Woke vs Anti-Woke: Applying the RIDE Method
We really need to systematically examine the emotionally charged 'woke wars'
Welcome to the first article in a new series, where I will attempt to systematically apply the RIDE method to various cultural and political controversies. As I said last time, there is too much emotion, tribalism and irrationality in our discourse right now, and the RIDE method was developed to bring back calm, rational and evidence-based discourse. In this first attempt, I will apply the RIDE method to the warring culture war factions often known as 'woke' and 'anti-woke'.
(From last time)
In this first part, I will be applying the RIDE method to the set of beliefs commonly called 'woke'. But before that, I need to say this: I don't really want to use the word 'woke' if possible, but it is what people understand, so I continue to use it sometimes. When I, and many other people, talk about 'wokeism', what we are referring to is the praxis of postmodern critical theory, i.e. the activism rooted in a desire to apply the theory in the real world.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: FAIL. Identitarian critical theory force-fits everything into an us-vs-them, oppressor vs oppressed worldview, and is therefore irrational and unreasonable at least to some extent. Double standards are also a natural result of this worldview: for example, the 'progressive stack' speaking system, where the right to speak is rationed on the basis of immutable characteristics, results from the application of an oppressor vs oppressed worldview. Add in the influence of postmodernism, which is inherently skeptical of the notion of objective truth, and the irrationality is further magnified. This is why true believers of postmodern critical theory often have no interest in debating their opponents, especially when they think they can't win by normally accepted logic. Instead, they often resort to tactics like de-platforming or whataboutism. Scientific arguments are also often rejected by postmodernists. Postmodern critical theory is therefore neither rational nor reasonable.
I for Independent Thinking: FAIL. A worldview that sees people not as individuals capable of independent thought, but as members of oppressor vs oppressed groups based on immutable characteristics, is inherently bad for independent thinking. Those considered privileged are discouraged from speaking up, especially where their ideas are not in line with the theory. This is supposed to make room for other, less privileged voices. However, in practice, those considered oppressed are only encouraged to speak up if their ideas conform with the theory. If they voice any opposition to the theory, those ideas are quickly attributed to their privilege in another identity category. The intersection of multiple identity categories is fundamental to the model of intersectionality, which in practice means that almost anyone can be found to be privileged in some way. Therefore, ultimately, no matter if you are privileged or oppressed, you can only speak up if you agree with the theory.
D for Defending Freedom: MASSIVE FAIL. As previously analyzed, the privileged are discouraged from speaking up. Given the model of intersectionality, almost anyone can be considered privileged in some way. This ultimately allows gatekeepers to suppress ideas arbitrarily, only allowing people to speak up when it conforms to their worldview and their theory. Moreover, the postmodern distrust in the notion of objective truth means that ideas are seen as tools of powerplay. This leads to many ideas being arbitrarily labeled as harmful, often based on coincidental historical circumstances, even if they actually conform with the objective truth. Furthermore, in the real world, activists often resort to the set of tactics generally known as 'cancel culture', in order to suppress ideas they disagree with, justified by the aforementioned philosophical views. All this leads to people being unable to speak or think freely.
E for Evidence: MASSIVE FAIL. Proponents of postmodern critical theory have not been able to show, via objective evidence, that their interpretation of the world is fundamentally correct, and that other interpretations are less sound. I believe this is the bar that any philosophy seeking to influence our politics needs to clear. Postmodern critical theory is often built upon selected anecdotes that do not form a systematic, objective evidence base. This kind of selective cherry-picking of evidence is especially discouraged in science and medicine, for example, with methods in place to prevent it from happening in these fields. Postmodern critical theory is also ultimately an attempt to force-fit what is observed with selected philosophical theories developed in the past. Such force-fitting of observations into a pre-determined conclusion is also not allowed in scientific and medical research. Given that the 'evidence' for postmodern critical theory fails to meet the commonly demanded standards of science and medicine, I seriously don't think we should allow it to be applied to real world politics.
Now, I will use the RIDE method to examine the arguments and behavior of the 'anti-woke' movement.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: FAIL (in its current form). Early on in the 'anti-woke' movement, there were attempts at serious and open-minded discussions of science and philosophy. The aim was to demonstrate why 'wokeism' is unsound on intellectual grounds, and provide a more intellectually vigorous alternative. However, somewhere along the way, parts of the movement were hijacked by politically motivated actors with their own agendas. 'Anti-woke' gradually became less about intellectual honesty and rigorousness, and more about a reactionary sentiment towards anything progressive sounding or unfamiliar. Over time, the 'anti-woke' movement had fewer and fewer intellectuals having rational discussions, and more and more reactionary culture warriors looking for the latest moral panic. The linkage of a part of the anti-woke movement with organized right-wing politics has accelerated this trend, with the word 'woke' being increasingly used in an unrecognizable, meaningless way, led by certain politicians. For example, the idea that Disney, Bud Light and Target are 'woke corporations' is ridiculous to a serious, academically inclined intellectual like myself, because they haven't done anything related to the praxis of postmodern critical theory. I doubt their CEOs even know what postmodern critical theory is. Meanwhile, certain politicians are using this endlessly expandable (but ultimately empty) threat of 'wokeism' (as they now define it) to rile up moral panic after moral panic. By definition, this is neither rational nor reasonable.
