One of the less charming features of the woke movement is its vocal age prejudice. In conversation, believers have repeatedly appealed to my age and their youth to gain argumentative advantage.
I’m tempted, admittedly, to respond in kind. In reality, the young have less insight on political and social issues than their elders. The young themselves agree:
Who has the greatest insight on political and social issues?
— Bryan Caplan (@bryan_caplan) September 7, 2021
In your personal experience, at what age do people attain MAXIMUM insight on social, political, and economic issues?
— Bryan Caplan (@bryan_caplan) February 26, 2020
But per Dale Carnegie, I recognize the futility of insulting people into agreeing with me, however true and relevant the insults may be. What I’d rather challenge, in this case, is the premise that the woke movement has even developed a novel, young worldview.
Yes, its intellectual decorations are novel. Ten years ago, I never heard anyone talk about “microaggressions” or “privilege.” The substance, however, is almost exactly what teachers, textbooks, and the media told me back in the 1980s.
Namely: The sole reason non-whites and females are less conventionally successful is because white males have been treating them so unfairly for centuries. The Beckerian view that market forces strongly check discrimination was never taught – or even mentioned – in school when I was growing up. For income, the party line was clear: All observed white/non-white and male/female earnings gaps are unjustified by productivity. For other forms of success, the party line equivocated between, “White males haven’t disproportionately contributed to science, technology, and culture” and “This disproportionate contribution solely reflects white male unfairness.” And of course, teachers, textbooks, and the media aggressively overlooked Asian and Jewish success even in the face of blatant prejudice.*
This is no hyperbole, and I grew up in moderate Reagan country.
If this worldview has been riding high since the 80s or even earlier, what’s changed? Zeal. When I was a kid, these dogmas received constant lip service, but few took them seriously in daily life. It was like going to a liberal Lutheran church: Yes, the Bible is the word of God during the Sunday service, but the rest of the week we’re not going to worry about what the Good Book says or whether our words and deeds are consistent with the text.
Nowadays, about 5% of the population have become part-time fundamentalist preachers of the dogmas of my youth. And they punch above weight because our latter-day clergy are urging people to live up to the ideology our society has treated as Gospel for as long as we can remember.
Yes, you could say that the modern woke movement’s focus on “systemic” injustice as opposed to garden-variety injustice is a major intellectual advance. Indeed, I’ve heard it said. My response: At least the version of this doctrine taught in the 80s was falsifiable. Hardly anyone ever tried falsifying it, but it was falsifiable in principle. The modern version, in contrast, is a mere fanatical tautology. When anything can be “systemic” or “structural” oppression, nothing is.
Bottom line: Woke is a revival movement. Like almost all fundamentalist religious crusades, it presumes the truth of long-standing dogmas, then invigorates them with youthful enthusiasm. If the revivalists took their ad hominem arguments against older minds seriously, they would face severe cognitive dissonance, because it is the older generation that handed them their Gospel.
* The main detail that’s changed over time: In the 1980s, teachers, textbooks, and (to a lesser extent) the media still talked about America’s long-standing mistreatment of Catholics and Jews – and almost never mentioned gays. Now Catholics and perhaps even Jews are supposed to be perpetrators of injustice rather than its victims.
HT: Nathaniel Bechhofer, but blame him for nothing I’ve said.
READER COMMENTS
TGGP
Sep 22 2021 at 10:18am
Normally a hat-tip in a blog post means the thing being linked to was found via that which was tipped. What does it mean in this context, since it’s not a link post?
TMC
Sep 22 2021 at 10:40am
I compare the woke of today to the hippies of the 70s.
Major difference is that the hippies were fighting for expanded personal freedoms where the woke are the opposite.
Floccina
Sep 22 2021 at 11:57am
I love Bryan’s use of the word conventionally here. People aspire to different things. There are many areas of success.
Phil H
Sep 22 2021 at 8:21pm
Slowly but surely, we’re getting there: woke is not new, check. Woke has something to do with age, check. As BC gets older the whole rest of the world has changed (anyone else spot the slight lack of parsimony in that claim?)…
This is all because woke is not new; in fact it barely even exists. It’s just the label attached to the latest round of the old decrying the (X) of the young.
Brandon Berg
Sep 22 2021 at 10:57pm
When you put it that way, “The Great Awokening” is even more apt.
nobody.really
Sep 23 2021 at 3:41am
“[John Hughes]’s tenderly protective feelings toward the young reached Holden Caulfield levels, and in fact he was not above recycling The Catcher in the Rye in movie form. ‘When you grow up, your heart dies,’ declares one of the miscreants [in The Breakfast Club] to the rest. The movie’s obsession with how unfeeling adults are was greeted as remarkably original by those who were Molly Ringwald’s age at the time, but of course it wasn’t. [Director John] Hughes was giving this cohort its say, but what the young say is often what the young have always said. They, being young, don’t know this.”
