John McWhorter has argued that the woke movement is a sort of religion. That seems unfair, as (at least in the US) religions don’t typically cancel people for not believing in their dogma. Perhaps he means that wokism is like a 17th century religion.
Razib Khan directed me to an article in City Journal that supports this claim:
It’s been an open secret for years that prestigious journals will often reject submissions that offend prevailing political orthodoxies—especially if they involve controversial aspects of human biology and behavior—no matter how scientifically sound the work might be. The leading journal Nature Human Behaviour recently made this practice official in an editorial effectively announcing that it will not publish studies that show the wrong kind of differences between human groups. . . .
[T]he National Institutes of Health now withholds access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may wander into forbidden territory. The source at issue, the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), is an exceptional tool, combining genome scans of several million individuals with extensive data about health, education, occupation, and income. It is indispensable for research on how genes and environments combine to affect human traits. No other widely accessible American database comes close in terms of scientific utility.
My colleagues at other universities and I have run into problems involving applications to study the relationships among intelligence, education, and health outcomes. Sometimes, NIH denies access to some of the attributes that I have just mentioned, on the grounds that studying their genetic basis is “stigmatizing.” Sometimes, it demands updates about ongoing research, with the implied threat that it could withdraw usage if it doesn’t receive satisfactory answers.
When people say something is “like a religion”, they generally mean that people feel so passionately about the ideology that it trumps any other consideration, including rational inquiry. But most people in America no longer feel that passionately about religion. And yet, people seem to feel a need to hold passionate beliefs about something. In the modern world, movements such as the more extreme forms of wokism and election denialism have replaced religion as the new faith-based ideologies.
It’s about protecting feelings. The feelings of people who don’t want to believe that the Bible was wrong about the shape of the Solar System, and the feelings of people who don’t like the idea of investigating whether some genetic profiles are correlated with less socio-economic success.
READER COMMENTS
JFA
Oct 23 2022 at 1:06pm
“That seems unfair, as (at least in the US) religions don’t typically cancel people for not believing in their dogma.”
I would disagree. Mormons, Southern Baptist, and many other “conservative” denominations (e.g. Westboro Baptist) will often shun members and (especially) people in leadership positions for expressing ideas that are not considered dogma (I’ve been a member of a couple of very conservative churches that displayed exactly this behavior). I’ve been part of a “liberal” UCC church that would probably dismiss people if they expressed too strong an affinity for defining man and woman based on biology rather than self ID.
Also, many denominations have broken up over whether to allow gay clergy.
Airman Spry Shark
Oct 23 2022 at 1:52pm
What you’re describing is subtly different than the central examples of cancelation people worry about. In the former a group is disengaging from one of their members, while in the latter a group is seeking to have a non-member disengaged from by other non-members.
JFA
Oct 23 2022 at 8:55pm
I dunno… the Left and Right eat their own pretty efficiently.
Jon Murphy
Oct 23 2022 at 1:55pm
I was UCC (and fairly high ranking for a layman) and got booted for arguing against minimum wage. So, 100% can confirm.
steve
Oct 23 2022 at 3:58pm
Its not just gender. If a religious school finds out someone is gay they can and have fired them. Not for doing or saying anything but just for being gay. Then you also have religions not allowing gay people to get married. A relationship between two people that does not affect the religious people. I think religious people canceling others because they dont believe correctly is probably the model for cancelation. Up until recently you really faced a lot of prejudicial treatment if you were an open and out atheist.
Steve
nobody.really
Oct 24 2022 at 5:28am
There’s an old joke about aspects of religion that will get you shunned:
As Satan is giving his tour of hell, someone asks, “Who are those people wailing in agony in that pit?”
“Those are Southern Baptists that went to a dance.”
“And in the next pit?”
“Those are Catholics who ate meat on Fridays.”
“And the pit next to that?”
“Those are Episcopalians who used their salad forks for the main course.”
UCCers contributed an addendum: “And what about that fourth pit?”
Satan frowned. “Those are members of the UCC—and honestly, we have no idea why they’re here.” (The joke is that no UCCer could be guilty of violating fundamental doctrine–‘cuz basically there isn’t any.)
