The thesis of this piece is that by 2013, American society had become a supersaturated solution of disrespect -- an increasingly diverse populace where White was still equated with normal, an increasingly gender-equal economy where women still got harassed at work, etc.
Something like wokeness had to happen, because our country couldn't continue that way. You can't have a country that only respects a small subset of its population.
Wokeness, I argue, can be seen as a leveling movement: A socialism of respect.
But just as socialism went overboard in some countries and became communism and made almost everyone poor in the name of equality, the danger is that wokeness will create a society where everyone feels equally disrespected.
Anyway, this post is part of a whole series, so this isn't meant to be a complete description of what I think wokeness is or does. But the respect angle is one crucial aspect that I think we should make more explicit.
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@popedum The U.S. elite becomes integrated through universities; these are where the top 1/3 of the economic pyramid learn to become one people (what the army did for the working class during WW2 and the Civil War but not usually)...
@popedum At these universities, elite Americans need something to unite them into one people. Perhaps 150 years ago, rigid ideological and identitarian conformity would have been enforced at universities, but certainly not now, and not for a very long time...
@popedum Instead, American universities teach young elite Americans to find unity in diversity -- to embrace their particular identities (racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic) while finding unity in the fact that they all value these same things.
When I was a kid, we had domestic terrorists killing hundreds of people and bombing the Olympics. We had 2200 murders in NYC in one year. We had 30,000 nukes pointed at us, on hair-trigger alert.
1/Just for fun, let's go through the part of @RichardHanania's post where he talks about the likelihood of an insurgency in Ukraine, should Russia invade and seize the Eastern half of the country.
2/The overall theme of the post is standard conservative stuff -- liberals are obsessed with Russia and with LGBT, etc. etc. Not super interesting.
But then he asserts that Ukrainians wouldn't fight an insurgency, and that this means Russia will prevail in this confrontation.
3/This argument -- Russia cares about Ukraine more than the U.S. does -- also applies to the USSR and Poland in the 80s. And yet Poland left Russia's orbit and joined the West.
What Poland wanted was more important than what the U.S. OR the USSR wanted.
It seemed that way in the 70s too, but in the end the choice was "neither", and the world sort of puttered along. More and more, I'm betting that that's basically what'll happen this time too.
Which is not to say that I'm not afraid of a dark fascist nightmare (I am!) or that I wouldn't like a transformative and new society (I would!). But I increasingly doubt that American society has the cohesion or the capacity to produce either of those.
In any case, I also recommend you read The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin. But -- spoiler! -- it's about a society that putters along, pulled by its radical dreams but always restrained by its complex, unwieldy reality.
The reason all sides seem so unreasonable in a Time of Unrest is that everyone is afraid of Passion For Change being monopolized by the opposing side, so they all try to summon unreasoning passion for one thing or another.
This is why unrest is a macro variable that modulates all the micro variables in politics and culture; when the music plays, everyone has to get up and dance.
This does not mean there is no good side and no bad side in a Time of Unrest; instead it means that when we look back at the period from a time of reasoned calm, even the side we eventually recognize as "good" will seem fairly wacko.