Lauren Weiner (2015)
nobody.really
Sep 23 2021 at 6:39am
1: Do the Woke act like fundamentalists?
Mmmmmmaybe.
In The Battle for God (2000), Karen Armstrong studies the rise of the fundamentalist movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She argues that fundamentalism does not reflect a reversion to old patterns of thought and action. Rather, it is an aversive reaction to modernity, wherein people invent new ways of living–but they seek to lend credence to their new modes of living by citing the authority of old texts.
In this sense, perhaps we could say that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a fundamentalist. Rebelling against the discrimination he observed in contemporary society, he exhorted Americans to live up to the terms of the Declaration of Independence saying “All Men are Created Equal.” But, of course, this exhortation was not intended to lead people to return to the behaviors and attitudes of 1776; rather it was intended to lead people to invent new behaviors and attitudes premised on this ancient text.
In contrast, the hippie movement, while it likewise rejected modernity, did not seem especially fundamentalist. First, it was not explicitly based on a given text (although there are plenty of texts one might cite to support it). Moreover, it seems as if the participants regarded themselves as overtly transgressive, not conformist. In contrast to prevailing norms, hippies emphasized the centrality of nature; the harms of industrialization; the importance of the whole person, body and mind; and activities such as amateur music and singing, creative dress, communal outings involving hiking and camping, and free love. Admittedly, in rejecting modernity, some hippies also expressed enthusiasm for “older, simpler ways” and traditional folk songs–dynamics with an explicit retroactive focus. But this rejection of tradition is ironic, given that hippies aped rather closely the German Wandervogel (“wandering bird”) youth movement of the late 1800s-early 1900s–which itself reflected a string of countercultural movements dating back to Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics of Ancient Greece. In short, hippies followed a rather conventional pattern for rebelling against convention.
While Caplan may want to disparage the Woke as acting as fundamentalists, I think he merely argues that they act conventionally.
2: I share Caplan’s suspicion when reform movements follow a familiar narrative format especially neatly. The story of human sin, atonement, and redemption has great emotional appeal–which means that people may want to embrace it even when the story lacks intellectual appeal. I see this narrative in discussions about prejudice and environmentalism, and my defenses go up.
3. That said, I have found some useful ideas among Woke arguments.
A: The idea of “microaggressions” emphasizes the economic principle of scarcity and budgets. Classical models of human behavior suggest that once a human develops a capacity to cope with a problem, that person basically becomes immune to the problem. In contrast, the idea of “microaggressions” emphasizes that the energy used to cope with problems–even small problems–is a finite resource, and people with depleted energy will cope less well with problems as they arise. We can sneer at Woke people when they observe that it is easier to stay on your diet when you’re well rested than when you’re exhausted, but plenty of research supports this conclusion. And if you live in a world where you systematically confront more problems than other people, it is reasonable to conclude that you will more prone to energy depletion, and will therefore find yourself at a disadvantage relative to people who do not face the same systemic supply of problems.
B: Likewise, the concept of “privilege” also reflects the concept of scarcity. While all animals seem to have some natural/natal instincts, humans are born ignorant of many things, and education requires expenditure of scarce resources. Thus, we tend to learn about things that we, or our parents/society, regards as most salient for us; in other respects, we remain ignorant–perhaps “rationally ignorant.”
Your role in society will influence the kinds of education people find salient for you. Everyone will want to learn about how best to preserve their own lives. For kings, this may involve organizing military campaigns and diplomacy. For commoners, this may involve learning how to defer to kings. Members of each group may be rationally ignorant of things that are common knowledge to the other. That is, they have the privilege of not having to learn things that members of the other group feel compelled to learn–and on the basis of this ignorance, may simply assume that other people share their own knowledge and circumstances.
As I use the term, privilege refers to ignorance, not status; lower-status people can exhibit privilege too. For example, in the film Big, a child named Josh abruptly finds himself in an adult body, adult job, and adult relationship, and he struggles with these challenges. His childhood friend Billy berates him for violating childhood norms such as coming to Billy’s birthday party. Thought arguably the child Billy has lower status than the adult Josh, Billy is privileged to not have to understand the stresses and constraints that adults face, and on the basis of this ignorance Billy simply assumes that Josh still lives under the same circumstances that Billy does. Likewise, in the film Educating Rita a working-class woman pursues a college education, and gets chided by here working-class peers because she no longer has time to hang out at the pub. Although she is arguably pursuing higher social status, her working-class peers are privileged to not have to understand the time commitment that higher education requires, and from this basis of ignorance they judge her as coldly aloof and elitist.
