Sectors of the left have divided progressives in ways that undermine their goals. Wokeism is fashionable but it comes with large problems. A wise philosopher explains how.
Wow!! That was a powerful, tour de force! Only if Neiman’s critique of post-modern ideology could be found on CNN, MSNBC, or PBS. We might find our way out of the ideological mess we got ourselves into. Neiman’s delineation of how Foucault, among others, got us here is compelling. A banquet for thought.
One further thought - David Sloan Wilson, Evolution Biologist, Anthropologist argues against those who believe evolution theory must embrace egocentric motivational theories of human cooperation to explain how evolution works. Wilson was utterly alone in his work in the 70s. Today, perhaps owing in part to E O Wilson’s work on Prosociality, David Sloan Wilson’s work on Group Heredity vs Individual Heredity has gained prominence among Evolution Theorists. Neiman’s critique of evolutionary psychology may not require support from recent work on Prosociality role in shaping contemporary evolution theory but the target of her critique is diminished if not vanished. David Sloan Wilson’s work provokes thought on the underlying assumptions about Individualism, as a social theory construct, and how it affected the development of Evolutionary Theory in biology and cultural anthropology. More food for thought.
Jonathan Haight and Robert Sapolsky are two prominent scientists who advance David Sloan Wilson’s work in their own researches.
Many thanks for your very informed reply. I tip my hat to your staying current on the issue. I suspect that evolutionary psychology is itself "evolving." I saw Neiman's inclusion of evolutionary psychology as a kind of add-on, which wasn't necessary to making her argument as to the forsaking of progress by the woke left. The argument could be made on other grounds.
I suspect she had in mind (though she doesn't so state) those who believe that the United States is so besotted in sin that such defines the status quo into eternity. But one can look to no less of a luminary than MLK to find anopposing views. Most people who have heard the "I Have a Dream" speech recall the cadences at the end, but forget King's extraordinary beginning. Herein he expresses the notion that America has defaulted on its promise made at the beginning and needs to "live out its creed," strongly implying that it is possible. Where King sees faith -no doubt coming from his pronounced Christian commitments - Neiman (with less certainty) sees hope. Either way, the future remains open and progress possible.
While I certainly agree about the primacy of reason and the dangers of tribalism, I have to disagree with the attack on wokeism. First, I define it differently. To me, and I suggest to the average non-academic, wokeism is the recognition of past wrongs to American blacks and women and the understanding that those wrongs continue to effect our society today. (A contention which I know, Joe, you’ll agree they do) In the political arena, the anti-wokeism of DeSantis and his ilk is extremely dangerous as it suggests that the true victims today are whites generally and Christian white men specifically. Talk about claiming victimhood! Neiman tips her hand when she says “the right may be more dangerous...” May?!!!
Of course, I agree that the left is more powerful when united. Ironically, I believe that attacking wokeism from the left is more destructive to unity than the woke left could ever be -- outside of academia, that is, where debates about the Enlightenment flourish and belong.
Thanks, Ed. I deeply respect your thoughtful reply.
A few comments: Wokeism has fluid meanings. In the hands of the right it is broadened, as you point out, to merely refer to wrongs done to blacks and women, and their enduring effects. It's employed as a cheap, politicized, and reprehensible tool by which to promote the attack on liberals, as well as on blacks and women. But if this is all that it means, then there is nothing new about it, except for its current political use. If there is anything new, then it is of degree and not of kind. There has always been a critique of racism, from Frederick Douglass through M.L.K. King and the current moment.
But I entertain a different meaning of "woke," which I think is a categorical difference, emerging from the left. It is this that I conclude irks both Susan Neiman and me.
In my view, it takes certain notions, such as "systemic racism" and reifies them into dogmas that subsume and smother all elements of detail and nuance. It fetishizes the status of victimhood, which is then pursued as a tool of political leverage and authority it does not deserve. It is virtually obsessed with the notion of power inequities, again, as if little else matters. Bewitchment with these lines of thinking are often conveyed with an air of absolutism. A fretful consequence is that it augments tribalism that ominously divided society. It foments finger-pointing and virtue flaunting, but does little or nothing to substantively mitigate oppression. It also cuts off dialogue that is necessary for there to be social healing.
