This really applies to all the rightwing moral panics. Political correctness, cancel culture, wokeness: Much of the anxiety that fuels these reactionary crusades stems from the fact that white people - white men, in particular - face a little more scrutiny today than in the past.
https://twitter.com/rgay/status/1415433280644550660
#metoo is another excellent example for this dynamic: As soon as traditionally marginalized groups gain enough power and enough of a platform to make their demands for respect and accountability heard, certain white people / men start bemoaning “persecution.”
Important to note that it’s really just the *threat* of scrutiny, the *potential* of being held to account that is enough to cause the next round of reactionary panic. In practice, the power structures that have traditionally defined American life have unfortunately held up fine.
Never forget that the “This has gone too far!” backlash started about two minutes after the actual #MeToo movement received broad public attention. The “Where is this all going to end?!” pseudo-argument, put forward in pure bad faith, is always part of the reactionary playbook.
It’s clear that the anxieties underlying these reactionary moral panics are shared not just among conservatives. There’s a whole universe of white male centrist / liberal pundits who are almost exclusively dedicated to fighting back against these supposed dangers from the “Left.”
These moral panics appeal to the white (male) mainstream because the threat to elite impunity is real - put simply, “pc,” #metoo, “cancel culture,” and “wokeness” have made it slightly more likely that people get into trouble for racist, misogynistic, disrespectful behavior.
You can see why white men with a big public platform from across the political spectrum see “persecution” where I see progress: If you believe you are entitled to say and do whatever you want without legal or cultural sanction, then “leftist” activism really is a threat.
When thinking about and debating these moral panics, it’s crucial we recognize that they can tell us something important about America and our present – but it’s not what conservatives want to hear.
The challenge is to take these moral panics seriously – without perpetuating the rightwing framing around these issues. Never mistake the fact that lots of people are decrying “wokeism” and “cancel culture” as proof that those are the defining characteristics of our current era.
We should also try to avoid portraying the frequent moral panics as an inevitable reaction to a radicalization on the Left. Here’s an excellent thread by @LarryGlickman analyzing the pitfalls of such “backlash” narratives.
https://twitter.com/larryglickman/status/1279853820173062144
As @LarryGlickman argues, the “backlash” narrative conveniently removes the agency of those engaging in this sort of backlash politics. It also suggests that such “backlash” is at least somewhat justified is response to too much change, too fast, too radical.
What’s the alternative? How about conceptualizing the moral panic as something that is only formed and constructed through the act of decrying “wokeism,” “cancel culture,” etc? Couldn’t we argue that “anti-wokeism” has been the status quo ante in American politics and society?
Furthermore, we should examine the political project that’s behind these recurring moral panics, the energies and anxieties that are being channeled, and the political objectives of those that are engaging in these crusades.
And I suggest we should focus on the uses and usefulness of the ideas of “political correctness,” wokeism,” and “cancel culture,” the function they fulfill, and why they are so attractive to so many people – and not just on the right.
This is where the historical perspective is helpful because it allows us to step back from the frenzy of our current struggles and gain some analytical distance. The comparison to the “political correctness” craze of the late 80s / early 90s is particularly instructive here.
There are several excellent threads by @SethCotlar that dissect the “political correctness” debates and outline what they were all about:
https://twitter.com/sethcotlar/status/1363700692406296577
And this @yourewrongabout episode provides the most incisive, most illuminating take on the anti-"Political Correctness" hysteria of the late 80s / early 90s, and the recurring rightwing moral panics in general. open.spotify.com/episode/6N2Snh…
What these debates are actually about is power, status, and respect (who gets/deserves it, and who doesn’t). Calling something “pc” was an attempt to discredit the claims of traditionally marginalized groups for respect.
Not coincidentally, it happened when those traditionally marginalized groups had gained enough political and cultural power to make their claims heard and extract a cost for the way other groups in society talked about and treated them.
These are conflicts over who gets to determine what is and what is not accepted and acceptable in a society – and as @SethCotlar argues, there are a lot of similarities and continuities between the anti-wokeness and earlier attempts by privileged groups to defend their position.
https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1370402746902347777
At its core, the wokeness-cancel culture discourse is the latest iteration of the conservative / elite struggle to stave off and discredit certain long-term political, social, and cultural developments and changes that they perceive as threatening.
We’re looking at the latest iteration of a society’s struggles to come to terms with those ongoing changes. As such, the rightwing moral panics are useful as a window into those conflicts. But let’s not mistake them as an adequate description of U.S. politics and culture today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
