The ongoing war has clearly led to a shuffling of the subjects that are going through national public debate. This is not peculiarly surprising: this is the nature of breakthrough events. War itself has become a priority: as a phenomenon so unique (in the immediate vicinity of our borders, taking into account more than 7 last decades), it has become significant, due to the fact that it affects life in its most basic, tangible manifestations.
In the context woke culture, which we are going to talk about here, is very crucial due to the fact that the current situation shows that in crisis situations, the most fundamental distinctions are being made, relating to categories specified as nation and tribe, like their own and alien, like biological survival, like moral choices related to force and betrayal. With us, of course, it is inactive playing match poker, but our east neighbors have already been completely straight victimized by this experience.
So it may seem – and most likely here and there – that war exposes the abstractity of themes raised by woke, their separation from a simple, harsh reality marked by the first criteria referred to above. From this perspective, problems from American campuses (such as "institutional racism", "ableism", "fatophobia", or "cultural abuse") appear to be fantasies of bored middle-class young people from large-town, faded with aged dormitories, building subversive theories at university cathedrals.
Aggravation woke Because of the circumstances that temporarily brought us closer to simple patriotism (including myths of brave heroes, defending emblems and flags), it would be premature, however. Suffice to say that the culture of awakening penetrates besides into the war narrative, vide issues discussed in completely mainstream media, specified as transgender refugees or the situation of "non-heteronormative" soldiers. Moreover, the planet that will come after the war (if it is limited to conventional means) will be a planet in which culture woke will be placed unambiguously on the side of the large Good (i.e. the West, America, Europe, democracy, etc.). However, the position of moral conservatism will be much little apparent or straight suspicious: as it is expected to be close to the topos of "Russian miru".
In fact, the pre-war and at the same time completely recent, the "culture of awakening" has already caused confusion not only among the conservative right, but besides in the centre liberal camp. It is adequate to remind that the texts on the subject – and these critical texts, sometimes penetrating – appeared even in the pages of the Liberal Culture. The Scriptures have consecrated the phenomenon woke No. 684 in which Wojciech Engelking explored parallels between the radicalism of the current current and the fanatical request for purity of thought and deeds by the Protestant days of reformation. Let's make an extended quote here:
"Whether the blame for which it becomes before the tribunal of social media is large or small, or whether it is about expressing doubts about the claims of transgender persons or many years of rape, the punishment in the form of cancellation is the same. Ba: Often, a change did not gotta happen: it is adequate that individual suspects that it has occurred, and the individual excluded draws suspicions that it may have existed. The ranking of acts (and suspicions) in the criminal hierarchy of offences, transgressions, crimes – does not exist. Hence, the perversion in woke resembles a spiritual category: sin. However, it reminds her in an intriguing way, due to the fact that besides not 1 in which sin is divided into – speaking for Saint Augustine – crimina levia and crimina letalia. Rather, it awakens the association with specified reasoning misconceptions as Dr. Marcin did shortly after the acceptance of priestly ordination, erstwhile Anfechtung (internal struggle) was carrying it, and which was later utilized in the Puritan movement. [...] According to the demands of the woke, to the Last judgement – an event erstwhile inconsistency is not even a milligram; it will be “yes, yes, no, no” – you do not gotta wait. In its secular version, it continues here and now and is as eternal as it is now--made to forge its postulates not by building a political agenda compatible with them, but by condemning practices which contradict these demands[1]It’s okay. ”
It seems that it is the liberals who best sense the subtle difference between the contemporary woke and the classical liberalism of the center (or alternatively such, colored with democracy, constitution and a pinch of social sensitivity, we mean here alternatively than that of the libertarian core). due to the fact that this classical liberalism promised a bliss in which it would yet be possible to live privateAnd styles or models of private life will become a substance of individual choice. Problems raised on the public agora were to mention only to the narrow area in which there could be a conflict of individuals. Out of discourse, including through legal mechanisms, there were to be only apparent extremism, which was clearly disrupting this order. Yet, even in this substance there was no unanimity: to this day, uncommon specimens of liberals can be found sufficiently consistent or intellectually honest to request that even “extremists” be left alone as long as they are confined to words or reside on their private property.
In fact, there is any logic in this fresh attitude, the attitude of awakening, manifested both in the riots initiated by Black Lives Matter, and in the gradual but very systematic appropriation of language, e.g. by activists from sexual minorities. This is primarily about the rule of prevention: in opposition to the rule of repression understood as reacting to already past and at the same time direct violations of liberal standards. For the liberal concept of tolerance focused on this celebrated relation between “my fist” and “the end of your nose”. This, of course, hampered, and sometimes even paralysed, progress: it allowed the unrighteous (i.e. sanfedistists, fundamentalists, ultrases, reactionaries, clerics) to explain that they operate only in a given sphere of freedom, without attacking anyone physically and without explicitly forbidding anyone.
