My perspective on so-called "wokeness" and its possible effect on elections (several years ago, known as "identity politics"?) may differ a bit from yours. In my view, being less prejudiced is one goal, winning elections is another goal, and sometimes—hopefully—they can overlap in the sense that working toward one goal supports the other. Still, those two activities don't primarily attempt to achieve each other. They're not purely instrumental to each other's goals; they are their own goals. Sometimes we (or others) fear they're in significant conflict, which is, indeed, a major life challenge. We oughtn't allow ourselves to be prejudiced, nor ought we allow ourselves to lose elections—we have different reasons for believing so, and we suffer different consequences when we fail, as they are substantially different topics, even though we might hope we can lean on links between them and reap the rewards when we do both successfully (namely, reduce prejudice and win elections).
So, I'm struggling to get a handle on the argument in this opinion article. I wrote a long response, over a thousand words, and am trying to boil it down.
Specific to this article, my basic question is: A sentence like "a left-wing politician who cuts himself or herself off from relatively unpopular ideas on the far left of the curve will be able to win many more votes on his or her right" is plainly about winning elections. But a sentence like "the cost of making a mistake can be catastrophic" seems to be about personal social consequences for someone who makes a rude comment, not the catastrophe of losing an election. So the topic of the article seems to shift. And when you note that "around one in hundred people are on the autism spectrum and have difficulty recognizing and understanding social cues at the best of times," that seems to be taking a focus contrary to the one you took at the beginning of the article. Are you saying, ultimately, that we should pay attention to the 1% at both far ends of the curve, or that we should focus on the 98% in the middle? Isn't there a way to do both? Does recognizing the existence of autistic people count as a simple acknowledgment of a fact of human diversity, or is it an embarrassing instance of "wokeness" insofar as it's letting a statistical minority drive political debate? This is a bit of a devil's advocate question, which may sound annoying, for which I apologize. I'm chopping at the logic with my own axe, and my axe might be blunt and could always be sharpened, but I hope my question might be somewhat helpful, considered at least rhetorically as reader feedback.
To be clear on my own position, I believe we do have to give serious weight to demographics who are statistical minorities, simply as a matter of ethics, human rights, and compassion. People matter, period. This entails that people from marginalized groups matter. The risk of losing an election for stating that moral truth doesn't negate the truth.
And, as a ray of hope, depending how you mathematically calculate political support, small demographics can be strategically helpful for winning elections—I am thinking of this because of an article by Tim Andersen that I read yesterday. It depends what kind of coalition you hope to build and how your coalition works. Some people are primarily self-interested, while others won't stand for throwing anyone else under the bus, for example. If you ask me to consider the feelings and experiences of autistic people, and I do, even though I am not autistic (or at least not on the 1% far end of the spectrum to which you're referring), this is an example of how we can actually help build support for each other. Whether one praises it as "inclusion" or derides it as "wokeness," it might serve a positive political function, and it might lead to more solidarity than divisiveness. It is possible. https://medium.com/@andersentda/the-math-shows-how-differences-between-republicans-and-democrats-create-an-unstable-american-67463de77876
Interesting comment! Thanks for sharing. I think one idea that went unstated in the article is that it will obviously be very bad for minorities if the populist right wins elections on identity issues. I explore this in another post (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/cynical-politicians-and-tribal-identities?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct&s=r). Also, I am trying to draw a contrast between two layers of "wokeness." The core is just pure inclusiveness and is obviously a noble cause. The second layer - setting new rules that can seem arbitrary - is more problematic. Trying to ban universities from serving sushi would be a good example (https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-36804155). Left-wing politicians who want to win elections against the populist right can win easy points by saying: "Of course, university canteens should be able to serve sushi!" I'm sure this will resonate with the general public and undermine attacks from the right. The art will be to craft these statements in a way that doesn't hurt inclusivity. But, anyway, I'm pleased my article made you think. Job done!
Oh, I see—you were thinking of something like: arguments about cultural appropriation, specifically, relatively minor and concrete examples (like whether the cafeteria sushi tastes the way Mom used to make it), as opposed to more significant offenses or abstract issues.
I wonder if the imagery of "layers" caused me to miss your point. If you assume that everyone begins with core issues (e.g. a concern for human rights) and that their conversation devolves into arguments over food, then, yes, I understand how "cafeteria sushi" is a "second layer" of debate. But the situation might be flipped: Maybe these 18-year-old college students have never had a real adult conversation about cultural diversity, and, now that they're away from home, "cafeteria sushi" is suddenly an argument that makes sense to them. It's their Philosophy 101 example of cultural appropriation. It's not the core, but it's their entry point to find the core. It's not a "layer" so much as a "door." It's not "second" but rather "first." Some of them will go on to broaden their horizons and learn about more urgent, profound issues. So they actually do have to argue about sushi as part of their education—and we, too, may have to continue to argue about specific everyday examples because real-life examples keep us tethered to the world. If I can't discuss "this plastic bag of processed snacks," what am I talking about when I say "globalization"? It might not be a second, disposable layer surrounding the core concept; it might be a small part of the actual thing, or at least a pathway to it.
