Thank you for your writing. I came upon your Substack by chance a few months ago, and I consistently find your posts insighful, inspiring, genuine, and... how do I put this? Sane. Which is really a big deal in today's world.
I look forward to anything you choose to publish. Something that pinged for me: when you said “white-splainey.” I 100% understand the impulse to acknowledge your privilege of distance, as it were, but I’ve become weary of the necessity for that caveat. I DON’T think it’s necessary though others do.
The idea of examining and acknowledging privilege can be an important and even essential thought exercise. But, as with the closely related intersectionality, I find the moral calculus implicit and explicit in having to “acknowledge your whiteness” to be at the core of the problems with woke ideology.
I’m never going to forget that I’m white. You’re never going to forget that I’m white. And if public apology or regretful caveat for “whiteness” being part of my identity is necessary as a new form of politeness, how will we ever get beyond the moralization of race?
I just came across your substack (via your comment on SteveQ's), but what I like about it is what I perceive to be a genuine ongoing good faith attempt to make sense of complex subjects, rather than preaching from a smug certainty of having the moral high ground. So far, I *feel* invited to participate in that essential project as a collaborator, rather than lectured at - whether I currently agree or disagree.
I have become so dismayed (disgusted) at the direction that neo-progressivism in the US is taking (or "wokeness" if you prefer), that I feel a need to engage with thoughtful and nuanced other takes on the matter. I do not want to fall into a different version of the dogma which I am finding so problematic. (And I don't just mean that I don't want to become a conservative Republican - not much risk, I also don't want to become an unpersuasive scold from the center, which is a risk). Your reflections are helpful in that regard.
One of my largest issues with neo-progressivism is that I agree (to some degree) about the problems, but I have come to feel that the strategies are often counter-productive. But trying to open a discussion of the possibility that the strategy will not work, is treated as a moral failing, as wanting evil to prevail. (and that reaction is indeed part of why I think the strategy is problematic - it substitutes ad hominem emotionality for reason).
One of my tenets is "a dysfunctional and counterproductive strategy doesn't become functional and constructive just because one devises an emotionally evocative morality-based rationale for it". The important of dealing with things like racial bias is not a justification for sloppy thinking, but for more attention to getting it right. Ideological blinders and dogmatic attachment to strategies are not an asset; it's far too easy to become a soldier defending the narrative at all costs, rather than getting traction for changes effectively addressing the actual problem.
I am VERY interested in the topics you list. Please do continue!
In regards to your challenge about creating better alternatives, let's back up a bit. I believe that the pre-woke strategies of de-emphasizing race, finding common ground and unforced empathy, promoting constructive interaction and engagement in mutually beneficial efforts which can reduce prejudice, and evoking win/win interactions whenever possible have produced historic changes over my lifetime and were largely on the right track to produce more. The neo-progressive divergence from that path emphasizes tribalistic conflict and constant emphasis on differences as the paths to liberation from oppression, accompanied by encouraging ungenerous interpretations of intentions and motives, reliance on resentment and guilt as primary motivators, and other elements which I do not believe will produce the nominal objectives. I do not see a positive track record of constructive change deriving from neo-progressivism ("wokeness") to date, and I think its net effect is actually regressive. And that regression is recycled into justification for further radicalization.
So while I am very open to consider better new alternatives, I think that just returning to the pre-woke path would be a substantial improvement over the current direction, so I do not think we need some newly proposed vision before we can critique the current path. Let's get back to make (sometimes slow) forward progress, then talk about ways to speed it up. The first command for a physician is to do no harm.
Also, I do not think your "distance" from things is something to apologize for. Currently, I believe our culture is suffering from an excess of emotionally driven engagement and desparately needs humane but partially detached perspectives, which are in short supply. That is, our immediate problems are more in the area of wise steering and navigation rather than needing yet more noisy horsepower and torque. Your perspectives from a bit above the fray are what most interest me in your writing - not because they are always the best way, but because they are what's most critically needed now, if we care more about fixing problems in the real world than about positioning ourselves on the social-moral playing field.
Another piece of my perspective. I do not see any short term crisis in regards to racial prejudice or discrimination in our society - other than as created by reaction to the current strategies themselves. The society is not getting more and more racist every decade, by objective measures (perceptions and framing are a different matter). What I do see as an existential and rapidly growing threat is polarization and socio-political dysfunction, which are changing rapidly for the worse, and already reaching historic levels. For example, the number of people who would have qualms about their kids marrying across racial lines has shrunk dramatically, while the number who would be so concerned about marrying the other party has grown dramatically. I believe this factor has follow-on effects on race which can be misdiagnosed as primary rather than secondary. In particular, affective polarization is a big problem - as more people not just disagree, but despite anybody who has a different take on things, freely projecting bogeymen of ill intent to any differences (not that there isn't ill intent, but the perception of it exaggerates it even further, and thus creates more reciprocal ill intent). It looks like a potential death spiral to me because of the self-reinforcing dynamics. In that light, I think that while reducing racial bias is important, it may not be the *most* important challenge for our society in the coming decades. We will not have time to deal with racial disparities if the society collapses for all of us.
Sometimes we can chew gum and walk at the same time, and sometimes not. So I'm not suggesting that opposing racial bias has to be entirely shelved, but I am questioning the triage judgements that center it in our concerns (all the more so if we are adopting counter-productive strategies - sometimes spending attention desperately needed elsewhere in order to regress on race).
Now to read more of what you have already written. Thanks!
Hi Marie. I've been a fan of your writing, wise words and insight since first reading your comments on Slow Boring. Always enjoy your posts and have recommended this substack to others. I don't want to keep you from your family and I know this is a part-time gig for you, but I would really, really miss it if you stopped writing. Look forward to whatever you bring us going forward. --Elana
Thank you for your writing. I came upon your Substack by chance a few months ago, and I consistently find your posts insighful, inspiring, genuine, and... how do I put this? Sane. Which is really a big deal in today's world.
