I didn’t so much enjoy it, as I found it instructive and unsettling. I think we agree that the onset of Wokeism was insidious. I had always thought of the proximal causes as being 1. the rise of BLM and its ability to influence the reporting of police shootings, to make it seem like unarmed Black people were being hunted down, and 2. the rise of Bernie Sanders and the needs to de-emphasize wealth as the source of privilege, so the focus could remain on race, gender, and sexual orientation, as preferred by the rich liberals who have been controlling the Democratic Party for 50 years. I HAD NOT so much entertained the idea that Wokeism was just the latest iteration in an unending quest for equality of outcomes, in a country where differences exist between racial, ethnic, and gender groups. As you say, the quest is doomed to failure, unless heavy-handed social engineering (like quotas) is used. And, as you say, that quest is quasi-religious. An article of faith. And it is puritanical, dividing the country into the righteous and the apostates.
This is an issue that is very intriguing to me, I am glad Michael is diving in. Also coming to similar conclusions after reading the more popular center right books on wokeness proves I am less likely to be insane. One of the areas where waters have been heavily polluted by ideology is the scientific nature vs nurture debate,mainly how genes and culture shape outcomes like social class/income/health/crime proclivity/gender differences etc. From your blog I know you are familiar with the works of people like Robert Plomin/Gregory Clark .I don't know how much academics actually believe in the blank slate(environment shapes everything), but even if they pretend to for politically correct reasons, since they are very influential among elites policies and resources are being wasted with little effect. If we want social policies to be beneficial this is a key area we need to make sure the science isn't politicised.
I will write a future article about it, but I think one of the reasons that the Woke reject science, logic, and reason is that the massive amounts of scientific evidence about the genetic causes of inequality within societies completely undermines the world view of Left-of-Center ideologies.
Because genetic research is essential to medical advances, the evidence will keep accumulating. That is exactly why they want to make it a taboo to discuss genetic inequality, particularly regarding race and sex.
I personally do not think they actually believe in the Blank Slate. I think it is preference falsification. I write more here:
For what is worth gregory clark supports high and progressive taxes, but he admits (seemingly unhappy if i can infer from an interview,probably due to his strong egalitarian ethics) that giving people freedom greatly limits social mobility since people marry and breed according to their social class . I generally agree with you that promoting economic growth is more important than focusing on social mobility, but if you have free time you can check this to get a varied perspective
Removing the taboos around genetic inequality is gonna be a huge win for social sciences, sadly people on both the left and fringe right make this harder
I have not read Sandel's book, but I am familiar with his argument. The problem is that he neglects the importance of long-term economic growth, which requires meritocracy. As is true with most philosophers, Sandel treats society as a stable state and is focused on distribution.
Good question. I am not sure that I have an answer.
I do not claim to understand the Right, nor do I claim that all ideologies have a central moral dilemma.
I think it is more the question of "What are we fighting for?" or "What type of change is desirable?" or "Are we about keeping things the same as it is or rolling back the changes that the Left already implemented?"
Most governments of the Right act like caretakers of stasis in between Leftist governments that promote change. This effectively means that the Right always loses in the long run.
One dilemma on the right is the split between libertarians and social conservatives. They are united by opposition to the left and by support for capitalism. They are divided on whether enlightenment rationality (perhaps secular humanism) should take us beyond religion, on the one hand—or, on the other hand, as seen in the ARC crowd, we need religion and religious tradition.
My own view acknowledges the value and wisdom that religious tradition and conservative values contain. See, for example, Haidt (respect for authority, sanctity, group loyalty). However, ultimately enlightenment rationality is the guiding star to the truth and to progress.
Human progress consistent with basic human rights and civil liberties should be the goal, as Tyler Cowen laid out in his book, Stubborn Attachments. By human progress, he means economic growth, broadly defined. We are wealthy enough to afford compassionate programs, but we must be careful about incentives and unintended consequences.
As an additional argument for freedom, we should remember a point that conservative sensibilities teach us: human thriving is usually enhanced by systems that encourage personal responsibility. Programs that ignore this can too easily serve their bureaucracies and become wastefully corrupt and counterproductive.
I think Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions helps address this, at least partly. Those folks with an unconstrained vision tend to be liberal/progressive/leftists, seeing people as potentially improveable and thus able to bring everyone up to some basic level of equal capability (with suitable social and governmental assistance). Those with the constrained vison tend to be conservative/Republican, believing people have a base (or core) human nature that cannot be changed or improved, so efforts to achieve such improvement are doomed to fail.
Most people may fall somwhere on a spectrum from one extreme view vs. the other, such that variation along this axis can occur among groups and within any individual.
You are misunderstanding what I am trying to explain.
From your description, it sounds like your mother suffered from Cluster B personality disorders or something like it. Sorry for your experience.
I never claimed that there were no ideological or behavioral precursors to the Woke. On the contrary, the psychological behaviors of Cluster B personality disorder have probably been around since the dawn of time. And radical ideologies feast on those people. I am confident that the same behaviors occurred with the Communists, Fascists, National Socialists, Jacobins, and other radical movements.
I am trying to explain why the Woke became so politically influential in the USA since 2010. The existence of the same behaviors and roughly the same views is not the same as being politically influential.
Do you mind me asking, what nation did your mother grow up in?
This is really thought-provoking. Thank you.
Glad that you enjoyed it!