Woke He wants to put an end to this freedom, realizing that, in fact, liberalism and modernity have not been invented for this purpose, authentic give traditionalists freedom to preach obscurantism (as 1 of the available worldview options). Rather, the essence was to isolate the reaction from the mainstream in any way or gradually convince it to progress. However, if a conservative discourse unexpectedly wins a place in public debate, it will necessarily halt progressive secularisation or blurring of “pressive” categories specified as sex. In another words, it could occur, triumph or at least besides slow fade into conservative ostracism, accepted voluntarily by a majority of the population and not (formally) straight aggressive towards minorities.
This is something we cannot afford in the optics of waking up. Therefore, it is assumed that the fishy is anyone whose views are located outside the narrow spectrum of admissibility, on an ongoing basis determined by self-proclaimed censors of the arm woke culture. Suspected of going from words to deeds to coercion and violence. Finally, all his activity is, will or at least be marked by his prejudices. This can be explained by the live activity of the "awakened" in the field doxx and cancellation targeted victims, e.g. in the workplace. This is even the case erstwhile this work does not affect politics – and erstwhile there is no evidence that the views of the alleged homophobe, racist, or misogina have a bearing on his relation with his colleagues and clients. All it takes is the hazard that this can happen – even in the future. In fact, one more time there is simply a Puritan and Parareligious feature woke: Prevention is actually just a pretext. It is more crucial to punish the wrongdoers themselves. This is how ritual cleansing occurs, to confirm that This one's no longer with us..
On the same basis as woke culture the discrimination between what is lost public,And for what private. This discrimination becomes Boomer, inadequacy grandpa. any reason is that the very nature of the net and social media imposes (as if) this fresh perspective. But in reality, it's up to us what we do with technology. The relation between discussions conducted after hours, in peculiar on a private profile, and another aspects of life (such as work or activity in a hobby club) is not obvious. Yet he becomes so in the position of the “awakened”.
The scope of what is political and moral is constantly expanding, which must undoubtedly frighten those liberals who would inactive like to hold the right to strogon and devolaya, but already know that they will not be able to: due to the fact that the choice between meat and veganism is not morally and ideologically neutral.
Paradoxically woke culture It thus returns to the discourse which was to vanish in liberalism: namely the question of what is nonsubjective fact and who He's just right.. announcement how it defines the "culture of awakening" mentioned Engelking:
‘... the voke rules are mostly informal. But whoever is not an abnegat in modern cultural wars can name a few. So: Obsessive focus on emphasizing social differences resulting from belonging to a devalorized group (racial, sexual, gender, especially trans people). So, extremist towards these empathy groups. So: a immense dislike of elites (defined financially but not only) and groups traditionally valorized (white, heterosexual, male).”
Significant that criterion is not In fact, “minority” in itself or “marginality” of any kind. This would be (at least formally) a classically liberal take, a take based on the presumption that everyone (except possibly declared fans of the artist from Braunau am Inn) should have the right to talk out and that those of whom are less, who are weaker should be under peculiar protection.
In fact, however, woke culture It is not intended to defend Catholic traditionalists or (real or alleged) white supremacists. These and akin groups are inherently privileged, dominant and oppressive. This is the case, even if at a given place and time they represent a margin, they appear weakened and outcast. In this sense, it resembles Marxist knowing of the proletariat. Proletariat is not due to the fact that he is mediocre and tormented. This is simply a secondary and yet unnecessary thing: what is primitive is that the bourgeois (capitalist) takes the added value of the proletarian. Similarly, bourgeois (and besides the areaer or landowner) does not save the fact that he is bankrupt or has mediocre assets. The way it operates (or even the origin by which it inherits certain privileges, no substance how it then uses them) places it as an antagonist of the working class. On a akin basis, the third-world maoists (whose tiny representation was loud in our political underground more than a decade ago) recognized that the full population of the 3rd planet was now an authentic proletariat (excluding the Comprador bourgeoisie). For this reason, a fine small entrepreneur from Laos or Haiti is more proletarian than a white homeless man from Paris.
The same here. In the concept of a ‘awakening culture’, a homosexual, black academic lecturer with a good salary, surviving in greenhouse conditions and publishing books translated into many languages, is Repressed: whereas white trash After a public simple school, voting for Trump and surviving in a caravan, it's a website Oppressive. For this reason, as we know, it is not possible, for example, to "reverse racism". There are possible certain hateful (but understandable) behaviors of blacks towards whites, but racism can only be 1 way, due to the fact that by definition it contains a component system, a system it assumes to favour white men (the most white, efficient, heterosexual men of the mediate class).