I look forward to anything you choose to publish. Something that pinged for me: when you said “white-splainey.” I 100% understand the impulse to acknowledge your privilege of distance, as it were, but I’ve become weary of the necessity for that caveat. I DON’T think it’s necessary though others do.
The idea of examining and acknowledging privilege can be an important and even essential thought exercise. But, as with the closely related intersectionality, I find the moral calculus implicit and explicit in having to “acknowledge your whiteness” to be at the core of the problems with woke ideology.
I’m never going to forget that I’m white. You’re never going to forget that I’m white. And if public apology or regretful caveat for “whiteness” being part of my identity is necessary as a new form of politeness, how will we ever get beyond the moralization of race?
I just came across your substack (via your comment on SteveQ's), but what I like about it is what I perceive to be a genuine ongoing good faith attempt to make sense of complex subjects, rather than preaching from a smug certainty of having the moral high ground. So far, I *feel* invited to participate in that essential project as a collaborator, rather than lectured at - whether I currently agree or disagree.
I have become so dismayed (disgusted) at the direction that neo-progressivism in the US is taking (or "wokeness" if you prefer), that I feel a need to engage with thoughtful and nuanced other takes on the matter. I do not want to fall into a different version of the dogma which I am finding so problematic. (And I don't just mean that I don't want to become a conservative Republican - not much risk, I also don't want to become an unpersuasive scold from the center, which is a risk). Your reflections are helpful in that regard.
One of my largest issues with neo-progressivism is that I agree (to some degree) about the problems, but I have come to feel that the strategies are often counter-productive. But trying to open a discussion of the possibility that the strategy will not work, is treated as a moral failing, as wanting evil to prevail. (and that reaction is indeed part of why I think the strategy is problematic - it substitutes ad hominem emotionality for reason).
One of my tenets is "a dysfunctional and counterproductive strategy doesn't become functional and constructive just because one devises an emotionally evocative morality-based rationale for it". The important of dealing with things like racial bias is not a justification for sloppy thinking, but for more attention to getting it right. Ideological blinders and dogmatic attachment to strategies are not an asset; it's far too easy to become a soldier defending the narrative at all costs, rather than getting traction for changes effectively addressing the actual problem.
I am VERY interested in the topics you list. Please do continue!
In regards to your challenge about creating better alternatives, let's back up a bit. I believe that the pre-woke strategies of de-emphasizing race, finding common ground and unforced empathy, promoting constructive interaction and engagement in mutually beneficial efforts which can reduce prejudice, and evoking win/win interactions whenever possible have produced historic changes over my lifetime and were largely on the right track to produce more. The neo-progressive divergence from that path emphasizes tribalistic conflict and constant emphasis on differences as the paths to liberation from oppression, accompanied by encouraging ungenerous interpretations of intentions and motives, reliance on resentment and guilt as primary motivators, and other elements which I do not believe will produce the nominal objectives. I do not see a positive track record of constructive change deriving from neo-progressivism ("wokeness") to date, and I think its net effect is actually regressive. And that regression is recycled into justification for further radicalization.
So while I am very open to consider better new alternatives, I think that just returning to the pre-woke path would be a substantial improvement over the current direction, so I do not think we need some newly proposed vision before we can critique the current path. Let's get back to make (sometimes slow) forward progress, then talk about ways to speed it up. The first command for a physician is to do no harm.
Also, I do not think your "distance" from things is something to apologize for. Currently, I believe our culture is suffering from an excess of emotionally driven engagement and desparately needs humane but partially detached perspectives, which are in short supply. That is, our immediate problems are more in the area of wise steering and navigation rather than needing yet more noisy horsepower and torque. Your perspectives from a bit above the fray are what most interest me in your writing - not because they are always the best way, but because they are what's most critically needed now, if we care more about fixing problems in the real world than about positioning ourselves on the social-moral playing field.
Another piece of my perspective. I do not see any short term crisis in regards to racial prejudice or discrimination in our society - other than as created by reaction to the current strategies themselves. The society is not getting more and more racist every decade, by objective measures (perceptions and framing are a different matter). What I do see as an existential and rapidly growing threat is polarization and socio-political dysfunction, which are changing rapidly for the worse, and already reaching historic levels. For example, the number of people who would have qualms about their kids marrying across racial lines has shrunk dramatically, while the number who would be so concerned about marrying the other party has grown dramatically. I believe this factor has follow-on effects on race which can be misdiagnosed as primary rather than secondary. In particular, affective polarization is a big problem - as more people not just disagree, but despite anybody who has a different take on things, freely projecting bogeymen of ill intent to any differences (not that there isn't ill intent, but the perception of it exaggerates it even further, and thus creates more reciprocal ill intent). It looks like a potential death spiral to me because of the self-reinforcing dynamics. In that light, I think that while reducing racial bias is important, it may not be the *most* important challenge for our society in the coming decades. We will not have time to deal with racial disparities if the society collapses for all of us.
Sometimes we can chew gum and walk at the same time, and sometimes not. So I'm not suggesting that opposing racial bias has to be entirely shelved, but I am questioning the triage judgements that center it in our concerns (all the more so if we are adopting counter-productive strategies - sometimes spending attention desperately needed elsewhere in order to regress on race).
Now to read more of what you have already written. Thanks!
Hi Marie. I've been a fan of your writing, wise words and insight since first reading your comments on Slow Boring. Always enjoy your posts and have recommended this substack to others. I don't want to keep you from your family and I know this is a part-time gig for you, but I would really, really miss it if you stopped writing. Look forward to whatever you bring us going forward. --Elana