This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What is wokeness, specifically?
I think this is the canonical response to this line of argument.
"Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand, you don't get to insist that no one talks about your political project and it's weak and pathetic that you think you do"? Or is it "the basic stance of the social justice set, for a long time now, has been that they are 100% exempt from ordinary politics." Who is "they"?
The Cathedral is good reading. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral
Inability to accurately specify "they" is not a gotcha, it is like this by design. Everyone knows that "they" will get you for saying the wrong thing, it doesn't matter who "they" are. You may not be able to name the lawyer who enacts lawfare against you, or the company he's on retainer for, but humans intuitively understand that they are frequently set against a vast, unaccountable memespace egregore that undergoes regular software updates to set itself against others.
The canonical response above is expressing frustration with the inability to accurately name this phenomenon of Cathedral-driven social change, because being able to name it is a weakness. Don't worry too much about social justice- within a few years the Cathedral will start shifting the other way. We're already starting to see signs.
The very beginning of the article define "The Cathedral" as "journalism plus academia". That's pretty specific to me. In fact I scrolled further and found even more specifically "Harvard, Yale, the Times and the Post". In your own example, you listed a line of bureaucracy from lawyers to lawfare to companies.
However I am going to assume you are also implying that even if the article is not being specific, your definition of the Cathedral still holds. Your second claim that "everyone knows that "they" will get you" is consensus building. Who is "everyone"? Does that include me?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deBoer provides several examples of the kinds of people who compose "they".
I am not sure how else "who is 'they'" can be answered (when we're talking about a movement that rejects labels) if we don't describe them by their beliefs. Do you want a list of names or what?
Yes, I'd like a list of names of people you believe are enforcing wokeness.
Okay. Off the top of my head, Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo are woke. Does that help?
More options
Context Copy link
Michael Reinoehl was enforcing wokeness when he murdered a Trump supporter in cold blood on the streets of Portland following a pro-trump demonstration.
His allies were enforcing wokeness when they publicly celebrated their ally's murder later that evening.
Would you agree that these two examples are, in fact, people enforcing wokeness? If not, what would be your disagreement with that framing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Social Justice set. The people who think our main problems are caused by Oppressors organizing society to keep the oppressed under their heel. This set believes that they can bypass persuasion ("ordinary politics") and simply compel people to do things their way. Since they are not attempting persuasion, a legible label for their movement or their preferred tactics is completely contrary to their interests, so they actively and vociferously fight any label that starts to gain prominence.
We are talking about a movement that has dominated western politics for the last decade. To the extent that your confusion is in good faith, it is a testament to the effectiveness of this resistance to labels and analysis.
I’m not confused lol, I very much think you are wrong, but in the spirit of debate, I’d like to discuss specifics. Specifically, who is “they” that have dominated “western politics”? Is it the president? The Supreme Court? The circuit courts? The governors? The school boards? The voters? The entire Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government?
I’ll illustrate an example; when I say “the people who think our main problems are caused by Oppressors organizing society to keep the oppressed under their heel from a movement that has dominated western politics for a decade”, those people in particular would be Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton, Ron Desantis, Majorie Taylor Greene, Mike Johnson and Donald Trump, to name a few.
I appreciate the effort to debate and ask this question, but the problem is that defining "they" down to actual names is quite an arduous task!
I'll take an example that affected my life last year. My wife taught at a suburban (exurban?) Title I elementary school. Majority-minority classes. It has been a trend for several years, and mentioned above in this thread, that disparate impact policy may have been well intentioned but boiled down to "it's basically impossible to suspend students, even if they're violent." She had one student that needed a great deal of help and had violent outbursts. A violent 2nd grader can't do that much, but he could throw a chair or destroy the room. Policy hamstrings teachers against doing anything. So at least once a week, he'd have an outburst and she'd shuffle the rest of the class out to wait it out.
Nobody argues for "public schools should be held hostage by their worst students, and basically non-functional multiple hours a week," but somehow we get there anyways. I can't point to any individual that wants that. It's the result of a long string of decisions and beliefs, some good and some horrifying, a massive messy web of lawsuit-avoidance and ideological pandering and EdD/PhD overproduction.
Should I name the principal? No, she wasn't too bad and I believe when she said she's hamstrung by the school board (and the feds, Title I!). Should I name the board? Well, I certainly vote against them but they're not the source of the idiocy, they just help enact it. Where does the idea come from upstream of them? I'd love to be able to point at one person whose work could be erased and schools could go back to functioning, but unfortunately that's not the way it works.