This shows us that the discussion, which so frequently translates into Polish media, is barren. There are endless disputes about this, Who's who? he discriminated about who was the victim in a given situation (or promoters of the “Red Marys”, or possibly their opponents from Catholic circles), with the word: who started, which is an eternal question from the school corridor or simply a sandbox. In fact, however, the debate should be rather different: and this is due to the way the page sets it woke. Namely, it should be a discussion about who He's right. In a world-view dispute. In another words, which values, models of life and customs should be considered fundamental, objectively actual and good, and which – are both incorrect and excluded. And then, if we were to be symmetrical towards the "wake-ups"—disfellowshipped overall, publically and privately, in words, deeds, thoughts, and neglects. Indeed, the second have a crucial function in communicative woke. Sinning against “inclusiveness” can be done not only by what is said but besides by silence. small is the case, 1 can besides sin through an unproven effort to build its own version of Inclusion, if it is accused of, for example, patriarchism and condescension towards oppressed groups.
It is not essential to add that fewer people would like to have specified a debate: the liberal-left side does not see its need, assuming in advance that the conservative side cannot be treated as an eligible partner; and the right would most likely be afraid of putting the substance in specified a unambiguous way. She would be afraid to admit that she wants to lead due to the fact that she has an nonsubjective right, not just an "right", intended at most to be implemented in her territory.
In fact, therefore, woke culture is not, unlike classical liberalism, another effort to organize society so about Everyone You lived. as well as possible and so that “we don’t kill each other.” The point is different: woke He wants to build a reasonably circumstantial culture, with very strict standards of what is good and what is bad; and what is good should apply overall: publically and privately, from cabinet policy to language, diet or dress.
Of course, building this fresh culture woke He's getting active in any paradoxes. External observers appear to be contradictory, and at best as inconsistency and manifestations of intellectual dishonesty, but they appear to be appearances. erstwhile we have established that tolerance (and so de facto acceptance) can concern only those models of life, those micronarrations that are opposition to the nonsubjective evil of Western, Christian and Post-Christian conservatism, coupled with mostly understood capitalism, then it will not be inconsistency to perceive to sexual minorities' voices and at the same time close the mouth of a "repressive" spiritual minority. Dishonesty will only appear if the spokesperson for the “awakening” is nevertheless assured of his impartiality and the universality of his tolerance. However, specified an image is only presented in the most mainstream media, where woke is sold as a natural conclusion with (generally accepted) liberal vision. And even as a “obvious obvious”, “the average attitude of a decent man” or a set of facts “scientificly stated”. It is enough, however, to go deeper, to the philosophical foundations, to read declarations openly admitting that there is of course no symmetry between good and evil. In this sense wokeculture She could honorably shake hands with the popes of the day of ultramontanism.
A separate issue is, of course, that it is not always easy to find which identity is oppressive and which is repressed. Therefore, doubts as to whether conservative (sometimes fundamentalist) cultural minorities should be allowed to execute a violent patriarchy in their home, or whether it would be better to intervene in their interior affairs (which in turn would be a form of colonialism and paternalism). all now and then it turns out that this journalist, politician, or anyone else, was late to update the current communicative and committed fatal mistake. He meant well, but he did not see that he had no right to talk at all (e.g. as a white man), or he misjudged the relation of power between conflicted groups.
As to the sources and foundations of this current, he decided to look at them, among others, James Lindsay, mathematician, philosopher, writer and author of a kind of encyclopedia of language Vocabulismknown as New Discourses: Translations from the Wokish[3]. The author's ambition is to analyse how “awaken” they usage the most simple level, that is, language, to push their ideas. The author appears here, not from the position of a conservative. On the contrary, the starting point is alternatively any form of classical liberalism, embedded as much in discipline as in certain common sense assumptions, essential for its cultivation, and frequently rejected by postmodernism: specified as the fact that reality exists and is mostly known. By the way, intercourse woke for discipline is twofold: it is useful erstwhile justified by circumstantial demands woke (e.g. erstwhile it allegedly demonstrates sex relativity or the existence of many equal "sexual orientations", but can be rejected wherever its conclusions are not consistent with Critical theory and where it can be attributed to the hidden usage of xenophobic, man-centric, racist, transphobic assumptions, etc.