I do see your closing point. Yes, an effective political strategy for the left-wing might be to say: "Calm down, we're not going to take away your sushi." (Except insofar as phrasing it as a negative is reinforcing the image, like "don't think of a polar bear," and even acknowledging a cafeteria sushi debate reinforces the idea that it is an urgent debate of national importance.) What might be more effective—I'm just tossing out an idea—is to pivot: "Teenagers are really bright and attuned, and I think what those young students are concerned about is dignity and inclusion and the cultural diversity that makes this country great. Sushi is delicious, everyone deserves great sushi. We're going to work together on the issues that matter to this country, like education, which I know you also care about." etc.
That's a topic for PR-type communication, which is not my specialty.
On a philosophical level, I think a cafeteria sushi debate can indeed be a valid, worthwhile discussion, although the process is only important for the 18-year-olds in that cafeteria who are hashing out the conceptual nuances of "cultural appropriation" for the first time (and simultaneously making their first adult choices about what they want to eat). I don't even expect their discussion to have an "outcome" that yields a set of rules that are kept entirely hidden from everyone else, and, when revealed, would seem arbitrary to us. I imagine the value of the discussion for them is more process-oriented.
And all of us are responsible, too, for having our own discussions and processes to interpret our own lives. We're always going to clash with people who have learned to argue in different styles about different values. To me, it seems the real cultural divide isn't whether it's "OK" or "not OK" for the cafeteria to serve sushi—there's no hidden set of arbitrary answers to be found—but rather, the divide is between people who understand how to dive into a conversation about cultural appropriation and those who have never dipped their toe into that conceptual space.
All excellent points. My concern with "wokeness" is that its proponents often try to shut down debates in a fairly shrill way. So, I can see that wearing indigenous headresses at a music festival might be a little crass, but serving inauthentic sushi in a cafeteria is probably fine for most people. Where do we draw the line? That would be an excellent and interesting debate! We're on the same page that the process of discussing it would be worthwhile.
I gave an example back in October 2021 (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/social-media-mobs?s=w). A group campaigned to get MIT to cancel a talk on climate change by a geophysics professor. The reason? He said that university appointments should be based on merit. Now, we can agree or disagree on that. It really doesn't matter very much! But who decided that this view is no longer acceptable? Or that people who defend that position shouldn't be allowed to speak on other subjects?
In the end, MIT caved and cancelled the talk. Situations like this are the perfect opportunity for centre-left politicians to talk about agreeing to differ and the importance of open debate. This is likely to resonate with voters more than closing ranks with the activists. "I believe in the importance of diversity, personally, but we should never lose sight of the fact that merit is also important. Others might disagree on how we approach this issue. That is fine. A little honest debate is healthy. Let's not make the mistake of trying to shut down people who disagree with us."
Doing the opposite - defending the activists - is likely to backfire badly. Ordinary voters will feel uncomfortable about it. Firebrand activists on the right can weave a narrative about university snobs trying to control your opinions. And if they then win the next election, it would put any talk of diversity or equity back a decade.
Yes, it is important that the far-right doesn't win elections. I don't know how center-left politicians should make outreach to voters, not only because that language crafting isn't my skillset, but because I don't know how many swing voters there are and if they are swung by polite, rational discussion or by something else entirely (e.g., whoever graduated from the same university, whoever lowers property taxes, etc.). Also, if a politician does make the effort to make a polite, rational comment, the media would have to cover that "story" and would have to stop covering other inflammatory gossipy things, or else the public doesn't know that the politician is actually a reasonable human being.