Mark Z
Oct 23 2022 at 2:35pm
This isn’t exactly a vote of confidence for the beliefs the NIH is trying to protect from scientific scrutiny. My prior on the soundness of ‘hereditarianism’ with respect to intelligence went up when I heard about NIH and other institutions denying access to data. “I’m so certain I’m right that anyone who disagrees with me should be banished from polite society, but you’re not allowed to see the evidence!” is the opposite of persuasive.
Phil H
Oct 23 2022 at 8:34pm
“the feelings of people who don’t like the idea of investigating whether some genetic profiles are correlated with less socio-economic success”
No. When a person or institution takes steps to avoid fascist-associated stuff happening, the obvious explanation is that they reject fascism, not that they are “protecting their feelings.”
I understand that you may disagree that this particular kind of science is in fact fascist-related; and you may also disagree that it’s a good idea to censor fascist-related research. But those are your views. Quite plainly, in the view of the institution/people involved in this database, research into socioeconomic-genetic differences is fascist-adjacent, and they believe it is worth stopping on those grounds.
Jon Murphy
Oct 23 2022 at 9:49pm
Fascist-related science? Fascist-related research? What does that mean?
Brandon Berg
Oct 23 2022 at 10:29pm
This is just a secular way of saying that certain research is Satanist-adjacent.
Brandon Berg
Oct 23 2022 at 10:33pm
Actually, on further consideration, I see your point. Opposing research on the grounds that it’s Satanist-adjacent is still different from opposing it on the grounds that it hurts your feelings.
However, the word “stigmatizing” does seem to imply that feelings are a major factor here.
Scott Sumner
Oct 24 2022 at 12:01am
“When a person or institution takes steps to avoid fascist-associated stuff happening, the obvious explanation is that they reject fascism, not that they are “protecting their feelings.””
You are mixing up science with politics. Fascism is obviously an immoral political system, and no scientific facts about the relationship between genetics and life outcomes would change that fact. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Every person is deserving of equal respect, regardless of their genetic profile.
BTW, can you name a single serious scientist who supports fascism? It’s hard for me to even take your comment seriously. Think about what you are saying. What sort of research do you view as “communist-associated”? Should that sort of scientific research also be banned? Please give me some examples of scientific research that you would oppose for being communism-associated.
How about the author of this book?
https://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Lottery-Matters-Social-Equality/dp/0691190801/ref=asc_df_0691190801/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=475689877582&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9334372616191494971&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031539&hvtargid=pla-1399715906872&psc=1
Is she also a fascist?
Jon Murphy
Oct 24 2022 at 9:59am
Like Scott, I am having trouble understanding what you mean. However, I think what you mean is: some research can be used to advance fascist goals and therfore should be repressed/censored/tightly controlled.
If I am correct in my understanding, then I see a major problem with your reasoning (if I am not, correct me and we can go from there). The problem is this: any knowledge is inherently a public good and has a strong normative element to it. That means that anyone can use an idea for any purpose regardless of what the originator of the idea wants/intended. Consequently, any research could be “fascist-adjacent” or not.
Take, for example, the very research discussed in this article. You claim it is “fascist-adjacent,” and yet major research on such relationships come from the Left, and the Far Left in particular. Critical Race Theory (especially in pedagogy) relies on such racial polylogism. Marxism as well.
Public health sciences were also used for fascist purposes. The same chemical that used to purify water was used in the gas chambers.*
Many economic sciences were originally used for explcitily fascist purposes. Minimum wage, for example, was originally used for eugenic purposes.
So, my point is: “fascist-adjacent” isn’t as clear cut as you think it is. That label can be applied to anything and everything.
*If I recall my history correctly, the scientist that developed the chemical developed it for use in treating water on the Eastern Front. When he found out that it was also being used to slaughter civilians, he tried to defect to the Allies, but was instead captured and tried for war crimes.
Scott Sumner
Oct 25 2022 at 10:19am
Very good comment. Science itself has no political implications. It’s all a question of how science is used. Rockets can be used to send men to the moon, or to send bombs from Germany to Britain.
nobody.really
Oct 25 2022 at 4:11pm
Really? ‘Cuz I’ve heard that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Brandon Berg
Oct 27 2022 at 6:07am
Specifically a neoliberal bias. Fiction, on the other hand, has a well-known left-wing bias.
