In general, I have come to believe that what we call "wokeness" can be viewed instead as "ultra-orthodox progressivism".
Other authors have called wokeness "performative diversity", and I think that's true to an extent, but the performative aspects are a symptom, not the actual problem. It is performative because the ultra-orthodox are engaged in rituals and following laws that must not be broken no matter what.
When I was younger, and we'd make racist jokes. The point wasn't that we believe in racism, it's that racism itself was the joke, a thing we were mocking by using it so impotently. The ultra-orthodox progressives couldn't see that, because they can't get past the fact that a rule was broken.
Many people like myself say that we used to be "default liberals", because 20 years ago we did agree with progressive thought. I think the reality is that we still do. Progress is something the left and the right agree on to a large extent. The only question is what progress looks like. The people who say "the left left me" are often progressives who intend to stay progressive, but are not ultra-orthodox.
For those who knee-jerk say they aren't progressive, tread carefully -- Christianity itself is a fundamentally progressive religion. Unlike something like Daoism or Buddhism which views the world as cyclical and thus will never progress but instead you need to learn to stop worrying about the physical world and focus on trying to cultivate your inner world by letting go of worldly concerns, Christianity sees the world as saved from a purely cyclical future through God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are progressing towards the kingdom of heaven spiritually, but by following natural law we are aligning with Gods plan for us and so our time on Earth becomes more like the Kingdom of God over time. In some ways, the woke resemble the Pharisees, focused on following rules of God while denying His son and ultimately crucifying the Son of God.
The recent election of Donald Trump helps show this in full effect. Donald Trump didn't just win because the ultra-orthodox's hated "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" voted for him, he voted from a coalition that included many women, more blacks than any Republican president in a century, and a growing contingent of latinos. More Jews than normal voted for Trump. The ultra-orthodox progressives can only see this through their narrow lenses, and so they call women who voted for Trump misogynistic, and latinos and blacks who voted for Trump racist. They're doing everyone a favor having their hypocrisy on full display.
I believe the reason for the success of ultra-orthodox progressivism is multi-faceted.
1. As I investigated in another post, there are two forms of idiocracy: One populist and anti-intellectual, one elitist and pseudo-intellectual. By taking on the trappings of ultra-orthodox progressivism, an individual who is intellectually lazy can take on the trappings of class and intellect without putting in work besides regurgitating someone else's ideas.
2. Large organizations are extremely compatible with ultra-orthodoxy. They like that there are defined, relatively unchanging rules that they just need to comply with. Contrast with a purer progressivism, which constantly questions even itself and its own axioms and can change its mind on what progress is. It's easier to hammer a zero tolerance policy out than to go through an intellectual journey of finding answers.
3. Ultra-progressive progressivism is militant and seeks to destroy opposition. In the short term, this is like a wasp who stings anyone who comes close to their nest. In the short term, people will stay away from the nest. In the longer term, eventually someone will shoot some bug spray or hire an exterminator.
Only one of the three reasons can be sustainable. The first fails once people stop seeing your jargon filled pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook as intelligent, the third fails once everyone realizes nobody actually likes you. The second will only last as long as the organizations think there's a benefit to your ideology, and if it seems to cost too much youll lose institutional support regardless of your digestibility.
Other authors have called wokeness "performative diversity", and I think that's true to an extent, but the performative aspects are a symptom, not the actual problem. It is performative because the ultra-orthodox are engaged in rituals and following laws that must not be broken no matter what.
When I was younger, and we'd make racist jokes. The point wasn't that we believe in racism, it's that racism itself was the joke, a thing we were mocking by using it so impotently. The ultra-orthodox progressives couldn't see that, because they can't get past the fact that a rule was broken.
Many people like myself say that we used to be "default liberals", because 20 years ago we did agree with progressive thought. I think the reality is that we still do. Progress is something the left and the right agree on to a large extent. The only question is what progress looks like. The people who say "the left left me" are often progressives who intend to stay progressive, but are not ultra-orthodox.
For those who knee-jerk say they aren't progressive, tread carefully -- Christianity itself is a fundamentally progressive religion. Unlike something like Daoism or Buddhism which views the world as cyclical and thus will never progress but instead you need to learn to stop worrying about the physical world and focus on trying to cultivate your inner world by letting go of worldly concerns, Christianity sees the world as saved from a purely cyclical future through God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are progressing towards the kingdom of heaven spiritually, but by following natural law we are aligning with Gods plan for us and so our time on Earth becomes more like the Kingdom of God over time. In some ways, the woke resemble the Pharisees, focused on following rules of God while denying His son and ultimately crucifying the Son of God.
The recent election of Donald Trump helps show this in full effect. Donald Trump didn't just win because the ultra-orthodox's hated "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" voted for him, he voted from a coalition that included many women, more blacks than any Republican president in a century, and a growing contingent of latinos. More Jews than normal voted for Trump. The ultra-orthodox progressives can only see this through their narrow lenses, and so they call women who voted for Trump misogynistic, and latinos and blacks who voted for Trump racist. They're doing everyone a favor having their hypocrisy on full display.
I believe the reason for the success of ultra-orthodox progressivism is multi-faceted.
1. As I investigated in another post, there are two forms of idiocracy: One populist and anti-intellectual, one elitist and pseudo-intellectual. By taking on the trappings of ultra-orthodox progressivism, an individual who is intellectually lazy can take on the trappings of class and intellect without putting in work besides regurgitating someone else's ideas.
2. Large organizations are extremely compatible with ultra-orthodoxy. They like that there are defined, relatively unchanging rules that they just need to comply with. Contrast with a purer progressivism, which constantly questions even itself and its own axioms and can change its mind on what progress is. It's easier to hammer a zero tolerance policy out than to go through an intellectual journey of finding answers.
3. Ultra-progressive progressivism is militant and seeks to destroy opposition. In the short term, this is like a wasp who stings anyone who comes close to their nest. In the short term, people will stay away from the nest. In the longer term, eventually someone will shoot some bug spray or hire an exterminator.
Only one of the three reasons can be sustainable. The first fails once people stop seeing your jargon filled pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook as intelligent, the third fails once everyone realizes nobody actually likes you. The second will only last as long as the organizations think there's a benefit to your ideology, and if it seems to cost too much youll lose institutional support regardless of your digestibility.
- replies
- 3
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 2