok in two years, and violence is suddenly everywhere. But please, tell me how the Washington Post is oppressing you over a bad joke.
"What underlies all this is the phlogiston of contemporary progressive politics: the immense condescension with which racial politics are treated. To the extent that America’s racial politics have become more emotional and linguistically radical, they’ve also become wrapped in a layer of pandering and head-patting on the part of benevolent white liberals who have little need for material change (as they’re already affluent themselves) and much to lose from appearing not to kowtow to social justice norms (as their lives are unusually dependent on reputation."
I have mentioned this before, but my local Koreatown has a creation myth. When Korean immigrants first arrived and started settling themselves there was a lot of pushback from the local black community. Eventually tensions reached the ignition point and the matter was settled with a massive brawl involving dozens of combatants on each side. They met in a parking lot armed with clubs, knives and fists. The Koreans were victorious, drove the other side off and after that they were able to establish a community unmolested.
The worst part about the woke view of race is that it views blacks, Orientals and Hispanics as natural allies. On what basis? There is no shared culture, or language, or experience. What they are is not white, and if you yourself are white that is likely to be the biggest distinguishing factor.
This is a contest between true vs false against good vs. evil. Many people adopt a morality as good and believe it to be true. And because it becomes a moral issue, anyone who points out it isn't "true" is immoral.
Most people like to place their disagreements into morality rather than truth. A cousin recently talked to me about a legal dispute he is in. He is an extremely bright individual who made a foolish choice and now us suing to fix it. Under true/false analysis, he is correct and deserves to win. However, he wants to place it morality terms and claims the other side is uniquely evil and immoral. He struggles to even hear anything different.
Woke is almost 100% moralizing. It cannot even consider they others don't share their newly found morality. When people flaws in their morality, they get angry and seem unable to process even basic arguments to the contrary.
Agree with everything you said. I'd just add that a politics that treats other people as intrinsically unworthy of voicing an opinion on what our collective life should be (because they're white, cis, hetero, etc.) is at a profound level un- or anti-democratic. It's not strategically wise, for all the reasons you said, but it's also immoral from a democratic perspective. It seems reasonable to me to ask people who have had great good fortune in life (perhaps because of their race or gender) to be thoughtful about how to participate in the discourse, and how and when to wield whatever outsized power they may possess, but it's not okay to tell anyone to shut up when it comes to important issues of our common political life. Not if you believe in democratic principles, in any case.
You taught me a new word: phlogiston. By which I think you meant something that self- combusts? Anyway, thanks.
Nothing enrages the cultthink-addled wokes more than being told that they aren't allowed to exempt themselves from the rules of rhetoric. Of course, the fact that they think they can just shows that they don't understand those rules. Ultimately I've noticed that deapite somehow having attained impressive educational credentials, they tend to be pretty fuckin stupid.
I've thought for a while now that most of what we consider stupid isn't about a lack of education or information, it's about a childish inability to critically think when one's emotions are activated, which they always seem to be when people refuse to participate in socially confirming a preferred orthodox narrative.
I love all the chin scratching these people do when they're struggling to understand the lack of popular support around a movement that barely has any coherent political messaging at all beyond "fuck all normies".
Really hard to explain why that isn't catching on outside of very elite circles! Someday, we may figure it out.
The thing is, Voldemorting often works great on a micro level, in the short term at least; that’s part of the reason it’s so popular. Politics in my town are dominated by leftist Democrats who use the “stay in your lane, bigot” approach to great effect. They have routed the Democratic moderates and pretty much get to do what they want. The local shenanigans contribute to backlash on the state and national level, but they don’t seem much concerned about that.