Thanks everyone for the great comments. I have read everything and want to reply but have just been too busy. I will definitely try to do so sooner rather than later, though. In the meantime, thanks again for reading and sharing your thoughts.
There are many insights that you share in both this piece ("Why I'm No Longer a Progressive" and the one on "Toxic Feminity" (both are oh so excellent; I don't even know where to begin!) that seem to align well with the insights in these two essays from the co-founders of Protopia Labs (an organization dedicated to depolarization). They both use some similar language though with slightly different nuances. I think you'd really like their work, and I *know* they would appreciate yours. (Going to post this comment on both of your essays, if that's okay).
"Why We Need to Talk about Post-Liberalism" by Micha Narberhaus
Readers of this substack may be interested in a book that I just read: Left Is Not Woke by Susan Neiman (https://www.amazon.com/Left-Not-Woke-Susan-Neiman/dp/1509558306) Neiman's argument is similar to Horton's in many ways. However, I wasn't fully convinced by it. For anyone interested, I'll offer a quick review here.
Neiman wants to explain how the philosophic assumptions genuine leftism differ from wokeism. Her definition of the real left is not very specific. Marx is mentioned 3 times in passing and Communism once. In general, Neiman's left seem to be those who believe that society can be improved and retain utopian hopes for the future. Her intellectual heroes -- cited repeatedly -- are Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, Diderot, Rousseau, and Voltaire. She doesn't call herself a liberal because she thinks that -- in the 21st century US -- classical non-progressive liberalism essentially has become libertarianism. She also thinks that 19th century liberals such as J.S. Mill lacked the utopian vision of her Enlightenment heroes.
Per Neiman, there are three philosophical principles shared by real leftists that have been rejected by woke progressives, making them think much more like traditional conservatives than leftists.
1. Universalism versus tribalism. Enlightenment radicals believed that human values were shared by all people regardless of race, sex, or cultural practices. They didn't deny human differences but thought that they could be transcended by shared ideals. Woke progressives in contrast assume that tribal differences (race, religion, culture) are insurmountable.
2. A hard distinction between justice and power. For real leftists, justice is real. Human beings recognize, value, and strive for it regardless of their self-interested quest for wealth or power. Woke progressives, in contrast, believe -- with Nietzsche, Foucault and Carl Schmitt (who gets a lot of attention from Neiman as someone with an unhealthy influence on progressivism) -- that everything is about power and that claims of justice and morality always mask the quest for power.
3. A belief in progress. Unlike real leftists who believe that society is morally better now than it was in the past and can be much better in the future, modern progressives are trapped by a dispiriting conviction that nothing ever really improves. For example, racism hasn't decreased since the 19th century; it merely has transformed into new and more insidious guises.
I agree with the philosophical values that Neiman attributes to real leftists and agree that woke, post-liberal progressives lack faith in them (like Horton, I think that they don't always deny these values directly but lack real conviction in them). In terms of philosophy, I think that Neiman neglects another key value that the post-liberal progressives have lost faith in -- liberty, freedom, the desire for individual autonomy. Neiman might argue that liberty is included as one of her universal values, but I think that there is a lack of emphasis on freedom as opposed to justice in her account.
In terms of history and sociology, Neiman's explanation of why the left has gone woke is less than satisfying. Primarily, she thinks that the transformation has been caused by rage at increasing inequality, ongoing racism, and the impending climate crisis. So much is wrong with today's world per Neiman and the potential for change seems so limited that 21st century radicals have been seduced into Foucaultian, Schmittian cynicism.
I think that this may be part of it. But Neiman's argument that despair has engendered woke cynicism could be strengthened if she were to acknowledge that the French and Communist revolutions tried and failed to create the utopian societies that her Enlightenment heroes like Rousseau envisioned, often generating even more misery and injustice than the societies that they rejected. A traditional difference between the leftism and liberalism is the left's belief that reform is not enough. Per the left, a corrupt society cannot be transformed by the wishy-washy, meliorative reforms offered by liberals. Reform simply entrenches the corrupt power structure of the existing society. Only radical, revolutionary change can really create the utopian society that leftists hope for so. So, where is a 21st century leftist to turn for hope? On the one hand, liberal reformism is a hypocritical tool to strengthen capitalism but on the other hand revolution has been discredited by history. Foucault's cynical assertion that power is everywhere and irresistible, except by random subversive acts seems like a natural, if depressing, outlet for revolutionary energies.