This problem is not remote. It takes place on the personal level, which honesty compels me to admit is a cause for my making it an issue. I have a friend, who founded, and for a dozen years and more, built one of the most successful grassroots progressive organizations in the New York area. He is a very smart guy, and assuredly an anti-racist. A few years ago he was expelled from the very organization he founded. The cause was that he proffered a subtle critique of anti-racism that his colleagues deemed "incorrect." Rather than be inspired by curiosity, and or willingness to explore my friend's thinking, he was summarily kicked out. I personally have engaged in several unpleasant encounters (usually across generations) with others who identify as progressives but adhere to this au courant and reductionist ideology, and I have been severally criticized. Rather than seeking common ground and reinforcing solidarity, condemnation has come more easily.
I without doubt conclude that wokeism coming from the right is far more dangerous than that. on the left. But I also believe that one can fight battles on two fronts at the same time. I agree with Neiman that unless the left can unify, it cannot effectively combat the right at a time when that unity is more needed than ever.
In her defense, she is a philosopher and academic, so it shouldn't be surprising that she views and analyzes the issue through that lens. But I believe that an academic standpoint is germane in this instance. Academia has lamentably cloistered itself from "the real world." But occasionally what transpires in the ivory tower does seep down to influence values and behaviors on the ground. Postmodernism, which was primarily expounded by 1960s French intellectuals, I believe has influenced contemporary political thought, with what I conclude, on balance, have been destructive effects, especially the valorization of subjectivity, the depreciation of objectivity - and the attack on the Enlightenment and its values; reason and universalism among them.
The left is the environment in which I swim, and wherein I think I can have the most immediate influence, even, again, as I fervently conclude the much greater danger comes from the right.
Neiman ends her book by noting that Hitler came to power democratically. And she points out that had the German left not been divided against itself, World War II would never have happened. The allusion to our moment can't be overlooked, and it is a political reality I find myself taking very seriously.
Hey- I love the dialogue and look forward to more.
Wow!! That was a powerful, tour de force! Only if Neiman’s critique of post-modern ideology could be found on CNN, MSNBC, or PBS. We might find our way out of the ideological mess we got ourselves into. Neiman’s delineation of how Foucault, among others, got us here is compelling. A banquet for thought.
One further thought - David Sloan Wilson, Evolution Biologist, Anthropologist argues against those who believe evolution theory must embrace egocentric motivational theories of human cooperation to explain how evolution works. Wilson was utterly alone in his work in the 70s. Today, perhaps owing in part to E O Wilson’s work on Prosociality, David Sloan Wilson’s work on Group Heredity vs Individual Heredity has gained prominence among Evolution Theorists. Neiman’s critique of evolutionary psychology may not require support from recent work on Prosociality role in shaping contemporary evolution theory but the target of her critique is diminished if not vanished. David Sloan Wilson’s work provokes thought on the underlying assumptions about Individualism, as a social theory construct, and how it affected the development of Evolutionary Theory in biology and cultural anthropology. More food for thought.
Jonathan Haight and Robert Sapolsky are two prominent scientists who advance David Sloan Wilson’s work in their own researches.
Many thanks for your very informed reply. I tip my hat to your staying current on the issue. I suspect that evolutionary psychology is itself "evolving." I saw Neiman's inclusion of evolutionary psychology as a kind of add-on, which wasn't necessary to making her argument as to the forsaking of progress by the woke left. The argument could be made on other grounds.
I suspect she had in mind (though she doesn't so state) those who believe that the United States is so besotted in sin that such defines the status quo into eternity. But one can look to no less of a luminary than MLK to find anopposing views. Most people who have heard the "I Have a Dream" speech recall the cadences at the end, but forget King's extraordinary beginning. Herein he expresses the notion that America has defaulted on its promise made at the beginning and needs to "live out its creed," strongly implying that it is possible. Where King sees faith -no doubt coming from his pronounced Christian commitments - Neiman (with less certainty) sees hope. Either way, the future remains open and progress possible.
Just saw this interview with the author: https://quillette.com/2023/05/28/an-interview-with-susan-neiman/
I read your review twice now and agree with so much. You express well what many think but can’t articulate as well as you can. I will get her book.
