Woke Fragility – Die Fragilität der „Wachen“

Ein interessanter Artikel dazu, dass im Lager der „Woken“ (gibt es einen guten deutschen Begriff?) viele Gegenmeinungen nicht ertragen können.

Zur Definition des Begriffs aus dem Text:

I define “Woke Fragility” here as discomfort and defensiveness of the part of a Woke person when confronted with information about racial inequality and injustice that isn’t flattering to their worldview. Woke Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of empirical or analytical stress on Woke ideology becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, leaving the stress-inducing situation, and worst of all, satire.

Woke Folk in western institutions operate in social environments that protect and insulate them from sources of empirical or analytical stress against Woke ideology; this state of ideological comfort is typically referred to as an “echo chamber,” and is a feature of Woke privilege. Woke Folk seldom operate outside of these ideological echo chambers, and when they do, it is usually only temporary. These insulated environments of ideological privilege serve to condition Woke expectations for ideological comfort whilst simultaneously reducing their capacity to tolerate ideological stress.

Eine Vielzahl von Ausbrüchen dieser Art haben es schon zu einiger Berühmtheit gebracht, etwa „Trigglepuff“ und andere, aber auch „Safe Spaces“ etc.

Es werden dann verschiedene Fälle aufgeführt, bei denen diese Fragilität besonders sichtbar wird:

Woke Fragility manifests when empirical and analytical stress is applied to Woke ideology. These stressors can take a variety of forms and come from a range of sources, including:

· Suggesting that Woke Folks’ viewpoint comes from social theories with insufficient empirical warrant (challenge to perceived expertise, deferred or otherwise);

· People of color talking directly about their perspectives which contradict Woke ideology (challenge to racial codes);

· People of color choosing not to protect the ideological feelings of Woke Folk in regard to race (challenge to Woke racial expectations and need/entitlement to ideological comfort);

· Fellow Woke Folk not providing agreement with one’s interpretations (challenge to Woke solidarity);

· Receiving feedback that one’s behavior had a racist impact on white people (challenge to Woke radicalism and its attempts to redefine racism);

· Suggesting that group membership isn’t as significant as Woke Folk make it out to be (challenge to collectivism);

· An acknowledgment that unequal access between racial groups isn’t necessarily (or even exclusively) the result of external factors such as discrimination (challenge to reductive tendencies toward institutional explanations);

· Being presented with a political dissident in a position of leadership (challenge to Woke authority);

· Being presented with information about competing ideologies and theories, for example, works of art and literature in which political dissidents critique Woke ideology (challenge to Woke centrality).

In an environment dominated by Woke Folk, each of these challenges becomes exceptional. In turn, Woke Folk are often at a loss for how to respond in constructive ways. Woke Folk have not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop the stamina that would allow for constructive engagement across ideological divides.

Kritik ist eben in dem Weltbild nicht vorgesehen, es ist eine Glaubensgemeinschaft in der Widerspruch ein starkes Tabu gegen sich hat. Und weil jeder Zweifel in diesem Glauben bereits ein Sakrileg ist sind sie auch nicht geschult in Erwiderungen und Verteidigungen oder interessiert an den tatsächlichen Argumenten und Gegenargumenten und entsetzt, dass solche überhaupt erwartet werden. Um so schlimmer, wenn jemand dann auch noch Argumente hat auf die man keine Antwort hat oder sich deutlich gegen die heilige Position ausspricht. Wie kann er das sagen?

Zu den Faktoren:

Ideological Isolation

The first factor leading to Woke Fragility is the ideologically isolated lives which most Woke Folk lead. Even if Woke Folk live in close proximity to political dissidents, ideological isolation happens at both the representational and the informational levels. That is to say, both the constituencies of Woke Folks’ social groups and the art and news that they consume are likely to be predominantly, if not exclusively, of an ideological bent that reinforces (rather than challenges) their Wokeness. They receive little or no authentic information about the empirical and analytical challenges to their ideology and are thus unprepared to think about it critically or with complexity. Growing up in ideologically isolated environments (schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, media images and historical perspectives), Woke interests and perspectives are almost always central. An inability to see or consider significance in the perspectives of political dissidents results.

Das erinnert gleich an Filterblasen und starke Ausgrenzung aller Andersdenkenden. Es ist der klassische Weg einer Sekte: Sie brauch die Abschottung innerhalb der eigenen Gruppe.