The other thing that Nieman misses is that the woke are not only, or even primarily, the marginalized and oppressed in the 21st century. Wokism has been embraced most enthusiastically by upper middle class managers and professionals. And I think that it appeals to them not primarily b/c of their despair about progress but b/c it it is conducive to the technocratic management of society. A sense that justice and freedom are always masks for power tends to justify the exertion of power through technocratic and administrative rules. Professionals and managers are not undermining freedom by limiting democracy b/c claims of freedom always are a hypocritical means of gaining power. The public is always going to be manipulated, managed, and controlled by someone. So why shouldn't the professionals, who really know what's better for society, have that power instead of selfish capitalists or fanatical conservatives.
Sorry for the long book-review comment, but it was your analysis of how the woke are embedded in a modern power structure that clued me in to what Neiman misses.
If I understand you correctly, Carol, progressivism is necessarily or inherently political, and Wokism has commandeered that dimension, which has essentially disintegrated the movement. So progressivism is no longer a serviceable vehicle for your ideals.
The thing about Wokism is that I want to know why it’s happening. To me, Wokism surged out of protests, as a large part of humanity was moved by the atrocity of the murder of George Floyd, and I associate it with the subsequent phase of critique of systemic injustice. Wokists, I think, see human organizations, such as corporations and universities, as power bases and forums, and are demanding that they just deal more urgently and more comprehensively with social justice in their missions, operations, and expressions. (Expression includes, for example, corporate marketing plans and university course syllabi.) I think you infer correctly that most normative functions of organizations would need to be adapted to the demands of Wokism. The movement has a tendency toward Jacobinism, which has been marked by denunciations and damage to people who are probably innocent of maintaining racist or unjust structures. Wokists don’t necessarily uphold the liberal norms of free speech and due process, as you say; those are probably dispensable for them at a time of perceived social crisis. Dispensing with those norms has also, unfortunately, sometimes been a part of the functioning of mainstream American power structures.
The thing about liberalism is that, in a democracy, it needs fortification with coherent political positions, and to have an instrumentality in delivering something that people value in the real world. Progressivism, for a large part of the 20th century, was very useful for liberalism in that way – it comprised the meat of nearly the whole federal policy program. I think something like that could occur again in the future, perhaps within the matrices of climate change or the critique of capitalism and globalization.
Liberalism, as you’ve described it, is somewhat of an abstraction for most Americans, who may take it for granted as a normalcy. It can lack inspiration for people, and it easily becomes a target for those who license or promote illiberalism, on both the left and right. So liberalism needs to take the risk of political efficacy – with all its potential for compromise, expediency, and corruption – in order to be dynamic and realized. If that goes well, then liberalism may eventually gain a greater appeal to people who are presently within the sphere of influence of Wokism or of the populist right.
I'm sending this to a friend from the right who has been pestering me to write an essay about this issue. After revisiting your site and this essay, I realize you already wrote this. As to the question of what to do, sure there is now quite a diverse ecosystem of thinkers, writers, podcasters, each wanting a paid subscription to hear what they have to say, but the question is how will this change the major institutions, the major leaders, the ruling class? Thanks for writing this one.
We now have a super-sophisticated technology with which he can destroy life on this planet which is what we are now doing.
Simultaneously our entire culture, including much of its religion is essentially (mis)informed and driven by a very primitive stone-age barbaric mindset.
The leading proponent of which is a culturally and religiously illiterate nihilistic barbarian in the form of the toxic-all-the-way-down Donald Trump and his zombified MAGA movement. Toxic masculinity all-the-way-down!
MLK said to the affect "the great liberal majority are the greatest stumbling block to racial justice" You're blog while admitting liberalism was never achieved for all and thus implicitly identifying it was only guaranteed for few now attacks the people seeking justice and correctly identifying how it is structurally biased against certain demographics. The writing is incredible and yet the political commitment is poor. I would challenge you to do better politically and recommit yourself to progressivism instead of using click bait for whatever niche audience you have to discredit the needs driven drive to secure equality in this country. Progressivism in America is far more diverse then the framing of "wokism" you provide. "Wokism" constructed as an easy target for the white majority as a form of anti-anti-racism which you probably already understood. Jumping on the bandwagon is lazy. You can't claim to value traditional liberal values without championing progressive values.
Thanks everyone for the great comments. I have read everything and want to reply but have just been too busy. I will definitely try to do so sooner rather than later, though. In the meantime, thanks again for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Hi, Carol.