Re: ethical and lifestyle decisions that are adjacent to diversity topics, we can't pre-decide every possible choice we might confront, so I suppose we all decide as we go along. Sometimes we attempt consistency; other times, we try to grow and change. Personally, I — going on five years now — live in a country that is not the one I grew up in, where I've had to learn and speak a new language so that I can do anything whatsoever, so for me the question poses itself more frequently as "assimilation" than "appropriation." I'm not "stealing" the food at the grocery store (culturally or otherwise), I'm literally buying it, and the efforts I make are toward being able to navigate basic conversations and fit in so that people are not inconvenienced by me presenting as an awkward foreigner. It is a matter of understanding and empathy, as well as diversity and respect, but seen from another perspective. I'm going to be a foreigner every minute of my life no matter what I do, so I don't feel there's a real-life line of "mine"/"not mine" — it's all "not mine" — but rather a question of whether I am able, willing, and interested to participate in something, and if I can participate in a way that's convenient to others. Like not holding up the entire bus because I don't know the rules of the bus, don't recognize the neighborhood, can't count coins, and can't understand what anyone's saying (hypothetically). That is my work to do. That I would not board the bus in a culturally inappropriate costume is levels of obvious to me. (It wouldn't help me achieve my goals, for one thing.) I am working with my own set of perspectives, goals, and possible choices. Other people have very different lives so they ask themselves very different questions and make radically different decisions.
A friend with personal experience of the autism spectrum emailed. I won't paste the whole email to protect her identity. She says this: "Your piece today on triangulation was interesting... On autism, I don't 100% agree with your premise (though I can see it would apply to *some* people on the spectrum)... [She shares a personal anecdote about how social justice can appeal to people who are drawn to black-and-white thinking]... Anecdotally, it seems that extremism can also make sense to people on the spectrum due to the black & white thinking and also a desire for rules."
My perspective on so-called "wokeness" and its possible effect on elections (several years ago, known as "identity politics"?) may differ a bit from yours. In my view, being less prejudiced is one goal, winning elections is another goal, and sometimes—hopefully—they can overlap in the sense that working toward one goal supports the other. Still, those two activities don't primarily attempt to achieve each other. They're not purely instrumental to each other's goals; they are their own goals. Sometimes we (or others) fear they're in significant conflict, which is, indeed, a major life challenge. We oughtn't allow ourselves to be prejudiced, nor ought we allow ourselves to lose elections—we have different reasons for believing so, and we suffer different consequences when we fail, as they are substantially different topics, even though we might hope we can lean on links between them and reap the rewards when we do both successfully (namely, reduce prejudice and win elections).
So, I'm struggling to get a handle on the argument in this opinion article. I wrote a long response, over a thousand words, and am trying to boil it down.
Specific to this article, my basic question is: A sentence like "a left-wing politician who cuts himself or herself off from relatively unpopular ideas on the far left of the curve will be able to win many more votes on his or her right" is plainly about winning elections. But a sentence like "the cost of making a mistake can be catastrophic" seems to be about personal social consequences for someone who makes a rude comment, not the catastrophe of losing an election. So the topic of the article seems to shift. And when you note that "around one in hundred people are on the autism spectrum and have difficulty recognizing and understanding social cues at the best of times," that seems to be taking a focus contrary to the one you took at the beginning of the article. Are you saying, ultimately, that we should pay attention to the 1% at both far ends of the curve, or that we should focus on the 98% in the middle? Isn't there a way to do both? Does recognizing the existence of autistic people count as a simple acknowledgment of a fact of human diversity, or is it an embarrassing instance of "wokeness" insofar as it's letting a statistical minority drive political debate? This is a bit of a devil's advocate question, which may sound annoying, for which I apologize. I'm chopping at the logic with my own axe, and my axe might be blunt and could always be sharpened, but I hope my question might be somewhat helpful, considered at least rhetorically as reader feedback.
To be clear on my own position, I believe we do have to give serious weight to demographics who are statistical minorities, simply as a matter of ethics, human rights, and compassion. People matter, period. This entails that people from marginalized groups matter. The risk of losing an election for stating that moral truth doesn't negate the truth.
And, as a ray of hope, depending how you mathematically calculate political support, small demographics can be strategically helpful for winning elections—I am thinking of this because of an article by Tim Andersen that I read yesterday. It depends what kind of coalition you hope to build and how your coalition works. Some people are primarily self-interested, while others won't stand for throwing anyone else under the bus, for example. If you ask me to consider the feelings and experiences of autistic people, and I do, even though I am not autistic (or at least not on the 1% far end of the spectrum to which you're referring), this is an example of how we can actually help build support for each other. Whether one praises it as "inclusion" or derides it as "wokeness," it might serve a positive political function, and it might lead to more solidarity than divisiveness. It is possible. https://medium.com/@andersentda/the-math-shows-how-differences-between-republicans-and-democrats-create-an-unstable-american-67463de77876
Interesting comment! Thanks for sharing. I think one idea that went unstated in the article is that it will obviously be very bad for minorities if the populist right wins elections on identity issues. I explore this in another post (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/cynical-politicians-and-tribal-identities?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct&s=r). Also, I am trying to draw a contrast between two layers of "wokeness." The core is just pure inclusiveness and is obviously a noble cause. The second layer - setting new rules that can seem arbitrary - is more problematic. Trying to ban universities from serving sushi would be a good example (https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-36804155). Left-wing politicians who want to win elections against the populist right can win easy points by saying: "Of course, university canteens should be able to serve sushi!" I'm sure this will resonate with the general public and undermine attacks from the right. The art will be to craft these statements in a way that doesn't hurt inclusivity. But, anyway, I'm pleased my article made you think. Job done!