Ibram Kendi, Nicole Hannah-Jones, Robin Diangelo, Sara Rao, Liz Warren, Tema Okun, every person that took any of the aforementioned loons seriously, every journalist that doesn't work for an explicitly right-wing media source, every sociologist, every critical theorist, 80+% of university professors that aren't economists.
More options
Context Copy link
The managerial class. Twitter's board as opposed to Twitter's owners. Agents as opposed to principals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Inspired by in part by Michael Huemer's definition I would rephrase it somewhat more generic along the lines of: all discrepancies of outcome are due to pervasive, systemic biases rooted in unchanging, historically-defined oppressor/oppressed dynamics, and such dynamics outweigh most or all other concerns.
More cynically, "wokeness" is the logical outcome of trying to apply intersectionality to the real world and the result of Christianity-influenced universalist ethics stripped of the supernatural elements, combined with certain common social trends, resulting in acceptably-demonized populations and sanctified, above-reproach populations.
For some examples of your later question of "aggressively performative," land acknowledgements as secular prayers come to mind. Surely the people saying them don't have any faith that they do anything beyond some vague 'raising of awareness' that doesn't actually... you know, repatriate the land or anything.
Anything involving people like Robin Diangelo, Ibram Kendi, Tema Okun, Nicole Hannah-Jones, etc: aggressively performative, actively making the world worse if one attempts anything they say. One would do less damage to the world by simply burning their money in a ritualistic sacrifice. I kind of think that's why audits of BLM vanished from the news cycle so quickly- people did want to treat sending money to scam artists as ritualistic sacrifice, they made a payment on their sin-debt and just wanted to move on.
I fear I am succumbing to a temptation to label anything bad as woke, and related yet good ideas as something else. But that is pretty much my stance on the word: while there are positive contributions to be made to the world in the name of social justice, much of what has happened in the last 10 years has been major, predictable failure modes instead, and that collection of failure modes is "wokeness."
Well, if you are succumbing to labeling anything you consider bad as woke and everything else as something else...I don't know how to argue on that except...don't?
If the question is "wokeness is receding", and you define wokeness as "all discrepancies of outcome are due to pervasive, systemic biases rooted in unchanging, historically-defined oppressor/oppressed dynamics, and such dynamics outweigh most or all other concerns", I struggle to see where claims that a discrepancy is due to biased dyanmics and not merit are, in general, going down. Mark Zuckerburg just claimed that the bias he struggles with in his business is because of the overabundance of "feminine energy"; I hardly see that as symptoms of a decline.
LOL at your new flair.
Well, it's a phenomenon that seemingly a large number of people agree exists and is meaningful, but refuses to name itself, works the euphemism treadmill in an attempt that no name sticks for long, every blowhard commentator comes up with a new name to sell their book, etc.
Since I've been told that nobody calls themselves woke anymore since it got treadmilled by the right, I don't think it's such a bad thing to save it as a negative descriptor and hope that a positive descriptor comes along that sticks for more than five minutes for the parts that aren't terrible. It's not an ideal situation, I agree.
I was addressing your question of attempting to define it, not addressing OP's question at all.
I don't think it particularly is receding. Even though it's ebbed from the pandemic-induced mass psychosis a lot of the attitudes are sticking around, and we as a society (and even worse, as The West) are not really wrestling with what it actually means to be multicultural, multiethnic liberal democracy.
Yeah, that's what I didn't like about Huemer's definition. Many people have entrenched ideas about what "racist" and "sexist" means, and even when presented with examples of anti-white (or "politically white" like Asians in school admission cases) racism or anti-male sexism, they'll say that it's justified on historic grounds (regardless of the actual people affected).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This isn’t actually a meaningful response. Firstly because it just kicks the can one step up — how you define “social justice”? Secondly, because “performativity” is neither exclusive to wokeness — God knows I’ve seen plenty of conservatives wearing in-your-face Trump memorabilia, putting American flag and/or Thin Blue Line stickers on their trucks, etc. — nor actually the primary issue with wokeness; there are tons of woke NGOs and anonymous woke bureaucrats doing plenty behind the scenes, unheralded, to advance specific causes and to cause material legal and political change. Focusing only on the “performative” stuff actually misses the point and allows those less “performative” actors to continue their work unnoticed and unimpeded.