There are many insights that you share in both this piece ("Why I'm No Longer a Progressive" and the one on "Toxic Feminity" (both are oh so excellent; I don't even know where to begin!) that seem to align well with the insights in these two essays from the co-founders of Protopia Labs (an organization dedicated to depolarization). They both use some similar language though with slightly different nuances. I think you'd really like their work, and I *know* they would appreciate yours. (Going to post this comment on both of your essays, if that's okay).
"Why We Need to Talk about Post-Liberalism" by Micha Narberhaus
https://michanarberhaus.substack.com/p/why-we-need-to-talk-about-post-liberalism
"Pride of the Elites: Political Correctness, Identity Politics and Class War:
How Elite Overproduction drives culture wars, and how to move beyond it" by Alexander Beiner
https://beiner.substack.com/p/pride-of-the-elites-political-correctness
Readers of this substack may be interested in a book that I just read: Left Is Not Woke by Susan Neiman (https://www.amazon.com/Left-Not-Woke-Susan-Neiman/dp/1509558306) Neiman's argument is similar to Horton's in many ways. However, I wasn't fully convinced by it. For anyone interested, I'll offer a quick review here.
Neiman wants to explain how the philosophic assumptions genuine leftism differ from wokeism. Her definition of the real left is not very specific. Marx is mentioned 3 times in passing and Communism once. In general, Neiman's left seem to be those who believe that society can be improved and retain utopian hopes for the future. Her intellectual heroes -- cited repeatedly -- are Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, Diderot, Rousseau, and Voltaire. She doesn't call herself a liberal because she thinks that -- in the 21st century US -- classical non-progressive liberalism essentially has become libertarianism. She also thinks that 19th century liberals such as J.S. Mill lacked the utopian vision of her Enlightenment heroes.
Per Neiman, there are three philosophical principles shared by real leftists that have been rejected by woke progressives, making them think much more like traditional conservatives than leftists.
1. Universalism versus tribalism. Enlightenment radicals believed that human values were shared by all people regardless of race, sex, or cultural practices. They didn't deny human differences but thought that they could be transcended by shared ideals. Woke progressives in contrast assume that tribal differences (race, religion, culture) are insurmountable.
2. A hard distinction between justice and power. For real leftists, justice is real. Human beings recognize, value, and strive for it regardless of their self-interested quest for wealth or power. Woke progressives, in contrast, believe -- with Nietzsche, Foucault and Carl Schmitt (who gets a lot of attention from Neiman as someone with an unhealthy influence on progressivism) -- that everything is about power and that claims of justice and morality always mask the quest for power.
3. A belief in progress. Unlike real leftists who believe that society is morally better now than it was in the past and can be much better in the future, modern progressives are trapped by a dispiriting conviction that nothing ever really improves. For example, racism hasn't decreased since the 19th century; it merely has transformed into new and more insidious guises.
I agree with the philosophical values that Neiman attributes to real leftists and agree that woke, post-liberal progressives lack faith in them (like Horton, I think that they don't always deny these values directly but lack real conviction in them). In terms of philosophy, I think that Neiman neglects another key value that the post-liberal progressives have lost faith in -- liberty, freedom, the desire for individual autonomy. Neiman might argue that liberty is included as one of her universal values, but I think that there is a lack of emphasis on freedom as opposed to justice in her account.
In terms of history and sociology, Neiman's explanation of why the left has gone woke is less than satisfying. Primarily, she thinks that the transformation has been caused by rage at increasing inequality, ongoing racism, and the impending climate crisis. So much is wrong with today's world per Neiman and the potential for change seems so limited that 21st century radicals have been seduced into Foucaultian, Schmittian cynicism.
I think that this may be part of it. But Neiman's argument that despair has engendered woke cynicism could be strengthened if she were to acknowledge that the French and Communist revolutions tried and failed to create the utopian societies that her Enlightenment heroes like Rousseau envisioned, often generating even more misery and injustice than the societies that they rejected. A traditional difference between the leftism and liberalism is the left's belief that reform is not enough. Per the left, a corrupt society cannot be transformed by the wishy-washy, meliorative reforms offered by liberals. Reform simply entrenches the corrupt power structure of the existing society. Only radical, revolutionary change can really create the utopian society that leftists hope for so. So, where is a 21st century leftist to turn for hope? On the one hand, liberal reformism is a hypocritical tool to strengthen capitalism but on the other hand revolution has been discredited by history. Foucault's cynical assertion that power is everywhere and irresistible, except by random subversive acts seems like a natural, if depressing, outlet for revolutionary energies.