I for Independent Thinking: FAIL (in its current form). As previously described, early on in the 'anti-woke' movement, there were attempts at serious and open-minded discussions of science and philosophy. There was a real potential that something great was going to come out of this process. Just a few years ago, I was hopeful that we could have a revival of independent thinking, vigorous debate, and discussion of high-level ideas. However, since the culture warriors hijacked the movement, things have not been so good for independent thinking. The anti-woke movement has come under the influence of well-funded media, both old and new, that keeps pushing the same talking points over and over again, drowning out most dissent by their sheer volume. Together, they encouraged the rise of a mindset that is less intellectual, less rational, more angry, more reactionary, and more tribalist. These days, the most famous anti-woke media outlets keep pushing the same predictable talking points all the time, and show no signs of vigorous debate at all. Those of us who still believe in independent thinking have been steadily drifting away from this new 'anti-woke' culture over the past three years or so.
D for Defending Freedom: FAIL (in its current form). Again, the early days of the 'anti-woke' movement was mainly focused on defending free speech and free thought, and pushing back against cancel culture. We only had mixed success, but the intention was noble. However, since some people decided to turn anti-wokeism into a tribalist culture war position, things have taken an almost 180-degree turn. In the name of stopping wokeness, the culture warriors have supported legislation that banned the teaching of critical race theory in schools, which were so overly broad that they had a chilling effect on free speech in classrooms. In the name of stopping woke activists, the culture warriors have supported book bans and drag bans. In the name of stopping woke corporations, the culture warriors have supported states taking politically motivated action to punish, or limit the free speech and business freedom, of corporations like Disney, Target and Bud Light. Right now, actions being taken in the name of opposing wokeness is, on balance, objectively doing more to harm freedom than to defend freedom.
E for Evidence: MIXED. There is strong evidence that something that can be called 'woke' exists, even though the activists labelled 'woke' often deny it. Those activists have had a long history of trying to shrug off every label being applied to them, trying to find fault with every such label. However, as some now put it, 'we all know what woke is' and if you don't like the labels that people have assigned to you, just tell us what you would like to be called instead. (I personally prefer 'cultural systemist' for the moderates and 'critical anarchist' for the true believers, tell me if you agree.) While 'woke' activists often call themselves progressive, socialist, or even simply leftist, they are clearly different from what we traditionally understand by these terms. (And of course, to call them 'libs', as some on the right do, is an insult to liberalism.) The point is, when people say 'woke', they mean something real, and the evidence is there to support it. In this regard, anti-wokeism passes the E for Evidence test. On the other hand, if 'woke' means something real, and relatively new to the Western political landscape, then it cannot be infinitely expanded to include everything progressive-sounding that certain people don't like. Therefore, the way some politicians, especially in the Republican Party in America and the Conservative Party in Britain, are using it, fails the E for Evidence test. Hence, I have decided to give it a 'mixed' grade overall.
Conclusions
Overall, it is clear that both wokeism and anti-wokeism, at least in its current form, fail the RIDE test, and they both fail badly. Therefore, the claims of both wokeism and anti-wokeism need to be scrutinized carefully. Their potential impact on politics also needs to be monitored, and actively opposed in cases where they endanger individual freedom. It is also important to note that while wokeism would have failed the RIDE test at any time, an earlier version of anti-wokeism, say from five or seven years ago, would likely have passed the RIDE test in every category. This logically means that there isn't anything inherently unsound about anti-wokeism, it's just that it is being carried out in an unsound way by some people right now.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, 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 and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
You can also read and follow TaraElla's second substack, focused on political philosophy, here.
You might find some merit in Ken Wilber’s stage model of thinking that, following Piaget, finds that people’s patterns of thinking emerge from a cognitive developmental process. Quickly, he views the contemporary scene to be a product of an interaction between three stages: 4 (traditionalism), 5 (rationalism), 6 (pluralism). Probably 70 to 80 percent of the population is in Stages 4 and 5. Under Wilber’s model each stage, in its fully developed or mature expression, transcends and includes all of the previous stages. I think Wilber would suggest that Stage 6, in its current expression, is struggling toward maturity and is especially lacking in the necessary inclusion aspect of stage maturity. The “woke” largely are rooted in a still maturing Stage 6. Initial resistance to Stage 6 was mostly from people in Stage 5 but, as you say, the resistance appears to have been hijacked. I would suggest that this hijacking was accomplished by people in Stage 4. If this analysis has any appeal to you, I would recommend Wilber’s book: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Second Edition. If you are uncomfortable with the words “spirituality” or “spirit” in the title, substitute “consciousness” for them.
Basically, identitarians do not have individual thinking because they are have a collectivist and authoritarian mindset from the start.