One of the worst aspects of Woke thought is its hostility to science (while claiming the mantle of science and appropriating sciency-looking things that support it). I don't really talk about this enough and need to put something together on it. It goes for law too.
Other than "reality exists and can be known about," probably the deepest axiom of both science and law is that we inhabit a shared reality objective to each of us. Woke thought is entirely hostile to this idea. Then it accepts what serves it and rejects what doesn't, always.
Much more specifically, Woke thought is hostile to science and law in that it's measurement of validity in both domains is whether or not it agrees with or supports Woke aims and beliefs. If it does, it's "valid" and "just," and if it doesn't, it's "invalid" and "injust."
Woke epistemology and legal theory need to be understood to be not one bit more complicated than that. All the theory and complexities are window dressing and, more importantly, the attempt to make that position look like a more sophisticated version of real science and law.
The problem ultimately stems from the fact that the Woke thought worldview (literally a weltanschuaang, in its own description) rejects the claim that we live in some shared reality that is objective in that it is independent of any of our perceptions of it.
In Woke thought, we live in our "historical conditions" or "cultural conditions," which are said to be contingent to our time and place in history, which are in turn intrinsically defined by the status of ongoing class conflicts in that time and place. They mean this profoundly.
Woke thought doesn't just mean some banal thing like that we live in a time and a place (motte), like normal people might interpret it. They mean that we are intrinsically the products of our time, place, and various class positionalities in that time and place.
It's difficult to grasp, but for Woke thought, what we call "the world" isn't "out there" objective to any of us. It's a matter of perception, and all perception is shaped, not just colored, by biases, and those biases are in turn formed by our (groups') relationships to power.
The world, like literally the world, is primarily a subjective state based on our relationships to prevailing class power dynamics. Thus, we don't inhabit a shared reality at all. We each inhabit our own realities contoured by intersectional power politics beliefs.
Each of these worlds has its own "truths" that are only shared by other members of the same group/class (thus making subjective and objective interrelated), and each of these "truths" fits into a broader web of intersectional oppression that grounds them more universally.
The measuring stick of these truths and these worlds is not external reality to which anyone can appeal but the subjective status of the "awakened" within those groups who are critically (like critical theory) aware of power and how it shapes reality. Everyone else is lost.
Therefore, in Woke thought, a scientific finding is "valid" (not true) if it agrees with Woke thought, and the only people who can determine this are those who are awakened to Woke thought. Conversely, it's "invalid" if it disagrees with Woke thought. It's that simple.
The same is true in law. A law, judicial ruling, etc., is "just" when it supports Woke thought, as determined by those who have awakened to Woke thought, and conversely it is "unjust" if it disagrees with Woke thought. It, again, is that simple.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
