The Haidt-Lukianoff thesis about “wokeness” was always based on flawed assumptions so it’s not surprising to see Haidt essentially repudiating parts of his critique.

The problem was taking what was then “campus rhetoric” at face value, thereby mistaking a political movement for a psychological phenomenon.

“Strength through weakness” or “wounded attachment” language wasn’t a straightforward product of coddling, or primary trauma, or changing parenting techniques.

It was instead an attempt to develop a highly charged moral critique that could be used to petition institutions and senior figures within them. The point was to win concessions from people like Haidt himself.

This language isn’t new. Wendy Brown was describing it in the early ‘90s. What is new is a sizeable demographic (millennials) for whom the old succession models within institutions aren’t working, largely because of the long fallout from the 2008 financial crisis.

This critique is now a plea to be “let in” to professional or academic positions from a generation that feels unfairly shut out and excluded. The moral content of their language indicates their sense of betrayal and institutional illegitimacy.

The positive response from businesses and institutions in 2020 shows that they too are keenly aware of the problem. They will use this energy to refound their institutions on a new moral basis, make reforms, and unleash the forces of creative destruction.