While I certainly agree about the primacy of reason and the dangers of tribalism, I have to disagree with the attack on wokeism. First, I define it differently. To me, and I suggest to the average non-academic, wokeism is the recognition of past wrongs to American blacks and women and the understanding that those wrongs continue to effect our society today. (A contention which I know, Joe, you’ll agree they do) In the political arena, the anti-wokeism of DeSantis and his ilk is extremely dangerous as it suggests that the true victims today are whites generally and Christian white men specifically. Talk about claiming victimhood! Neiman tips her hand when she says “the right may be more dangerous...” May?!!!
Of course, I agree that the left is more powerful when united. Ironically, I believe that attacking wokeism from the left is more destructive to unity than the woke left could ever be -- outside of academia, that is, where debates about the Enlightenment flourish and belong.
Thanks, Ed. I deeply respect your thoughtful reply.
A few comments: Wokeism has fluid meanings. In the hands of the right it is broadened, as you point out, to merely refer to wrongs done to blacks and women, and their enduring effects. It's employed as a cheap, politicized, and reprehensible tool by which to promote the attack on liberals, as well as on blacks and women. But if this is all that it means, then there is nothing new about it, except for its current political use. If there is anything new, then it is of degree and not of kind. There has always been a critique of racism, from Frederick Douglass through M.L.K. King and the current moment.
But I entertain a different meaning of "woke," which I think is a categorical difference, emerging from the left. It is this that I conclude irks both Susan Neiman and me.
In my view, it takes certain notions, such as "systemic racism" and reifies them into dogmas that subsume and smother all elements of detail and nuance. It fetishizes the status of victimhood, which is then pursued as a tool of political leverage and authority it does not deserve. It is virtually obsessed with the notion of power inequities, again, as if little else matters. Bewitchment with these lines of thinking are often conveyed with an air of absolutism. A fretful consequence is that it augments tribalism that ominously divided society. It foments finger-pointing and virtue flaunting, but does little or nothing to substantively mitigate oppression. It also cuts off dialogue that is necessary for there to be social healing.
This problem is not remote. It takes place on the personal level, which honesty compels me to admit is a cause for my making it an issue. I have a friend, who founded, and for a dozen years and more, built one of the most successful grassroots progressive organizations in the New York area. He is a very smart guy, and assuredly an anti-racist. A few years ago he was expelled from the very organization he founded. The cause was that he proffered a subtle critique of anti-racism that his colleagues deemed "incorrect." Rather than be inspired by curiosity, and or willingness to explore my friend's thinking, he was summarily kicked out. I personally have engaged in several unpleasant encounters (usually across generations) with others who identify as progressives but adhere to this au courant and reductionist ideology, and I have been severally criticized. Rather than seeking common ground and reinforcing solidarity, condemnation has come more easily.
I without doubt conclude that wokeism coming from the right is far more dangerous than that. on the left. But I also believe that one can fight battles on two fronts at the same time. I agree with Neiman that unless the left can unify, it cannot effectively combat the right at a time when that unity is more needed than ever.
In her defense, she is a philosopher and academic, so it shouldn't be surprising that she views and analyzes the issue through that lens. But I believe that an academic standpoint is germane in this instance. Academia has lamentably cloistered itself from "the real world." But occasionally what transpires in the ivory tower does seep down to influence values and behaviors on the ground. Postmodernism, which was primarily expounded by 1960s French intellectuals, I believe has influenced contemporary political thought, with what I conclude, on balance, have been destructive effects, especially the valorization of subjectivity, the depreciation of objectivity - and the attack on the Enlightenment and its values; reason and universalism among them.
The left is the environment in which I swim, and wherein I think I can have the most immediate influence, even, again, as I fervently conclude the much greater danger comes from the right.
Neiman ends her book by noting that Hitler came to power democratically. And she points out that had the German left not been divided against itself, World War II would never have happened. The allusion to our moment can't be overlooked, and it is a political reality I find myself taking very seriously.
Hey- I love the dialogue and look forward to more.
Great analysis of a complex issue.
Again, many thanks, Jean, for you enduring interest and kind thoughts.