I didn’t so much enjoy it, as I found it instructive and unsettling. I think we agree that the onset of Wokeism was insidious. I had always thought of the proximal causes as being 1. the rise of BLM and its ability to influence the reporting of police shootings, to make it seem like unarmed Black people were being hunted down, and 2. the rise of Bernie Sanders and the needs to de-emphasize wealth as the source of privilege, so the focus could remain on race, gender, and sexual orientation, as preferred by the rich liberals who have been controlling the Democratic Party for 50 years. I HAD NOT so much entertained the idea that Wokeism was just the latest iteration in an unending quest for equality of outcomes, in a country where differences exist between racial, ethnic, and gender groups. As you say, the quest is doomed to failure, unless heavy-handed social engineering (like quotas) is used. And, as you say, that quest is quasi-religious. An article of faith. And it is puritanical, dividing the country into the righteous and the apostates.
This is an issue that is very intriguing to me, I am glad Michael is diving in. Also coming to similar conclusions after reading the more popular center right books on wokeness proves I am less likely to be insane. One of the areas where waters have been heavily polluted by ideology is the scientific nature vs nurture debate,mainly how genes and culture shape outcomes like social class/income/health/crime proclivity/gender differences etc. From your blog I know you are familiar with the works of people like Robert Plomin/Gregory Clark .I don't know how much academics actually believe in the blank slate(environment shapes everything), but even if they pretend to for politically correct reasons, since they are very influential among elites policies and resources are being wasted with little effect. If we want social policies to be beneficial this is a key area we need to make sure the science isn't politicised.
I will write a future article about it, but I think one of the reasons that the Woke reject science, logic, and reason is that the massive amounts of scientific evidence about the genetic causes of inequality within societies completely undermines the world view of Left-of-Center ideologies.
Because genetic research is essential to medical advances, the evidence will keep accumulating. That is exactly why they want to make it a taboo to discuss genetic inequality, particularly regarding race and sex.
I personally do not think they actually believe in the Blank Slate. I think it is preference falsification. I write more here:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/social-mobility-vs-upward-mobility
For what is worth gregory clark supports high and progressive taxes, but he admits (seemingly unhappy if i can infer from an interview,probably due to his strong egalitarian ethics) that giving people freedom greatly limits social mobility since people marry and breed according to their social class . I generally agree with you that promoting economic growth is more important than focusing on social mobility, but if you have free time you can check this to get a varied perspective
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Merit-Whats-Become-Common/dp/0374289980
Removing the taboos around genetic inequality is gonna be a huge win for social sciences, sadly people on both the left and fringe right make this harder
I have not read Sandel's book, but I am familiar with his argument. The problem is that he neglects the importance of long-term economic growth, which requires meritocracy. As is true with most philosophers, Sandel treats society as a stable state and is focused on distribution.
Great article! What would you say is the central moral dilemma of the right?
Good question. I am not sure that I have an answer.
I do not claim to understand the Right, nor do I claim that all ideologies have a central moral dilemma.
I think it is more the question of "What are we fighting for?" or "What type of change is desirable?" or "Are we about keeping things the same as it is or rolling back the changes that the Left already implemented?"
Most governments of the Right act like caretakers of stasis in between Leftist governments that promote change. This effectively means that the Right always loses in the long run.
One dilemma on the right is the split between libertarians and social conservatives. They are united by opposition to the left and by support for capitalism. They are divided on whether enlightenment rationality (perhaps secular humanism) should take us beyond religion, on the one hand—or, on the other hand, as seen in the ARC crowd, we need religion and religious tradition.
My own view acknowledges the value and wisdom that religious tradition and conservative values contain. See, for example, Haidt (respect for authority, sanctity, group loyalty). However, ultimately enlightenment rationality is the guiding star to the truth and to progress.
Human progress consistent with basic human rights and civil liberties should be the goal, as Tyler Cowen laid out in his book, Stubborn Attachments. By human progress, he means economic growth, broadly defined. We are wealthy enough to afford compassionate programs, but we must be careful about incentives and unintended consequences.
As an additional argument for freedom, we should remember a point that conservative sensibilities teach us: human thriving is usually enhanced by systems that encourage personal responsibility. Programs that ignore this can too easily serve their bureaucracies and become wastefully corrupt and counterproductive.
I think Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions helps address this, at least partly. Those folks with an unconstrained vision tend to be liberal/progressive/leftists, seeing people as potentially improveable and thus able to bring everyone up to some basic level of equal capability (with suitable social and governmental assistance). Those with the constrained vison tend to be conservative/Republican, believing people have a base (or core) human nature that cannot be changed or improved, so efforts to achieve such improvement are doomed to fail.
Most people may fall somwhere on a spectrum from one extreme view vs. the other, such that variation along this axis can occur among groups and within any individual.
You are misunderstanding what I am trying to explain.
From your description, it sounds like your mother suffered from Cluster B personality disorders or something like it. Sorry for your experience.
I never claimed that there were no ideological or behavioral precursors to the Woke. On the contrary, the psychological behaviors of Cluster B personality disorder have probably been around since the dawn of time. And radical ideologies feast on those people. I am confident that the same behaviors occurred with the Communists, Fascists, National Socialists, Jacobins, and other radical movements.
I go into more detail in this article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/radical-ideologies-feast-on-mental
I am trying to explain why the Woke became so politically influential in the USA since 2010. The existence of the same behaviors and roughly the same views is not the same as being politically influential.
Do you mind me asking, what nation did your mother grow up in?