This week, John and I are joined by the distinguished writer Ian Buruma, author of many books, including this year’s The Collaborators: Three Stories of Deception and Survival in World War II. Ian recently published an essay in Harper’s in which he takes up John’s thesis that wokeness constitutes a kind of religion, adding that understanding wokeness as “essentially a Protestant phenomenon” can help us understand one of its central rituals: the public apology. It’s an erudite and thought-provoking entry in the anti-woke literature, so I invited him on to talk about it.
I am making this comment before I finish listening to the podcast, but I wonder whether Dr. McWhorter is familiar with Slezkine’s “The House the Government Built”, which analyzes Russian history generally, but particularly the Bolshevik movement as a religion. Given some of the parallels between Bolshevism and contemporary woke politics, I’d be interested to hear our hosts’ take on the analogy.
The question I would ask is: can anyone ever be right enough to behave the way that "woke" people behave?
Is anyone ever insightful and accurate enough about history to communicate in the way that, say, Nikole Hannah Jones does?
Has anyone ever made a joke bad enough to be treated the way that Justine Sacco was?
Is any group of people so oppressed that they need affirmative action in perpetuity?
It seems to me that if you answer these questions in the negative, you end up alongside McWhorter asking Loury why he isn't more incensed about all of the above.
I am reminded of something Andrew Breitbart said on Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld. He was talking about people on the left attacking people on the right for saying demonstrably true things. He called those things "Hate Facts." I think that the statement from the Florida state curriculum would fall into that category. I agree with both John and Glenn that the statement is not only true, but it also highlights the resourcefulness of enslaved African-American to better themselves despite the truly evil system they lived under. It reminds me of stories I would read as an elementary school student that highlighted the accomplishments of African-Americans. Of course, I am old enough that African-Americans hadn't yet been invented when I was in elementary school.
I think it is truly a shame that Andrew Breitbart died so young. I don't know if the media company he started would have embraced the Alt-Right the way it did if he had still been running it. I like to think he would not have, but I don't know for sure. Red Eye is a show I used to DVR every morning at 3 AM. That show led me here, actually. John was an occasional guest panelist. While I didn't agree with him about everything, I really liked the way he seemed to be offering his own well-reasoned opinions, as opposed to parroting the left-wing talking points so prevalent among cable news talking heads. Several years ago, I watched a YouTube video with John, and the almighty algorithm suggested the Glenn Show. Thank you, Greg Gutfeld, Andrew Breitbart, and Al Go-Rhythm, for making it possible for me to become a subscriber.
On the subject of conformity and whether to stand up and be counted on subjects of truth or untruth, it's long seemed to me to be a game of "Not It!" more than anything else. And an exhibition of priorities. Here's what I'm trying to say:
People don't seem to "go along", socially or even in casting their votes, so much because they believe in a trend or ideology, as because it's just not worth it to stand prominently against. This isn't new. As Buruma said, we are not in a unique time in history.
An example which immediately springs to mind is documented in Scars of Independence, by Holger Hoock, which focuses on violence, both physical and psychological, before and during the revolutionary war. On accusations, sometimes dubiously motivated, that a person or family were Loyalists (in other words, "conservatives") a number of significant social pressures were applied. They were named and shamed in publications initiated for the purpose. Some were tarred and feathered, wives were shunned from their social groups (in effect, their lifelines), families were driven off their farms and made to walk away, pulling what belongings of theirs they could get into a cart, on foot. To where? Not our problem. It was done prominently, as both exploitation for gain and for sending messages to others. Eighteenth Century American "cancellation".
When would someone be motivated to stand against that indecency? Where was the tipping point? Maybe when one's own family or close friends, who had helped them survive tight spots, suffered from the mob? At what point does the priority to stick one's neck out surpass the priority for one's safe and conforming brand to survive unscathed?
When I think of today's internet and personal brands being cultivated on social media, there seem to be familiar echos to past times of social ostracism as coercive tool. In any event, these brands or personae are promoted on line and live there. I guess if they were important enough to an individual to construct and protect, it would take a matter of high priority to risk them. Funny.
I think of what seems to be the shameful conduct of the child stars of the Harry Potter films turning on J.K. Rowling, who made online statements intended as support for women. They, who made their names and wealth from her books, publicly shunned her. Was it because of a well informed and well considered analysis of her words and context? Deeply held personal beliefs at odds with her views after carefully considering her words and context? The products of honest personal deliberation? They sure seemed like PR statements and acts motivated by self preservation in the public space. Shallow, safe, no necks stuck out. "Not It!"
Anyway, it seems anyone can get online and begin cobbling a persona. But seeming to go along with an ideology or movement isn't the same as personally believing in it. It's likely just keeping their heads down. And the debates about what they believe (as a masse) seem to miss that point.
edited to add: I found the following quote to be amongst the most thought provoking in Buruma's Harper's piece. "For the present-day inheritors of the Protestant ethic, status is defined by having the right opinions on social and cultural issues." "Status" being the key word. It includes an element of competitive comparison as well as shame avoidance.
