Read on Twitter
There's much more to anti-woke discourse than meets the eye.
Anti-wokism isn't getting hoovered up by the likes of Mike Pompeo, Tucker Carlson, and the Proud Boys for reasons of principled conservatism. https://twitter.com/Okwonga/status/1355828912413175808
Anti-wokism isn't getting hoovered up by the likes of Mike Pompeo, Tucker Carlson, and the Proud Boys for reasons of principled conservatism. https://twitter.com/Okwonga/status/1355828912413175808
Ideologies have social functions, and the larger function of anti-wokism is to reinforce existing patterns of intergroup hierarchy.
These patterns put whites and cis-men (and other dominant groups) at the top of the pecking order.
These patterns put whites and cis-men (and other dominant groups) at the top of the pecking order.
In social psych—social dominance theory, system justification theory, & the justification-suppression model of prejudice tell a common story:
Successful ideologies serve to legitimate our deeper motives—such as the desire for social dominance.
Think of it as motive laundering.
Successful ideologies serve to legitimate our deeper motives—such as the desire for social dominance.
Think of it as motive laundering.
There's data on this process of ideological legitimation. One of my faves:
@ChrisPolPsych and colleagues map the road from social dominance motives to anti-affirmative action sentiment, showing how faux-principled arguments bridge the gap.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12744-002
@ChrisPolPsych and colleagues map the road from social dominance motives to anti-affirmative action sentiment, showing how faux-principled arguments bridge the gap.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12744-002
Another classic:
Mark White and @ChrisCrandall16 take show that much free-speech rhetoric is motivated by a desire to put *racist* speech beyond critique.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-17075-001.html
Mark White and @ChrisCrandall16 take show that much free-speech rhetoric is motivated by a desire to put *racist* speech beyond critique.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-17075-001.html
And of course the larger bodies of work by Jim Sidanius, Felicia Pratto, @JohnJost1, and @ChrisCrandall16 spell out legitimation processes in rich theoretical detail.
Caution:
Nothing I've said entails that a person can't critique aspects of (what gets called) "wokism" and its most popular representatives from an honest place. @deonteleologist does this while pushing back hard against deeply dumb arguments against it (see @ConceptualJames ).
Nothing I've said entails that a person can't critique aspects of (what gets called) "wokism" and its most popular representatives from an honest place. @deonteleologist does this while pushing back hard against deeply dumb arguments against it (see @ConceptualJames ).
What I *am* saying is that, when you see whose buying anti-wokism in the marketplace of ideas, you see the larger role this ideology is poised to play in the coming years. And it's ugly.