The Woke sometimes speak about arbitrary choices to switch between broad and narrow frames of reference. Caplan states, “the party line equivocated between, ‘White males haven’t disproportionately contributed to science, technology, and culture’ and ‘This disproportionate contribution solely reflects white male unfairness.'” As far as I know, every human male is, himself, a product of a female. And even if females contribute nothing to science, technology, and culture other than the production of males, why would we not attribute those contributions to females, too? Likewise, males disproportionately contribute to crime and war–and in seeking to understand the behaviors of these males, people will often investigate the circumstances of their upbringing. That is, they may seek to identify how parents influence their kids’ behavior. More generally, the advantage of the Enlightenment/libertarian model that regards all humans as atomistic, having no necessary relationships to their fellow human beings, is its simplicity; this model lends itself to easy application. But the model is inaccurate as a matter of fact. Thus, in choosing to distinguish one thing from another, we inevitably make somewhat arbitrary choices and hope those choices don’t bias our conclusions too heavily. But in a world where women do a disproportionate share of child-rearing, to analyze the accomplishments of white men while simultaneously ignoring the accomplishments of the women who created them–that is, the choice to use a narrow frame of analysis rather than a broader one–suggests rather obvious bias.
Caplan states that “When I was a kid, these dogmas received constant lip service….” Good for Caplan. When I was a kid, I don’t recall being exposed to ideas such as microaggressions, privilege, and broad/narrow frames of reference, so I can’t make similar claims. But to the extent that Caplan is assuming, based on his ignorance of other people’s circumstances, that everyone received the same kind of exposure to these concepts that he received, perhaps Caplan is speaking on the basis of privilege. I don’t regard this as a moral failing. But I regard it as an intellectual one.
Dave Mackie
Sep 24 2021 at 8:08am
What a FINE article by Caplin and response by, well, nobody, really. Found this via Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit who I’ve read daily for at least 10 years.
Thanks to you both for taking the time to write these posts. Brilliant reads and a full day’s worth of thought!
nobody.really
Sep 24 2021 at 2:38pm
Kind of you to say!
I’d like to respond in kind–but somehow “nobody.really liked your contribution to this discussion” doesn’t strike the right tone….
Knut P. Heen
Sep 24 2021 at 8:44am
I feel privileged in one sense. I cannot blame lack of success on discrimination. That is really liberating. Imagine walking around thinking you cannot achieve success due to discrimination. There is simply nothing you can do in such a situation, hence you do nothing either. It is a psychological trap.
nobody.really
Sep 24 2021 at 11:45am
I have offered the idea that privilege is a kind of ignorance. At the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, the nature of the “unknown unknowns” is that you don’t know you don’t know them. Thus, the privileged would not FEEL privileged.
1: Imagine walking around thinking you cannot flap your arms and fly due to gravity. There is simply nothing you can do in such a situation, hence you do nothing either. Whether you regard this situation as a psychological trap or not may depend upon whether you regard the premise as accurate or not. Let us not attribute to psychology matters that are created by circumstance.
2: That said, perhaps the opposite is true? The musical Hamilton depicts a struggle between the title character and Aaron Burr. Burr inherits his father’s wealth and status–and lives in perpetual fear of damaging them through an unguarded word or deed. He envies Hamilton’s brash freedom–a freedom born of having nothing to lose.
So perhaps, if you are born with an excuse for failure, you feel less constrained in taking risks? And if you’re born with a heavy expectation of success, you feel constrained to follow the most conservative path to that destination?
JK Brown
Sep 24 2021 at 10:55am
More and more, I find von Mises discussion of the pre-WWI German Youth Movement in his 1945 ‘Bureaucracy’ to give insights into what we are seeing in the ‘woke’ movement. Undisciplined thrashing out at a future in the bureaucracy.
It’s a bit concerning because those German youth, those that survived the trenches, went on to be dutiful slaves for Hitler and then as von Mises predicts, Stalin. Why the Final Solution continued apace as Germany collapsed, is largely due to these youth who filled the German bureaucracy.
Most modern college students seen little future except as buried in some bureaucracy. They don’t study fields that give them power to make/force change. They learn to beseech, to beg by protest, for others, those with capabilities, “to do something about….”. Or for those in government to enslave others to do these “somethings”. The 1960s youth movement was much the same, but found the outlet through the tech revolution. Suddenly, the young could do make change without so much as a by your leave to IBM, or for a time the government bureaucrats.
Comments are closed.