The white conservative Christian Taliban influence is currently operating in the courts--- weaponizing the courts? Court order for airline executives to be trained in religious liberty training (anti-discrimination against Christians)? I'm an atheist. My liberty and rights of not being indoctrinated in the European God?
I understand John McWhorter's disgust with wokeness--because there's a profound dishonesty in it, and it inspires fear. There's hellfire religion in it. I also get the criticisms I've heard from (mostly Protestant!) liberal religious friends--namely that this kind of hellfire isn't "real" religion, real religion embracing universal love and acceptance. But for those of us who are not religious, or who regard their moments of feeling something like faith or the longing for it as an amiable psychosis, religion will always be an avoidable irrationality.
I would speculate that about 95 percent of the American people couldn’t care a rat’s ass about what the intelligentsia thinks. Are the unwashed masses just stupid or can they smell a rat’s ass a mile away ?
Can we talk about the real problem here? Bulleit, John? Really? You listen to opera, you study linguistics, you read the classics and you drink BULLEIT? Well, even our heroes have their flaws. But could you, for me, try out a bottle of Jefferson's Ocean or Redwood Empire Pipe Dream? They're very affordable bourbons that are far superior to Bulleit.
On a more on-topic note, I do love professor McWhorter's eternal optimism for people. I don't find it hard to believe at all the Vice President Harris was fully versed in the document. It wouldn't matter. As Ian pointed out, you do whatever is in your power to make your side look good and the other side look bad. There is no place for nuance because to waver, even for a second, betrays your lack of faith and fervor. I think the professor is being overly kind to the VP, but I also think that granting additional grace and taking a positive read is an important tool in ameliorating political polarization.
John should not be perplexed by the Veep’s position on the Florida curriculum. It is the political tag teaming of her and her boss to attempt to solidify the Black vote in the next election. They know that the nationalism/populism of Trump or Desantis has some appeal to some Black voters, and just may be enough to swing the election is key swing states. I do not believe for a minute that either Joe or Kamala believe any of that nonsense.
Mark Stoler had a similar thesis about racism and the Puritans in his A Skeptics Guide to History lectures that he made about 15 years ago for The Teaching Company. Stoler said that calling someone a racist in our society is analogous to a Puritan calling someone a sinner during the 1600's. I thought that there was some truth to Stoler's idea, and there is also some truth to Buruma's idea.
You're gonna need to be extra-nerdy to get into this one.
But as for the Florida curriculum issue, I am starting to think that Amy, one of my favorite commenters here, has it essentially right. It's gonna come down to implementation.
Most teachers aren't hell-bent on pushing bizarre political agendas, left OR right. To some extent, we have to trust that, or at least wait and see.
This morning I saw where Florida approved PragerU as a supplemental source for the kids. Made me wanna throw up. But then I thought, "Have they also approved a left equivalent of PragerU?" I don't know.
If they have, great. If they haven't, sus. But in the end, it's gonna come down to implementation. If kids start reporting back to their parents, "Well, today we learned about how slavery has gotten a bum rap because the evil woke mob said blah, blah, blah...", the pushback will be LOUD and the PR, terrifying.
If the social justice worldview is indeed a uniquely Protestant phenomenon as it seems to be, I feel optimistic about its future decline, considering the other Protestant nations in Europe already seem to be rebounding from its effects and Latin America is largely Catholic and less multi-cultural, and such ideology seems less prone to take hold in developing economies where people are focused on getting ahead.
Great and inciteful as usual. All three men have a strong argument for the woke culture and religion analogy. An interesting essay or a book could be written for all three because historical events like the Enlightenment were mentioned and have had a ripple effect.
I like the slavery analysis because there was a lot more going on in during that time period than what is constantly portrayed in media.
"The Left is no longer the Left, they have moved from issues of labor to issues concerning gender and race." True for sure, I think one of the reasons for this is simply because the industrial proletariat have evolved into something else.
I think I explained to you before what woke is. You obviously don't give a shit and I won't waste time repeating it. Except to say that I suspect you are in for a rude awakening. DeSatan is a miserable racist Nazi tyrant whose agenda is near term to absolve white folks of their guilt, anguish etc. and long term like all Nazis ethnic cleansing. If you don't get that you are in for a rude awakening.
Wow, your guest was forced out of editor position. At this point, I believe the Director of every organization should be considered “Not having leadership skills and will allow DEI abuse- harm”. Therefore, every director should be fired pre-emptively and replaced by one who functions independent of woke politics.