Historicism and Collectivism

Woke Folk are taught to see their ideology as inevitably victorious and representative of the interests of humanity generally. The belief in the march of history towards a global multicultural utopia, coupled with positioning Woke Ideology as outside of any particular culture (and thus the norm for humanity), allows Woke Folk to view themselves as inherently progressive beings who triumphantly facilitate historical progress. This is evidenced when they compare some feature of society as it presently stands (i.e. the current prevalence of rape, poverty, and bigotry) to a hypothetical future ideal (i.e. “imagine a world without any rape, poverty, or bigotry at all”) and use the failure of society to live up to these utopian standards as evidence that existing institutions have failed the people.

They then step in and insist that only through the installation of Woke Folk into positions of power can society begin to remedy its defects. They give no consideration whatsoever to the wealth of empirical evidence supporting the fact that the prevalence of rape, poverty, and bigotry has, under the management of our present culture and institutions, reached historical lows. This is because reality’s failure to conform to their impossible standards is precisely what licenses their power grabs in the first place.

Eine Mission ist immer etwas, was ein guter Kult braucht und man kann ihn eben gut mit dem „richtigen Weg“ verbinden. Wenn man dann noch alles andere ausblendet und alle als Feind sieht, die sich dem „richtigen Weg“ in den Weg stellt, dann ist das eine gefährliche Mischung. Um so schlimmer wenn dann so etwas wie die Realität dagegen sprechen soll.

Entitlement to Ideological Comfort

In the dominant position, Woke Folk are almost always ideologically comfortable and thus have developed unchallenged expectations to remain so. Woke Folk have not had to build tolerance for ideological discomfort. Thus when ideological stress is applied, Woke Folk typically respond as if something is “wrong,” and blame the person or event that triggered their discomfort (usually a political dissident.) This blame results in a socially sanctioned array of countermeasures against the perceived source of discomfort including penalization, retaliation, isolation, ostracization, and refusal to continue engagement. Woke insistence on ideological comfort ensures that their privilege will not be challenged. This insistence also functions to punish those who break Woke codes of comfort.

Woke Folk often confuse comfort with safety (such as when they treat language as a form of violence) and state that they don’t feel safe when what they really mean is that they don’t feel comfortable. This trivializes their history of injustices towards political dissidents and perverts the reality of that history. Because Woke Folk don’t think complexly about the contents of their belief system, they don’t ask themselves what safety means from a position of societal dominance, where they have the ability to summon hateful mobs and instigate punitive action by employers against political dissidents by merely accusing them of partaking in hateful expression. They don’t ask themselves what safety means, given their history, for Woke Folk who complain about safety when political dissidents are merely talking about Woke ideology in an unflattering manner. And given the amount of societal power afforded to Woke Folk when they posture as vulnerable targets every time someone disagrees with them, it is better that they remain ignorant.

Kritik ist dann Eindringen und Beschädigen einer heilen und wunderschönen Welt. Aber auch interessant der Gedanke, dass das eigene Wohlfühlen mit Sicherheit verwechselt wird. Das passt zu den „Safe Spaces“. Ein Argument gegen die eigene Meinung wird als Einschränkung der Sicherheit verstanden und damit das Gegenargument als ungerechtfertigter Angriff.

Ideological Arrogance

Woke ideological hegemony includes strongly positive images of the Woke self as well as strongly negative images of dissident “others.” This self-image engenders a self-perpetuating sense of entitlement because many Woke Folk believe that their disproportionate share of the cultural capital is the result of their being on the right side of history while ignoring the fact of Woke privilege. Because most Woke Folk have not been trained to think complexly about their ideology in schools or mainstream discourse, and because it benefits Woke dominance not to do so, they have a very limited understanding of their ideological hegemony.

Yet dominance leads to arrogance, and in this ideological arrogance, Woke Folk have no compunction about dismissing the challenges offered to them by the unwashed masses, no matter how well formulated or empirically supported their arguments are. Woke Folk feel free to dismiss the perspectives of the hoi polloi rather than have the humility to acknowledge that familiarity with a given topic and the analytic capabilities required to formulate a coherent argument in relation to it are not the exclusive purview of those with credentials in a relevant field. Thus, they bully dissenters out of the conversation by attacking their lack of credentials instead of their arguments, closing rank around disciplinary borders in an attempt to discredit any outsider who has the temerity to challenge them.