Jose Pablo
Oct 26 2022 at 12:16pm
“bombs from Germany to Britain” seems like an outdated reference.
I would, respectfully, suggest “bombs from Russia to Ukraine” as an updated one.
nobody.really
Oct 25 2022 at 4:34pm
1: Would a Freedom of Information Act request force the NIH to make data available? FOIA requests take lots of time, but they can force open an agency’s vaults.
2: While I generally oppose efforts to stifle research, there’s the famous example from World War II: “Szilard … succeeded in convincing scientists in the still-neutral United States to keep secret the results of their atomic research, and, as a result, the Germans could not learn of their mistake[s in nuclear research] from the open scientific literature.” Maybe we could say that publishing this research would have been “fascist-adjacent”?
Jon Murphy
Oct 26 2022 at 11:32am
No. That story actually greatly supports my point: the atomic research could be used to support a fascist agenda or it could be used (and was used) to stop a fascist agenda. Exact same research; different uses.
nobody.really
Oct 26 2022 at 1:59pm
Fair enough, as far as that goes. I still see distinctions.
The last step of the scientific method is to publish your research so that others may challenge it, draw insight from it, or both. During WWII the US abrogated that last step precisely to impede the progress of people with a fascist agenda–and I could argue that the NIH is doing the same.
But instead I’d re-characterize the data: During WWII the US acted to impede a foreseeable MILITARY rival–people with means, motive, and opportunity to challenge liberal democracy not by way of persuasion, but by way of force. In contrast, I don’t see people seeking NIH data for purposes of building armaments.
I value this distinction highly—but I acknowledge that not everyone will.
In his history of WWI, Dan Carlin poses the question: What is the most powerful weapon of war? Nukes rank high. Biological weapons are conceptually quite powerful. But Carlin suggested a third answer: Ideas. With this intro, Carlin presented the new, fatal technology that brought an end to WWI. Specifically, Germany faced enemies on multiple fronts, including Russia. To help fend off Russia, Germany adopted a two-part strategy. First, they basically adopted a cease fire policy and fraternized with the Russians, thereby reducing their antagonism toward Germany. Second, they found a guy named Lenin, sealed him in a train car so that no one would be exposed to him during transit, and shipped him to Moscow. Released from his boxcar, Lenin proceeded to lecture on the nature of class struggle, telling people that the war was just an excuse for the rich people from each country to send the farmers from each country to kill each other. This guy’s ideas were so persuasive, Russian troops started quitting in droves. Success!
But just as with nukes and biological weapons, blowback is a big risk—and that risk ultimately overwhelmed Germany. While fraternizing with the Russians, German soldiers became exposed to the same ideas—and they also began to quit. (In fairness, this had been an unimaginably long, brutal war, so it’s unclear how long any nation’s soldiers could have held out—with or without ideological inducement.)
Around the globe, we can observe liberal democracies falling against the onslaught of ethno-nationalism, so I have sympathy for people expressing concerns about toxic ideas. Still, mostly these nations have fallen based on the power of ideas, not force.
Economics tells us that at the margins, many things are trade-offs. Ultimately liberal democrats may have to choose which they value more: Democracy (rule by the majority) or liberalism (defending the individual against the mob). I value liberalism—but this entails defending the individual’s right to promote ideas that undermine liberalism. So my views seem self-defeating.
Jon Murphy
Oct 26 2022 at 5:53pm
There’s a difference, I would contend, between witholding finished research for national security reasons (your scenerio) and forbidding any research on a topic because of possible use by some undesirables (the NIH and Phil’s scenerio).
nobody.really
Oct 26 2022 at 6:20pm
Respectfully, how do we know the NIH is forbidding all research? Research may well be ongoing, but covert–just as occurred during WWII.
Jon Murphy
Oct 27 2022 at 2:00pm
They’re not. They’re forbidding research they feel may result in “stigmatizing” results. And demanding constant updates to make sure folks are using the data in non-stigmatizing manner (check out the article).
Monte
Oct 23 2022 at 10:22pm
Yes. Galileo’s defense of the Copernican Doctrine (Sidereus Nuncius), The Origin of the Species, and The Bell Curve all hurt a lot of feelings. But a search for the truth is a pain we can’t do without.
