The Problem with the Anti-Woke Movement Right Now
The Problem with the Anti-Woke Movement Right Now
Anti-woke isn't right wing, but right wing elements are hiding behind it
Since I wrote my last article about the so-called anti-woke movement, which was a response to Ross Anderson's article on Dave Rubin in Quillette, I have been thinking quite a lot about the state of anti-wokeism, and the role of audience capture and peer pressure in shaping the movement (in a bad way) in recent times. I have also been thinking about how we can overcome this problem.
Over the past year or so, I have been increasingly concerned about where anti-wokeism seems to be going. In response, some of my readers seem to have mistakenly thought that I was accusing anti-wokeism itself of being right-wing. In truth, it is certainly not right-wing to be anti-woke, in the original sense of the word at least. Postmodern critical theory is a growing threat to the classical liberal consensus that has underpinned Western society for centuries, and we need to push back hard against it before it's too late. However, strongly right-wing elements have indeed been hiding behind anti-wokeism, and to some extent, hijacking the movement. These people have an authoritarian, reactionary agenda, and they clearly have little compassion, which makes them morally deficient in my view. Their presence is turning anti-wokeism into a movement based on tribalism and resentment, not good faith intellectual discussions. They also sometimes bring anti-science conspiracy thinking to the table, gradually eroding the pro-Enlightenment ethos of the original anti-wokeism. I am uncomfortable being seen, in any way, under the same umbrella as them.
Let's face it: the reputation of anti-wokeism is now being strongly colored by the aforementioned right-wing elements. It certainly doesn't help that certain high profile politicians, most notably Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who famously claims that Florida is 'where woke comes to die', actively court the aforementioned elements. DeSantis has appeared at events like the NatCon conference, and the thinking that comes out of NatCon circles appears to be having a real impact on his governance. Florida under DeSantis might not be woke, but it is certainly more NatCon than classical liberal: the state can use its power to wage the culture wars, punishing corporations that disagree with its policies. Professionals like teachers must defer to rules made up by politicians in a culture war environment, even when obeying such rules could be against their professional judgement, or simply make their job difficult. Moreover, some of these rules are overly broad or vague, reflecting their roots in the culture war discourse, and the lack of proper consultation and consensus prior to their adoption. Moral panics strongly color the state's politics, and a rational discussion of the aforementioned issues is increasingly difficult in that environment. If Florida represents what an 'anti-woke' state looks like, it certainly isn't somewhere a true classical liberal would be happy living in.
One of the reasons I am increasingly concerned about all this is because the reputation of the movement against postmodern critical theory is of utmost importance. It is important because it could decide the future of the West. Right now, the reputation of anti-postmodern classical liberalism is not that great, especially among the younger generations. If you told a typical Gen-Z crowd that you are a staunch opponent of critical race theory, for example, they would likely automatically consider you right-wing, and stop listening. I have even been told that I sounded like Josh Hawley, just because I wrote something about Herbert Marcuse's harmful legacy against free speech. Anti-wokeists can say they don't care what college students think about them, they can laugh at the 'woke' Gen-Z on TikTok, but they can't change the fact that the young will decide the future. If young people equate anti-postmodernism with a right-wing reactionary worldview, then we don't have a future.
Unfortunately, the most well-funded part of anti-wokeism has strong ties to the Republican Party, where strategists seem to have given up on the young generally, and have turned their attention towards turning the vote out in the more conservative part of Gen-X instead. Their attitude and priorities are having an effect on the anti-woke movement. I think this is the most important problem with anti-wokeism right now. This is why classical liberals must distance ourselves from the Republican-aligned part of the anti-woke movement, and use our own voices to oppose postmodern critical theory on our own terms. If we can build a strong brand that is both anti-postmodern and also truly open minded, pro-freedom and pro-objective truth, I think we can still win over many young people.
