11 Comments

Not to say I don't think this was a worthwhile exercise in testing out the social justice worldview, but a steelmanned version of the core principals doesn't sound much different than its opponents' mockery because what's ridiculous about it is that the guiding ideas behind it don't seem to be supported by empirical evidence, merely feelings.

Like you, I wouldn't walk into a mosque refusing to remove my shoes or highlighting what I find unbelievable about their religion, although I've never had a Muslim obnoxiously try to force their religious ideas into expressions of my worldview. I think I tend to agree more with McWhorter that the social justice activist crowd is a religion spawned out of the Protestant tradition of going around, actively trying to save the soul of everyone else. If they were more like many Western Muslims thinking I'd go to hell for my infidelity to Allah, but still content to engage with me politely when our paths cross in public, I wouldn't take issue with what seem like silly and misguided beliefs.

Our society is better when we take measures to ensure equality for as many of its members as we can. The demand that certain groups be privileged to make up for past inequality is to assert the preference for an unequal society over the moral and ethical progress that would likely happen naturally, perhaps even ironically retarding its progress with unsavory conduct. As I said previously, I think trying to steelman the view is a worthwhile exercise, however, I'd say one of the hallmarks of their view is the noticeable inability to steelman the views of their opponents.

Expand full comment

I mean, sure: the 'woke' do not recognize themselves as part of a religion (probably because most of them are formally atheists) but I do not think it's right to say that this movement is not like a religion, or an ideology if you prefer. I would argue that Communism is like a religion; it's definitely spread like a religion with Communists trying to convince those of us, particularly Liberals, who are not believes in the proletarian revolution.

I don't think 'Wokism' (which I've tried labeling Egosumism, Latin for 'I am') is directly a religion. But it does have dogma, you listed it admirably. It also has things that are close to 'sacred texts' like "How to Be an Anti-Racist" and "White Fragility" and the works of Tema Okun.

I also don't think most 'woke' people 'just view themselves as decent people' I would suggest they actually think that they have access to morality that others must learn, or be forced to accept. This is definitely like a religion. It's part of their dogma: "there is no moral passivity in these efforts. If you are not actively anti-oppression, you are complicit in oppression. The personal is political." With this kind of dogma it's really hard, in my view, to not come off as a zealot since your dogma inherently divides the world into a binary: those who accept the world as the evil, horrific place it is (and are going to change it) and everyone else. And those of us who aren't bigoted racist homophobes are just as complicity as the actual bigots, racists and homophobes.

Just my 2 cents.

Expand full comment

I agree that Wokism has many religious aspects to it. How many does it need in order for it to be called a religion? That's very subjective.

Does it need a God? No, but having no deity does make it a bit less religious.Wokism does make some supernatural claims though.

Do all members need to be adamant in their beliefs? No, but a sizeable proportion does need to be unwilling to question the core principles of the religion.

Does it need a sacred text? Not really; a sacred text helps to keep a religion coherent over time, but the formation of a holy book is a messy process; some stories are added later, some are edited or removed, the pieces can contradict each other, some texts are considered blasphemous by some sects...

I could go on, but there's no *one* aspect that distinguishes religions from mere ideologies.

Expand full comment

Some of what you say is true for the hard-core fanatics, but most people we call woke don't fall into that category, and already seem to be drifting away from it. At least, I think they are!

Expand full comment

I'm not quite sure that you've steelmanned this, for example I don't think very many woke people would cop to a demand for "equal outcomes". What they'll say is that equality of opportunity can only be a reality when there's a level playing field, and therefore it's not enough to just line everyone up at the same spot and say, "Go!", you have to equalize the opportunities by taking into account differential starting points.

I also think they would reject that they are saying that systemic oppression is built into "laws"; everyone understands that basically all forms of bigotry have been prohibited by law in the West. The issue for them is more that neutral laws perpetuate existing disparities that were created by previously-discriminatory laws.

Expand full comment

Are you familiar with that famous baseball game image with the 3 people watching? It's not equal until they can all see the game equally well. Equal outcomes.

Expand full comment

Yeah, if you want to steelman though, that's not what they're going to say. They're going to say that there wasn't a level playing field, and by providing each person with assistance appropriate to their level of need, they've created equal opportunity. Keep in mind that they don't really accept inherent inequalities, all inequality to them is a result of unequal opportunity, so actual equal opportunity would naturally, not artificially, produce equal outcomes. In fact, if you argue that equal outcomes will not necessarily result from equal opportunity, then you'll basically be admitting to racism, because you think that people are inherently unequal, and that will be reflected in the outcomes.

The short person in that graphic was a victim of unequal opportunity, once they were provided with what they needed to participate, then they naturally experience an equal outcome.

Expand full comment

You missed McWhorter's larger point about the obvious, core similarity of religion and wokeness, and it is this: wokeness has first-principle dogma that may not be questioned without identifying the questioner as a heretic.

https://bit.ly/4413FBB

>>The secularism of this new therapeutic approach to racial progress may seem fundamentally dissimilar to the previous two phases. In fact, however, third-wave anti-racism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral absolution only by eternally attesting to it, is the third wave’s version of original sin. The idea of a someday when America will “come to terms with race” is as vaguely specified a guidepost as Judgment Day. Explorations as to whether an opinion is “problematic” are equivalent to explorations of that which may be blasphemous. The social mauling of the person with “problematic” thoughts parallels the excommunication of the heretic. What is called “virtue signaling,” then, channels the impulse that might lead a Christian to an aggressive display of her faith in Jesus. There is even a certain Church Lady air to much of the patrolling on race these days, an almost performative joy in dog-piling on the transgressor, which under a religious analysis is perfectly predictable.<<

Any analysis of wokeness that fails to recognize, let alone grapple with, this key problem has already lost the plot.

Expand full comment

"America is deeply stained by oppressive bigotry: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and ableism."

If one were to name a country or society today or in history who is free of the above? What would it be?

If you are an American, you can mark to fantasy, if you are an immigrant, it's because you marked to reality.

Expand full comment

Right. On.

Expand full comment

When "steelmanning", is it describing the "good parts" ("the Revolution is for Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"), or giving the "bad parts" as much a defense as possible ("you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs")? It's very easy to take a typical liberal viewpoint of "I agree with the goals, but I am troubled by some of the tactics, and find some of the extreme rhetoric to be counter-productive". But that really doesn't deal with what the Culture War is about, which is much harsher stuff like what's considered just and reasonable in terms of actions.

Oh, for better or worse, black Hobbits are definitely "woke". They are addressing a core issue, identity representation, in art. Some people think that's too far, or bad art. Other would say that's very appropriate and only a tiny step. But it's a similar idea as, say, a black female starship officer in a science fiction TV series.

Expand full comment