At time 55:00; John and Ian discuss cowardice vs. legitimate fear of retaliation among colleagues who “would speak up.” One doesn’t necessarily know the downstream consequence of speaking up. But those who also work at Brown or Columbia have Glenn and John - who stood up first, thus making it easier for others to also speak in defense of ethics and standards.
I am making this comment before I finish listening to the podcast, but I wonder whether Dr. McWhorter is familiar with Slezkine’s “The House the Government Built”, which analyzes Russian history generally, but particularly the Bolshevik movement as a religion. Given some of the parallels between Bolshevism and contemporary woke politics, I’d be interested to hear our hosts’ take on the analogy.
Great book, btw. Well worth the read.
The question I would ask is: can anyone ever be right enough to behave the way that "woke" people behave?
Is anyone ever insightful and accurate enough about history to communicate in the way that, say, Nikole Hannah Jones does?
Has anyone ever made a joke bad enough to be treated the way that Justine Sacco was?
Is any group of people so oppressed that they need affirmative action in perpetuity?
It seems to me that if you answer these questions in the negative, you end up alongside McWhorter asking Loury why he isn't more incensed about all of the above.
I am reminded of something Andrew Breitbart said on Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld. He was talking about people on the left attacking people on the right for saying demonstrably true things. He called those things "Hate Facts." I think that the statement from the Florida state curriculum would fall into that category. I agree with both John and Glenn that the statement is not only true, but it also highlights the resourcefulness of enslaved African-American to better themselves despite the truly evil system they lived under. It reminds me of stories I would read as an elementary school student that highlighted the accomplishments of African-Americans. Of course, I am old enough that African-Americans hadn't yet been invented when I was in elementary school.
I think it is truly a shame that Andrew Breitbart died so young. I don't know if the media company he started would have embraced the Alt-Right the way it did if he had still been running it. I like to think he would not have, but I don't know for sure. Red Eye is a show I used to DVR every morning at 3 AM. That show led me here, actually. John was an occasional guest panelist. While I didn't agree with him about everything, I really liked the way he seemed to be offering his own well-reasoned opinions, as opposed to parroting the left-wing talking points so prevalent among cable news talking heads. Several years ago, I watched a YouTube video with John, and the almighty algorithm suggested the Glenn Show. Thank you, Greg Gutfeld, Andrew Breitbart, and Al Go-Rhythm, for making it possible for me to become a subscriber.
On the subject of conformity and whether to stand up and be counted on subjects of truth or untruth, it's long seemed to me to be a game of "Not It!" more than anything else. And an exhibition of priorities. Here's what I'm trying to say:
People don't seem to "go along", socially or even in casting their votes, so much because they believe in a trend or ideology, as because it's just not worth it to stand prominently against. This isn't new. As Buruma said, we are not in a unique time in history.
An example which immediately springs to mind is documented in Scars of Independence, by Holger Hoock, which focuses on violence, both physical and psychological, before and during the revolutionary war. On accusations, sometimes dubiously motivated, that a person or family were Loyalists (in other words, "conservatives") a number of significant social pressures were applied. They were named and shamed in publications initiated for the purpose. Some were tarred and feathered, wives were shunned from their social groups (in effect, their lifelines), families were driven off their farms and made to walk away, pulling what belongings of theirs they could get into a cart, on foot. To where? Not our problem. It was done prominently, as both exploitation for gain and for sending messages to others. Eighteenth Century American "cancellation".
When would someone be motivated to stand against that indecency? Where was the tipping point? Maybe when one's own family or close friends, who had helped them survive tight spots, suffered from the mob? At what point does the priority to stick one's neck out surpass the priority for one's safe and conforming brand to survive unscathed?
When I think of today's internet and personal brands being cultivated on social media, there seem to be familiar echos to past times of social ostracism as coercive tool. In any event, these brands or personae are promoted on line and live there. I guess if they were important enough to an individual to construct and protect, it would take a matter of high priority to risk them. Funny.
I think of what seems to be the shameful conduct of the child stars of the Harry Potter films turning on J.K. Rowling, who made online statements intended as support for women. They, who made their names and wealth from her books, publicly shunned her. Was it because of a well informed and well considered analysis of her words and context? Deeply held personal beliefs at odds with her views after carefully considering her words and context? The products of honest personal deliberation? They sure seemed like PR statements and acts motivated by self preservation in the public space. Shallow, safe, no necks stuck out. "Not It!"
Anyway, it seems anyone can get online and begin cobbling a persona. But seeming to go along with an ideology or movement isn't the same as personally believing in it. It's likely just keeping their heads down. And the debates about what they believe (as a masse) seem to miss that point.
edited to add: I found the following quote to be amongst the most thought provoking in Buruma's Harper's piece. "For the present-day inheritors of the Protestant ethic, status is defined by having the right opinions on social and cultural issues." "Status" being the key word. It includes an element of competitive comparison as well as shame avoidance.