Similarly paradoxical is the fact that woke On the 1 hand, it declares its conflict against racial prejudice and the emancipation of the individual, and on the another hand, with its obsession with origin, group affiliation, inherited privileges or burdens, it goes back almost to pre-modern tribal times. Antiracism does not in any way mean abolishing the categories of race: it is alternatively about recognizing the unfair hierarchy of races and ethnos and reversing it or at least indefinitely correcting it. This alignment is besides problematic, whether it concerns race or, for example, orientation or gender. Already openly theoreticians woke admit that they do not want nominal equality of opportunity, understood in the legal sense. That would be ordinary. equalityWhile their ambition is Equity, authentic equality was created due to the fact that not only formal legal barriers but besides any another "unfair" differentiation factors were abolished. Including, for example, factors related to inheritance of assets and competences resulting from a more or little complex past of a given group and society as a whole. According to Black Lives Matter, the liberation of slaves, or even the abolition of segregation in the South, is an empty gesture, if there is no equalization of the injuries of respective centuries, to the kind of compensation that white people are guilty of. They are guilty by the very fact that their whiteness makes them heirs to oppressive structures and privileges. Indeed, they should not only quit adequate to make equality, but adequate to bear the additional penalty. In this light these expiative litigants of celebrities and politicians become understandable, admitting humbly that – as white, educated, etc. – not only are they not allowed more, but they are allowed Less. Less allowed for men, at least erstwhile they talk in any way about women. little slow “dominating religions” – and so on.
Lindsay, mentioned above, has set himself the nonsubjective of classifying and describing the main concepts that are dealt with in the wake-up culture. There are many of them: the author has written down respective 100 of them, although only any have been developed for the time being. Some, as it seems, are small, but crucial in substance. We so have detailed discussions of specified terms as: white (participation: by default bias, possibly subconscious, leading to the preference of white, heteronormative men), acting white (when a colored person, above all a black person, adopts models of white life: in good religion or cynically, thus betraying his own ethnos), Cancel culture, cisnormality, critical theory, deconstruction (in the sense of Derrida and another postmodernists), epistemic oppression, false consciousness, fatphobia, hegemony, inclusion, intersecration, microaggression, narrative, colorality (people of color), social construct, white brittleness (white fragiality). The fact that the task has not yet been completed and is constantly developing should not be surprising. For all password is simply a minima. specified an essay provides a precise description of how a given concept is utilized in culture woke And how we're dealing with manipulation.
To the core woke Lindsay recognizes the alleged critical theory, which he frequently simply calls Theory. The base is frequently referred to here as the Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse), i.e. Marxist or Post-Marksist. For an equally legitimate origin woke However, Lindsay besides acknowledges postmodernism as being broadly understood: which means, in particular, Derrida and Foucault's writings, namely the explanation of deconstruction or structuralism. Of course, you can be tempted to make any more precise distinctions, and Lindsay himself does not avoid them:
"The concept of "Critical Theory" frequently creates a misunderstanding, as it may mention to both Frankfurt School, including György Lukács, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse [...], as well as akin but different critical social theories, specified as those whose roots are in postmodernism; for example, postcolonial theory, queer theory, critical race theory, intersective feminism, disability investigation [disability studies] or obesity investigation [fat studies] [...]"
The detailed classification of the relation between this "cultural Marxism" of the Frankfurt School and postmodernism (which is simply a name that fewer people consider as self-descriptive) is not crucial. surely with respect to woke not so innovative, but inactive a sensible explanation about "substitute proletariat", which, alternatively of workers, would become blacks, women, sexual minorities, etc. Besides, even the concept of false consciousness was transferred to these fresh marginalized groups. Again, we have a paradox here because, at the same time, the most reliable description of discrimination is considered lived experience, individual experience, inherently subjective things. What if this experience was against the explanation of networks of oppression and dominance? We'd most likely be dealing with acting white or another form, whether it is simply a deficiency of awareness, or a submission of force from dominant groups.
These films are Marxist, although the selection of this "substitution proletariat" seems to be marked by postmodern counterculture. This is manifested in this love for all that is or at least may appear to be “rebellious”, “disgusting” (in the eyes of the alleged conservative establishment), “marginalized”. Hence interest not only in black or women, but besides in mentally ill, lumpenproletariatSubculture, queer environment. In each of these cases, we are dealing with a gnostic (and only seemingly Christian of the spirit) transformation and transcendence in which what is rejected is to become the beginning of a fresh world. A planet not so much without discrimination, but alternatively focused on continuous recognition, vulnerability and deconstruction. So as usual, the revolution can only accelerate as we progress.
The text was published in the 26th issue of National Policy.
FOT: wikipedia.commons
[1]W. Engelking, Woke, or Liberal Reformation, Liberal Culture 2022, 15 February, No 684.
[2]T. Sawchuk, Suddenly everything became moral, Liberal Culture, 2022, 26 April, No 641.
[3]Translations from the Wokish – fresh Discourses, https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/ (accessed: 20.04.2022).