To achieve our goals, one important thing we need to address first is audience capture. In both Anderson's article about Dave Rubin and my response to it, there was discussion on the role of audience capture in shifting the politics of commentators like Rubin. As I often say, tribalist peer pressure is the most dangerous thing in this world, and we need to be able to resist it if we are to have a healthy cultural and political discourse. However, this is often easier said than done, especially for those whose living depend on like-minded people paying to read their work. Perhaps those whose income isn't dependent on their audience in this way, like myself, need to work extra hard to counter this.
An additional problem is, your audience does not always stay the same either. What you need to remember is that, they too can be exposed to biased reporting from various media sources, and their own Overton Window could be unconsciously shifting as a result. In the world of anti-woke media, this situation is particularly of concern, given the unevenness of the playing field. Much of anti-woke media, like most other English-speaking news media, is either based in America or has heavy American involvement, and is therefore inevitably connected to certain parts of American politics. In the current American political landscape, forces aligned with the Republican Party are much more likely to want to invest in setting up anti-woke media outlets, given that wokeism actually divides the base of the Democratic Party due to demographics. It is simply a matter of political self-interest. This means the most well-funded anti-woke media outlets tend to be Republican-aligned, with Democratic-aligned anti-woke media being almost non-existent, even though there are many anti-woke Democrats out there. This situation, in and of itself, creates a strongly uneven Overton Window, where there is an overall effect of ideas and voices from the Right being treated more generously than those from the Left, in the anti-woke world. To be the lone liberal anti-woke voice pushing back against Republican-aligned anti-wokeism requires principles and bravery, principles and bravery that unfortunately many commentators don't have. Personally speaking, I started opposing wokeism because of my commitment to the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency for every individual, which required me to take a strong stance against postmodern activists' challenge towards free speech norms in many parts of Western society. I guess the fact that I entered anti-wokeism on the basis of principle means that my work has been less affected by tribalist forces.
About the time when I started actively opposing postmodernism's erosion of free speech norms, there was an interesting group of people that I considered fellow travelers back then: the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). Rubin was considered to be part of the IDW, as were figures like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. The New York Times even did an article on it. The IDW started out with a good idea: that we should be having conversations and debates about difficult topics, and we should do so in a way that is in good faith, open-minded and respectful of our differences. However, the IDW fell apart in less than three years, torn apart by the drama of the 2020 US elections, and the rise of new forces like National Conservatism, among other things. So what went wrong? And if we could start the IDW over, what should we do different this time? I guess the first thing I would change is the diversity of thought represented, so that it would be truly reflective of the marketplace of ideas out there. The IDW ended up being unable to withstand certain challenges because it didn't maintain an Overton Window that was broad enough and balanced enough. This meant that much of the discussion didn't take into account the broad range of diverse views and attitudes out there. There was too much agreement on important issues, which led to unreasonable expectations of mutual agreement developing over time. In turn, this led to disagreements being taken personally, and relatively minor developments being able to upset the consensus of respectful debate. I did say that it was fair to exclude postmodernist ideas from the IDW back then, because they were incompatible with what the IDW was for, and I would still support this if we could do it all over again. However, there are still many non-postmodern and non-criticalist views that could have been included, that weren't well represented in the IDW, and this was a mistake. I guess the lesson of the IDW is that, if you want to start a movement based on the idea of a free marketplace of ideas, then your Overton Window should be broad and balanced enough to encompass the whole marketplace out there, with only limited exclusions. This would also ensure a balance of perspectives, and hence sustainability in the long run.
The take-home message from all this is that, firstly, anti-wokeism has a real reputation problem right now, especially among the young, and this could doom the future of classical liberalism in the West. To resolve this, we need to call out the reactionary right-wing forces hiding behind anti-wokeism, so-called anti-woke politicians courting them, and the structural problems of the world of anti-woke media. To counter the uneven playing field within anti-wokeism, classical liberals need to avoid audience capture, take a stand based on principles, have the bravery to do so consistently, and ultimately aim to build our own brand apart from the Republican-aligned version of anti-wokeism. We also need to ensure that our own Overton Window is broad and balanced, so that the whole project is sustainable in the long run.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Horizon books, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory.