A good article. Where I would tread carefully is in the critique of the “emergent hostility to tradition”. I am a critic of much tradition because a good proportion of it is outmoded and deserves to be challenged and undermined. We should welcome that ongoing process of modernization — it is quite different from the anti-enlightenment posture of the postmodernists, so we need to distinguish the two. I think your reference here to woke “cherry-picking” implies this distinction.
I hear what you are saying. But I remain suspicious of calling traditions outmoded unless they are illiberal, significantly counterproductive or cause harm in some way. There seems to be today, a general lack of respect of the traditions of others. It masquerades as pragmatism, but I don't buy it. I think an attack on a benign tradition is almost certain to come from someone who does not meet the psychological profile of a traditionalist. Cosmopolitan types, just don't get traditonalists. I find it exhausting because one doesn't need to be a traditionalist to understand that others are, and to make a little space for them (or at the very least, don't agitate for the dismantling of the space their traditions have held, in some cases for thousands of years).
Sure. I’m a critic of the idea of monarchy, a supporter of separation of church and state (and therefore opposed to inclusion of a deity in the constitution and national anthem). I oppose swearing on a bible in court. There are many traditions that have thankfully fallen away as our culture has modernized. Having said all that, I suspect we are aligned on most of the enlightenment values in our tradition, including fairness, evidence-based research, science etc.
Not believing in a deistic account of reality doesn't mean that that account has no value, or that the social and existential wealth it husbands isn't an important component of our individual and collective wealth portfolio., or that our 'account' does not persist long after our deaths in the legacy we leave our descendants. The problem of salvation never disappears. Only the prisms that we look at it through change.
The rise of religious fundamentalism in a decaying world order arises from all sides. Woke fundamentalism is just the latest iteration of the trend, which started to become noticeable after the failure of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union.
Everyone is resorting to their bottom lines in the sand and preparing for war, much as we did at the outbreak of the Reformation, 500 years ago, at the beginning of the modern period.
James, I like most of what you write, but I’ll be honest, even if it means getting flamed: I don’t like the tenor of this article. It sounds like a call-to-arms. The only way we can hope to make a difference, I feel, is if we talk TO the woke, not about them. As you so rightly say, the task is to keep producing “objective knowledge” and to keep making sense. Some people (many) won’t let themselves hear it, but some will. Some will reluctantly say, “yeah, well, you’re right on that point, the narrative did kind of distort that …hm, yeah, they manipulated me a bit on that …”
Surely the greatest success to be had would be to disabuse even a few of the determinedly woke, rather than preaching to the choir and asking them (us) to raise the volume. The people we need to persuade, they'll just close ranks when they hear words like “counter-woke resistance.”
I’m not minimizing the harms of woke ideologies. I do believe we need to resist, just not with something as divisive-sounding as a resistance. If any of my progressive friends or family members were to read this article, you can bet they would be even more confirmed in their own views. And I'd lose the opportunity to reach them with any future sharing of sense-making.
I hear you Joan. I to have friends and family that are progressive types as well. While I am careful of the words I use when I speak with them, I also make sure to always explain exactly what I mean. In the case of someone pushing back against use of the word "resistance." I would just point out several examples of things that most people would agree should be resisted - like the shop teacher from Oakville, or the pornographic books in schools. If you frame it that way, resistance seems like the right word. And of course, I in no way meant to imply a violent or armed resistance. We are no where near that point. I see the culture war as a battle of ideas, so all my words that may sound a little militant are meant in a non-violent context.
I was wrong to lean so hard on the word resistance, and Mr. M seems to have taken my comment as a rejection of some kind, when I meant it merely as a caution. There are many, many people who are disturbed about what’s going on but don’t speak out for fear they’ll no longer be seen as “good people” (or they’ll be repudiated at work, or their children will be ostracized at school ...). Most aren’t “woke” at all, just scared. I don’t want to shout across the aisle at those people. It has nothing to do with concern for their “sensibilities” and everything to do with not wanting to drive away those who might be brought on side.
There’s validation in a comment on your newsletter this week announcing the IRS Records website. A commenter wrote, “This is interesting. It flies in the face of everything I learnt in Highschool, College and University. All the lectures, courses and Professional Continous Development sessions for my work have never once mentioned anything like this. I'm looking forward to learning more as you post.”
There was no sound and fury in that recent newsletter, and there is none in Nina Green’s website. And yet, and yet! That commenter is saying what I, too, want to say to you and your fellow researchers: “Thank you for enlightening me.”
Joan - if we "need to resist" but think we ought to constrain ourselves from using the word "resistance" out of consideration for the sensibilities of our political opponents, we sure as shit are not resisting, that would be conforming. If someone doesn't get me, leave, don't read my stuff. You've come to the wrong place.
To be clear, I am not saying “traditions are outmoded”… blanket statement. I am saying outmoded traditions (and we will disagree which they are) should be challenged in a free and democratic society. This can be uncomfortable.
The monarchy, being based on inherited status, not earned status, remains popular and if that is what the will of the people is, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. However pledging allegiance should be ended. In my view the monarchy is at best irrelevant. If that’s our primary disagreement, it’s not major.
I agree with you. liberalism is a secularized version of Christianity, so you are right to call for Judeo-Christian values to be mentioned along with tradition. I wrote about this idea in this essay - https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/woke-piety
A good article. Where I would tread carefully is in the critique of the “emergent hostility to tradition”. I am a critic of much tradition because a good proportion of it is outmoded and deserves to be challenged and undermined. We should welcome that ongoing process of modernization — it is quite different from the anti-enlightenment posture of the postmodernists, so we need to distinguish the two. I think your reference here to woke “cherry-picking” implies this distinction.
I hear what you are saying. But I remain suspicious of calling traditions outmoded unless they are illiberal, significantly counterproductive or cause harm in some way. There seems to be today, a general lack of respect of the traditions of others. It masquerades as pragmatism, but I don't buy it. I think an attack on a benign tradition is almost certain to come from someone who does not meet the psychological profile of a traditionalist. Cosmopolitan types, just don't get traditonalists. I find it exhausting because one doesn't need to be a traditionalist to understand that others are, and to make a little space for them (or at the very least, don't agitate for the dismantling of the space their traditions have held, in some cases for thousands of years).
What is this directed at, the article or the comment?
Sure. I’m a critic of the idea of monarchy, a supporter of separation of church and state (and therefore opposed to inclusion of a deity in the constitution and national anthem). I oppose swearing on a bible in court. There are many traditions that have thankfully fallen away as our culture has modernized. Having said all that, I suspect we are aligned on most of the enlightenment values in our tradition, including fairness, evidence-based research, science etc.
Not believing in a deistic account of reality doesn't mean that that account has no value, or that the social and existential wealth it husbands isn't an important component of our individual and collective wealth portfolio., or that our 'account' does not persist long after our deaths in the legacy we leave our descendants. The problem of salvation never disappears. Only the prisms that we look at it through change.
The rise of religious fundamentalism in a decaying world order arises from all sides. Woke fundamentalism is just the latest iteration of the trend, which started to become noticeable after the failure of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union.
Everyone is resorting to their bottom lines in the sand and preparing for war, much as we did at the outbreak of the Reformation, 500 years ago, at the beginning of the modern period.
https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/2205477-Luthers-Last-Laugh-Indulgermania
https://www.writing.com/main/books/item_id/2064958-The-Secular-Fundamentalist
James, I like most of what you write, but I’ll be honest, even if it means getting flamed: I don’t like the tenor of this article. It sounds like a call-to-arms. The only way we can hope to make a difference, I feel, is if we talk TO the woke, not about them. As you so rightly say, the task is to keep producing “objective knowledge” and to keep making sense. Some people (many) won’t let themselves hear it, but some will. Some will reluctantly say, “yeah, well, you’re right on that point, the narrative did kind of distort that …hm, yeah, they manipulated me a bit on that …”
Surely the greatest success to be had would be to disabuse even a few of the determinedly woke, rather than preaching to the choir and asking them (us) to raise the volume. The people we need to persuade, they'll just close ranks when they hear words like “counter-woke resistance.”
I’m not minimizing the harms of woke ideologies. I do believe we need to resist, just not with something as divisive-sounding as a resistance. If any of my progressive friends or family members were to read this article, you can bet they would be even more confirmed in their own views. And I'd lose the opportunity to reach them with any future sharing of sense-making.
I hear you Joan. I to have friends and family that are progressive types as well. While I am careful of the words I use when I speak with them, I also make sure to always explain exactly what I mean. In the case of someone pushing back against use of the word "resistance." I would just point out several examples of things that most people would agree should be resisted - like the shop teacher from Oakville, or the pornographic books in schools. If you frame it that way, resistance seems like the right word. And of course, I in no way meant to imply a violent or armed resistance. We are no where near that point. I see the culture war as a battle of ideas, so all my words that may sound a little militant are meant in a non-violent context.
I was wrong to lean so hard on the word resistance, and Mr. M seems to have taken my comment as a rejection of some kind, when I meant it merely as a caution. There are many, many people who are disturbed about what’s going on but don’t speak out for fear they’ll no longer be seen as “good people” (or they’ll be repudiated at work, or their children will be ostracized at school ...). Most aren’t “woke” at all, just scared. I don’t want to shout across the aisle at those people. It has nothing to do with concern for their “sensibilities” and everything to do with not wanting to drive away those who might be brought on side.
There’s validation in a comment on your newsletter this week announcing the IRS Records website. A commenter wrote, “This is interesting. It flies in the face of everything I learnt in Highschool, College and University. All the lectures, courses and Professional Continous Development sessions for my work have never once mentioned anything like this. I'm looking forward to learning more as you post.”
There was no sound and fury in that recent newsletter, and there is none in Nina Green’s website. And yet, and yet! That commenter is saying what I, too, want to say to you and your fellow researchers: “Thank you for enlightening me.”
Joan - if we "need to resist" but think we ought to constrain ourselves from using the word "resistance" out of consideration for the sensibilities of our political opponents, we sure as shit are not resisting, that would be conforming. If someone doesn't get me, leave, don't read my stuff. You've come to the wrong place.
To be clear, I am not saying “traditions are outmoded”… blanket statement. I am saying outmoded traditions (and we will disagree which they are) should be challenged in a free and democratic society. This can be uncomfortable.
The monarchy, being based on inherited status, not earned status, remains popular and if that is what the will of the people is, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. However pledging allegiance should be ended. In my view the monarchy is at best irrelevant. If that’s our primary disagreement, it’s not major.
All the best!
I agree with you. liberalism is a secularized version of Christianity, so you are right to call for Judeo-Christian values to be mentioned along with tradition. I wrote about this idea in this essay - https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/woke-piety