I agree. I’d say Trump pardoning people who deliberately and illegally entered government property is performative social justice. What economic/political/social opportunity and right is being denied by jailing people who literally broke the law?
Therefore the claim that “wokeness” is on the letdown seems false.
They did not illegally enter government property. Just as importantly, American citizens are guaranteed a right to a speedy trial; holding them indefinitely "pre-trial" ("pre" being the Latin for "without," apparently; this is not what I was taught that it meant, but who am I to question my betters?)
Do you believe people who enter a building that the police tell them not to enter are not breaking the law?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hoffmeister said performativity isn't exclusive to wokeness and so you think Trump doing something performative proves wokeness isn't in decline? Huh?
Also your gag doesn't work. You can't use your own perspective to set it up, because it only works if your interlocutor agrees that what you are ironically calling performative social justice is performative social justice for the reasons you state. So you'd have to say 'we'd all agree Trump pardoning Jan 6ers is social justice right? And a presidential pardon is by its nature performative' and go from there.
Edit: clarity
Gag? I'm not going to continue conversation with someone who can't restrain themselves from insulting me.
Gag is another word for bit, joke, shtick or witticism. I wasn't insulting you, I was trying to help you be a better arguer. You were calling Trump pardoning Jan 6ers wokeness to highlight the irony and some potential double thought, but to do that well you need to get your debate partner to agree on definitions first, otherwise they might not agree with your terms.
Carrying on in that spirit, you had never said anything to me in the first place, so you could never continue conversation with me - this post is you joining in conversation with me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A set of interlocking theories emerging from the academic field of Sociology that share in common an understanding of society as dominated by oppressor/oppressed dynamics: Feminism (Men/Women), "anti-racism" (whites/non-whites), Queer/QUILTBAG (Heteros/Queers), Labor (workers vs bosses), etc. These theories coordinate support between their adherents and collectively demand a revolutionary otherthrow of existing social structures to achieve "justice". They also consistently fail to achieve any positive end, and then explain away this failure as due to them not having been granted sufficient power and control over Society.
...I'm skeptical that anyone thoughtful, at this late stage, actually believes that "social justice" is a nebulous or poorly-defined concept. It appears to me that the concept is well-defined, and the large majority of the remaining confusion comes from its adherents who perceive legibility to be contrary to their ideological interests, and so actively fight against any attempt to accurately label or describe their actions or organizations.
Unheralded to who? It seems to me that they herald themselves quite a bit to their fellow NGOs and bureaucrats, just not the public at large. They make Powerpoints, and present them. They hold conferences and publish papers and manifestos. They organize and coordinate around the ideology collectively, they capture policy and process, they manipulate procedural outcomes. All of these are social acts, thus prone to performance.
This action is "performative" because it so evidently degenerates into assessment by consensus, not real-world results. The proper practice of anti-racism means securing the approval of the anti-racist community, not the actual reduction of racism in any objectively defined or measured sense. Victory is nothing less or more than the approval of one's peers, and real-world results are entirely ignored.
More options
Context Copy link
Every philosophy department knew how do do it succinctly before the label was banned for being effective: Cultural Marxism. Race/Sex/Gender/etc communism.
The application of moralistic ideas of collective justice and redistribution to the cultural sphere, through the definition of multiple intersecting binaries of oppressors and oppressed classes.
More options
Context Copy link
'Performative' is the fig leaf that liberals use to distinguish good theory from bad praxis. In practice, however, it is a nuance without a difference, given that liberalism has no defense against bad actors from the left. We know this to be true because of spectacular tactical victories on part of activists and 'the groups' to impose their views on (charitably) good-meaning and agreeable people.
Let me give you my definition: wokeness is the barely-disguised will to power through the soft and feminine language of slave morality. It exults the weak and marginalized to the height of society, to right historical wrongs. That is the 'social justice' part. The 'woke' part comes from the conspiratorial assertions that the dominant racial group in the West (white, male people) have been systematically keeping the marginalized out of power and that it is fundamentally imbedded into every aspect of society.
This concept is called 'white supremacy.'
Therefore, every effort must be made to make society 'woke', to advantage minorities, ethnic and sexual, within the system to counteract the inherent bias of the institutions. Although this definition will be fiercely contested by its own proponents - they are self-aware enough that the programme is wildly unpopular - one defines things by its outcomes, by its real-world impacts. Definitional word games do not change the fundamental power-seeking, inquisitorial drive of the movement. Individually the elements that compose it may not be novel but it is the combination of these elements that make 'woke' what it is.