„Woke“ sehen also gar nicht ein, dass sie Gegenargumente finden müssen. Sie gehen davon aus, dass sie recht haben. Deswegen sind sie auch schnell dabei es etwa nur als Bewahrung der Privilegien zu sehen, als Erhaltung von Macht, als Verhinderung der von ihnen angestrebten besseren Welt.

Ideological Belonging

Woke Folk enjoy a deeply internalized, largely unconscious sense of ideological belonging in western societies. This ideological belonging is embedded via the Wokeness embedded in the culture at large. Everywhere they look, Woke Folk see their own ideological image reflected back at them— in their heroes and heroines, in standards of beauty, in their role models and teachers, in their textbooks and historical memory, in the media, in religious iconography (particularly in progressive and socialist readings of Bronze-Age religious texts,) etc. In virtually any situation or image deemed valuable in dominant society, Woke Folk belong. Indeed, it is rare for most Woke Folk to experience a sense of not belonging, and such experiences are usually very temporary, easily avoidable situations. Ideological belonging becomes deeply internalized and taken for granted. In dominant society, interruption of ideological belonging is rare and thus destabilizing and frightening for Woke Folk.

Das ist eine interessante Idee. Sie sind tief eingebettet in die Gesellschaft obwohl sie sich als Rebellen innerhalb dieser sehen. Aber in der Tat dürfte das Aufgreifen der Ideen und das Mainstream werden dieser bzw das Einschwenken auf diese bei Kritik einen zusätzlichen Push geben. Vielleicht hat das auch gerade die Aufstände in den USA beflügelt, dass es aus allen Ecken hieß, dass sie berechtigt wären, auch wenn es gewaltvolle Ausschreitungen gab.

Psychic Freedom

Because the property of being “problematic” is constructed as residing in political dissidents, Woke Folk don’t bear the social burden of their ideology. They move easily through our society without a sense of themselves as ideologically entrenched subjects. They see ideological indoctrination as operating when political dissidents are present, but all-Woke spaces as “safe” spaces — untainted by problematic perspectives vis a vis the absence of the carriers of problematic ideology (and thereby the ideological polluters,) political dissidents. This perspective is perfectly captured in the familiar Woke statement, “I was lucky. I was educated into progressive thought, so I didn’t get trapped in reactionary ideology.” In this discursive move, Wokeness gains its meaning through its purported sanitization of all things problematic. Because ideological segregation is deemed socially valuable while simultaneously non-ideological and unremarkable, Woke Folk rarely, if ever, have to think critically about the implications of their belief system, and receive no penalty for not thinking about it.

Also die Freiheit innerhalb der Gemeinschaft, die diese zu einer Heimat macht, einem Safe Space.

Constant messages that Woke Folk are more valuable — through representation in everything

Living in a Woke dominant context, Woke Folk receive constant messages that they are better and more important than political dissidents. These messages operate on multiple levels and are conveyed in a range of ways. For example: their centrality in history textbooks as the agents of historical progress and the arbiters of who was on the right and wrong sides of history; their centrality in media and advertising (for example, a recent Vogue magazine cover boldly stated “New Frontiers,” and almost none of the women depicted on it were white); their teachers, role-models, heroes and heroines; everyday discourse on “progressive” social circles and who is in them; popular TV shows centered around themes of anti-capitalism and toxic masculinity; news stories that whitewash the activities of violent anarchists and looters as “peaceful protest” while stores visibly burn behind the reporters who propagate such apologia; and the lack of a sense of loss about the absence of political dissidents in most Woke Folks’ lives. While one may explicitly reject the notion that Woke Folk are inherently better than the deplorable dissidents vilified by their ideology, one cannot avoid internalizing the message of Woke supremacy, as it is u

Auch das wurde hier schon wiederholt dargestellt: Der „Woke“ Bereich macht einen zu etwas besseren Menschen aus deren Sicht. Gerade Leute, die sonst nicht hoch in der Gesellschaft stehen würden oder sich so vorkommen bekommen hier plötzlich einen „Opferstatus“ der sie zu besseren Leuten, zu wichtigen Leuten, macht und die sonstige Statushierarchie umdrehen kann.