The other thing that Nieman misses is that the woke are not only, or even primarily, the marginalized and oppressed in the 21st century. Wokism has been embraced most enthusiastically by upper middle class managers and professionals. And I think that it appeals to them not primarily b/c of their despair about progress but b/c it it is conducive to the technocratic management of society. A sense that justice and freedom are always masks for power tends to justify the exertion of power through technocratic and administrative rules. Professionals and managers are not undermining freedom by limiting democracy b/c claims of freedom always are a hypocritical means of gaining power. The public is always going to be manipulated, managed, and controlled by someone. So why shouldn't the professionals, who really know what's better for society, have that power instead of selfish capitalists or fanatical conservatives.
Sorry for the long book-review comment, but it was your analysis of how the woke are embedded in a modern power structure that clued me in to what Neiman misses.
So,
If I understand you correctly, Carol, progressivism is necessarily or inherently political, and Wokism has commandeered that dimension, which has essentially disintegrated the movement. So progressivism is no longer a serviceable vehicle for your ideals.
The thing about Wokism is that I want to know why it’s happening. To me, Wokism surged out of protests, as a large part of humanity was moved by the atrocity of the murder of George Floyd, and I associate it with the subsequent phase of critique of systemic injustice. Wokists, I think, see human organizations, such as corporations and universities, as power bases and forums, and are demanding that they just deal more urgently and more comprehensively with social justice in their missions, operations, and expressions. (Expression includes, for example, corporate marketing plans and university course syllabi.) I think you infer correctly that most normative functions of organizations would need to be adapted to the demands of Wokism. The movement has a tendency toward Jacobinism, which has been marked by denunciations and damage to people who are probably innocent of maintaining racist or unjust structures. Wokists don’t necessarily uphold the liberal norms of free speech and due process, as you say; those are probably dispensable for them at a time of perceived social crisis. Dispensing with those norms has also, unfortunately, sometimes been a part of the functioning of mainstream American power structures.
The thing about liberalism is that, in a democracy, it needs fortification with coherent political positions, and to have an instrumentality in delivering something that people value in the real world. Progressivism, for a large part of the 20th century, was very useful for liberalism in that way – it comprised the meat of nearly the whole federal policy program. I think something like that could occur again in the future, perhaps within the matrices of climate change or the critique of capitalism and globalization.
Liberalism, as you’ve described it, is somewhat of an abstraction for most Americans, who may take it for granted as a normalcy. It can lack inspiration for people, and it easily becomes a target for those who license or promote illiberalism, on both the left and right. So liberalism needs to take the risk of political efficacy – with all its potential for compromise, expediency, and corruption – in order to be dynamic and realized. If that goes well, then liberalism may eventually gain a greater appeal to people who are presently within the sphere of influence of Wokism or of the populist right.
I'm sending this to a friend from the right who has been pestering me to write an essay about this issue. After revisiting your site and this essay, I realize you already wrote this. As to the question of what to do, sure there is now quite a diverse ecosystem of thinkers, writers, podcasters, each wanting a paid subscription to hear what they have to say, but the question is how will this change the major institutions, the major leaders, the ruling class? Thanks for writing this one.
Perhaps some urgently needed progress is needed.
We now have a super-sophisticated technology with which he can destroy life on this planet which is what we are now doing.
Simultaneously our entire culture, including much of its religion is essentially (mis)informed and driven by a very primitive stone-age barbaric mindset.
The leading proponent of which is a culturally and religiously illiterate nihilistic barbarian in the form of the toxic-all-the-way-down Donald Trump and his zombified MAGA movement. Toxic masculinity all-the-way-down!
MLK said to the affect "the great liberal majority are the greatest stumbling block to racial justice" You're blog while admitting liberalism was never achieved for all and thus implicitly identifying it was only guaranteed for few now attacks the people seeking justice and correctly identifying how it is structurally biased against certain demographics. The writing is incredible and yet the political commitment is poor. I would challenge you to do better politically and recommit yourself to progressivism instead of using click bait for whatever niche audience you have to discredit the needs driven drive to secure equality in this country. Progressivism in America is far more diverse then the framing of "wokism" you provide. "Wokism" constructed as an easy target for the white majority as a form of anti-anti-racism which you probably already understood. Jumping on the bandwagon is lazy. You can't claim to value traditional liberal values without championing progressive values.