What is "feminine language"?
https://x.com/BridgetPhetasy/status/1818015936580055118
It can't be demonstrated any better than this. Browbeating people as if they're kindergartners, but doing it passive-aggressively so you can cry and get them in trouble if they talk back to you.
If there are any questions asked, there are obvious right and wrong answers, with the threat of "telling on you" if you give the wrong one.
More options
Context Copy link
Soothing, nurturing euphemisms. Environments in which dissent is prohibited and the word of ethnic and sexual minorities must be accepted without question (provided they are orthodox in their opinions) are referred to as "safe spaces". The move to instate an intellectual monoculture in which heretics are shunned and sexual and ethnic minorities are systematically elevated over other groups is referred to as "diversity, equity and inclusion". Maoist struggle sessions are described as "accountability culture". Profoundly unpopular policies such as housing male rapists in women's prisons or performing mastectomies on female teenagers are made more palatable with emotionally manipulative thought-terminating clichés like "protect trans kids". Mastectomies, penectomies, vaginoplasties and hormones are collectively referred to as "gender-affirming care".
I looked up "soothing, nurturing euphemisms" and got "rest your mind," "take a moment," "breathe easy," "unwind," "decompress," "let go," "find your center," "peaceful pause," "quiet time," "soothe your soul," "gentle transition," "calm your nerves," "ease into relaxation," "soft landing," and "tranquil space." If the claim is that men don't use these phrases, I find that dubious.
Additionally, I don't consider definitions of environments, moves and policies to be a part of defining language.
The only kind of man I can imagine routinely using these phrases is a yoga instructor, therapist or psychiatrist. Unsurprisingly, men represent only 28%, 24% and 21% of those professions, respectively.
More options
Context Copy link
When I try to imagine a man regularly using those phrases, what comes to mind is either the kind of modern psychoanalyst that is known to be mostly visited by women, or someone who spends his time nearly exclusively in the company of women.
The first third of the list is somewhat unisex, but the latter two sound like they're straight out of the "female memes" tiktok channel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You seem to be asking a lot of questions here but not contributing your own thoughts.
What do you think feminine language might be? Can you steelwoman it for us?
I don't think I can successfully steelman an argument if I don't know the OP's argument, but I will try. It'll just be a lot of assumptions, which I'm not a fan of.
The position is that there are two binary expressions of gender, which masculine and feminine, and therefore there are two categories of language corresponding. Additionally, the correct expression of this binary is the Western definition of masculinity and femininity.
This is natural; two completely different species attempting to communicate with eachother naturally will have separate languages, complete with their own vocabulary, grammar, connotations and implications. Since virtually all first world countries are Western, it shows that the Western definition of masculinity and femininity is the most successful, and therefore accurate, definition.
If we follow the examples of the Western definition of masculinity and femininity, then, we can assume what OP means by feminine language is language that is "collective, random, accommodating, passive, vulnerable, emotional, fragile, small, dependent, intuitive, submissive" and "tactful", among others.
Now, seeing as I have seen a fair share of men identifying with the Western definition of masculine and use language that is random, passive, emotional, fragile and tactful, then that language can't be exclusively feminine then. And if there is no exclusivity to the language and both elements can be included with one another, then the definitions of "feminine language" have become so vague as to render the whole notion non-existent.
That's a pretty good steelman, but you are implying motive that isn't necessary. Also there's only the one species, humans. Anyway I can't speak for the op of course, but I determine masculine and feminine language based on the western understanding of the gender binary not because the west is the best (although it is) but because I am in the west. In Japan or Taiwan I use different language, or look stupid when I snort at some guy going on about flowers.
Re the species thing, language is a tool for communicating, and in the west until very recently you had a zeitgeist which allowed people to communicate using shared metaphors and idioms built up over thousands of years of history and stories and memes. The idea that aggressive, direct language is masculine and passive gentle language is feminine is a very old one and has never fully restricted the language of men or women except in certain specific, usually formal instances. That has never made it useless - in fact it has made it more useful, as we can have feminine men and masculine women. Parts of Western society have tried to restrict their members' language, because they believe it is in the best interests of the members to adhere to their gender, but it has never applied to the language as a whole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you give me some examples of what you consider to be aggressively performative economic, political and social rights & opportunities?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link