The white conservative Christian Taliban influence is currently operating in the courts--- weaponizing the courts? Court order for airline executives to be trained in religious liberty training (anti-discrimination against Christians)? I'm an atheist. My liberty and rights of not being indoctrinated in the European God?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-orders-southwest-lawyers-undergo-religious-liberty-training-2023-08-08/
I understand John McWhorter's disgust with wokeness--because there's a profound dishonesty in it, and it inspires fear. There's hellfire religion in it. I also get the criticisms I've heard from (mostly Protestant!) liberal religious friends--namely that this kind of hellfire isn't "real" religion, real religion embracing universal love and acceptance. But for those of us who are not religious, or who regard their moments of feeling something like faith or the longing for it as an amiable psychosis, religion will always be an avoidable irrationality.
I would speculate that about 95 percent of the American people couldn’t care a rat’s ass about what the intelligentsia thinks. Are the unwashed masses just stupid or can they smell a rat’s ass a mile away ?
Can we talk about the real problem here? Bulleit, John? Really? You listen to opera, you study linguistics, you read the classics and you drink BULLEIT? Well, even our heroes have their flaws. But could you, for me, try out a bottle of Jefferson's Ocean or Redwood Empire Pipe Dream? They're very affordable bourbons that are far superior to Bulleit.
On a more on-topic note, I do love professor McWhorter's eternal optimism for people. I don't find it hard to believe at all the Vice President Harris was fully versed in the document. It wouldn't matter. As Ian pointed out, you do whatever is in your power to make your side look good and the other side look bad. There is no place for nuance because to waver, even for a second, betrays your lack of faith and fervor. I think the professor is being overly kind to the VP, but I also think that granting additional grace and taking a positive read is an important tool in ameliorating political polarization.
John should not be perplexed by the Veep’s position on the Florida curriculum. It is the political tag teaming of her and her boss to attempt to solidify the Black vote in the next election. They know that the nationalism/populism of Trump or Desantis has some appeal to some Black voters, and just may be enough to swing the election is key swing states. I do not believe for a minute that either Joe or Kamala believe any of that nonsense.
Mark Stoler had a similar thesis about racism and the Puritans in his A Skeptics Guide to History lectures that he made about 15 years ago for The Teaching Company. Stoler said that calling someone a racist in our society is analogous to a Puritan calling someone a sinner during the 1600's. I thought that there was some truth to Stoler's idea, and there is also some truth to Buruma's idea.
You're gonna need to be extra-nerdy to get into this one.
But as for the Florida curriculum issue, I am starting to think that Amy, one of my favorite commenters here, has it essentially right. It's gonna come down to implementation.
Most teachers aren't hell-bent on pushing bizarre political agendas, left OR right. To some extent, we have to trust that, or at least wait and see.
This morning I saw where Florida approved PragerU as a supplemental source for the kids. Made me wanna throw up. But then I thought, "Have they also approved a left equivalent of PragerU?" I don't know.
If they have, great. If they haven't, sus. But in the end, it's gonna come down to implementation. If kids start reporting back to their parents, "Well, today we learned about how slavery has gotten a bum rap because the evil woke mob said blah, blah, blah...", the pushback will be LOUD and the PR, terrifying.
If the social justice worldview is indeed a uniquely Protestant phenomenon as it seems to be, I feel optimistic about its future decline, considering the other Protestant nations in Europe already seem to be rebounding from its effects and Latin America is largely Catholic and less multi-cultural, and such ideology seems less prone to take hold in developing economies where people are focused on getting ahead.
Great and inciteful as usual. All three men have a strong argument for the woke culture and religion analogy. An interesting essay or a book could be written for all three because historical events like the Enlightenment were mentioned and have had a ripple effect.
I like the slavery analysis because there was a lot more going on in during that time period than what is constantly portrayed in media.
Feel free to agree or disagree.
"The Left is no longer the Left, they have moved from issues of labor to issues concerning gender and race." True for sure, I think one of the reasons for this is simply because the industrial proletariat have evolved into something else.
I think I explained to you before what woke is. You obviously don't give a shit and I won't waste time repeating it. Except to say that I suspect you are in for a rude awakening. DeSatan is a miserable racist Nazi tyrant whose agenda is near term to absolve white folks of their guilt, anguish etc. and long term like all Nazis ethnic cleansing. If you don't get that you are in for a rude awakening.
Wow, your guest was forced out of editor position. At this point, I believe the Director of every organization should be considered “Not having leadership skills and will allow DEI abuse- harm”. Therefore, every director should be fired pre-emptively and replaced by one who functions independent of woke politics.
At time 55:00; John and Ian discuss cowardice vs. legitimate fear of retaliation among colleagues who “would speak up.” One doesn’t necessarily know the downstream consequence of speaking up. But those who also work at Brown or Columbia have Glenn and John - who stood up first, thus making it easier for others to also speak in defense of ethics and standards.