Jens
Oct 24 2022 at 3:11am
That three ideas or hypotheses equally hurt feelings does not mean that they are equally true.
And that individual genetic profiles are correlated with socio-economic success does not inherently mean that a fuzzy sociological variable (such as race) is automatically correlated with a certain distribution of these individual profiles.
Especially people who methodically try to consider the individual should be very careful about their formulations of such questions and also consider their misuse in advance.
The issue of how meaningful the given determinants and outcomes of socio-economic success are and whether they should be changed comes much later (and may be debatable even if there is agreement on the above issues).
Monte
Oct 24 2022 at 5:49pm
I don’t disagree with anything you say. You’re, of course, questioning the veracity of the truth as purported by Hurrnstein & Murray in their book, The Bell Curve, compared to heliocentrism and evolution being universally accepted as scientific fact.
Although the book remains controversial, the criticisms have been mostly polemic and come from the very liberals obsessed by race who vehemently denounce the authors of the same. This is an excerpt from an article written by Dr. Vincent M. Sarich, who was American Professor Emeritus in anthropology at UC Berkeley:
That said, I stand by the main thrust of my comment that we should always engage in a relentless pursuit of the truth, sparing no feelings in the process.
Andrew_FL
Oct 24 2022 at 1:55am
There’s hardly any heliocentrism in the Bible. People’s “feelings were hurt” at Galileo contradicting Plato, not Jesus.
Mactoul
Oct 24 2022 at 3:16am
Galileo’s trial was nothing about protecting feelings but concerned very real issues of what scientific theory means– of ” saving the appearance ” vs whether science can actually claim something is.
This about feelings is just typical modern slander on the very serious people who laid the foundation of modern science.
Scott Sumner
Oct 25 2022 at 10:22am
I have no idea what you mean. Why was Galileo persecuted? Be specific.
Jim Glass
Oct 26 2022 at 12:27am
Why was Galileo persecuted? Be specific.
Prosecuted, not persecuted. He was protected and treated well until he peeved off his protector … the Pope! The story told at a grammar school level:
The Catholic Church at the time was analogous to a one-party state. It had many rival wings that it had to reconcile. One enlightened wing supported the arts, ‘modern’ astronomy and scientific research. Another was that of populist fundamentalist book burners. (Remind anyone of anything?) The Pope had the challenging task of containing these rival forces. (See Savonarola and what the Pope had to do to him.)
Galileo was, shall we say, pugnacious and enjoyed mocking and making enemies those who disagreed with him. He’d have fit right in on Twitter. Heliocentrism being an issue that much upset the fundamentalists, he soon got himself into political trouble by fueling the storms.
However he had a powerful protector in Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who pulled his chestnuts from the fire while telling him, as we might put it: “You can pursue your heliocentrism but keep it in the university, and out of the wider world.” Which Galileo did for a number of years, and all was well.
Then Barberini was elevated to become Pope Urban VIII, and Galileo thought, ‘Yeah! I’m in!’. Urban actually asked Galileo to present the ideas of heliocentrism in a book — provided he did so in a balanced way that also fairly presented the geocentric view.
Galileo responded by publishing a dialog that in which the defender of geocentrism was named Simplicio (“simpleton”) and presented as a fool. Since Urban was known as Galileo’s protector and sponsor, this created real political problems for him and He Was Not Happy. (“This is the thanks I get?!”) Bad enough to peeve off your protector or the Pope, but both at once.
The rest followed. (And it wasn’t soooo bad, his imprisonment was commuted after one day to house arrest.)
nobody.really
Oct 26 2022 at 2:27pm
MRS. MARA: Mr. Kringle looks like a very nice old man and I don’t see why you have to keep persecuting him!
MR. MARA: I’m not persecuting him, I’m prosecuting him!
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
Jose Pablo
Oct 24 2022 at 12:30pm
https://fakenous.net/?p=2729
Here a very thorough and well-structured Michael Huemer’s reflection on the topic.
Spoiler alert: wokeism lacks some of the critical characteristics of a religion. Namely: it lacks “supernaturalism” and the “organization” of a proper church.
Comments are closed.