Oh, I see—you were thinking of something like: arguments about cultural appropriation, specifically, relatively minor and concrete examples (like whether the cafeteria sushi tastes the way Mom used to make it), as opposed to more significant offenses or abstract issues.
I wonder if the imagery of "layers" caused me to miss your point. If you assume that everyone begins with core issues (e.g. a concern for human rights) and that their conversation devolves into arguments over food, then, yes, I understand how "cafeteria sushi" is a "second layer" of debate. But the situation might be flipped: Maybe these 18-year-old college students have never had a real adult conversation about cultural diversity, and, now that they're away from home, "cafeteria sushi" is suddenly an argument that makes sense to them. It's their Philosophy 101 example of cultural appropriation. It's not the core, but it's their entry point to find the core. It's not a "layer" so much as a "door." It's not "second" but rather "first." Some of them will go on to broaden their horizons and learn about more urgent, profound issues. So they actually do have to argue about sushi as part of their education—and we, too, may have to continue to argue about specific everyday examples because real-life examples keep us tethered to the world. If I can't discuss "this plastic bag of processed snacks," what am I talking about when I say "globalization"? It might not be a second, disposable layer surrounding the core concept; it might be a small part of the actual thing, or at least a pathway to it.
I do see your closing point. Yes, an effective political strategy for the left-wing might be to say: "Calm down, we're not going to take away your sushi." (Except insofar as phrasing it as a negative is reinforcing the image, like "don't think of a polar bear," and even acknowledging a cafeteria sushi debate reinforces the idea that it is an urgent debate of national importance.) What might be more effective—I'm just tossing out an idea—is to pivot: "Teenagers are really bright and attuned, and I think what those young students are concerned about is dignity and inclusion and the cultural diversity that makes this country great. Sushi is delicious, everyone deserves great sushi. We're going to work together on the issues that matter to this country, like education, which I know you also care about." etc.
That's a topic for PR-type communication, which is not my specialty.
On a philosophical level, I think a cafeteria sushi debate can indeed be a valid, worthwhile discussion, although the process is only important for the 18-year-olds in that cafeteria who are hashing out the conceptual nuances of "cultural appropriation" for the first time (and simultaneously making their first adult choices about what they want to eat). I don't even expect their discussion to have an "outcome" that yields a set of rules that are kept entirely hidden from everyone else, and, when revealed, would seem arbitrary to us. I imagine the value of the discussion for them is more process-oriented.
And all of us are responsible, too, for having our own discussions and processes to interpret our own lives. We're always going to clash with people who have learned to argue in different styles about different values. To me, it seems the real cultural divide isn't whether it's "OK" or "not OK" for the cafeteria to serve sushi—there's no hidden set of arbitrary answers to be found—but rather, the divide is between people who understand how to dive into a conversation about cultural appropriation and those who have never dipped their toe into that conceptual space.
All excellent points. My concern with "wokeness" is that its proponents often try to shut down debates in a fairly shrill way. So, I can see that wearing indigenous headresses at a music festival might be a little crass, but serving inauthentic sushi in a cafeteria is probably fine for most people. Where do we draw the line? That would be an excellent and interesting debate! We're on the same page that the process of discussing it would be worthwhile.
I gave an example back in October 2021 (https://sharpenyouraxe.substack.com/p/social-media-mobs?s=w). A group campaigned to get MIT to cancel a talk on climate change by a geophysics professor. The reason? He said that university appointments should be based on merit. Now, we can agree or disagree on that. It really doesn't matter very much! But who decided that this view is no longer acceptable? Or that people who defend that position shouldn't be allowed to speak on other subjects?
In the end, MIT caved and cancelled the talk. Situations like this are the perfect opportunity for centre-left politicians to talk about agreeing to differ and the importance of open debate. This is likely to resonate with voters more than closing ranks with the activists. "I believe in the importance of diversity, personally, but we should never lose sight of the fact that merit is also important. Others might disagree on how we approach this issue. That is fine. A little honest debate is healthy. Let's not make the mistake of trying to shut down people who disagree with us."
Doing the opposite - defending the activists - is likely to backfire badly. Ordinary voters will feel uncomfortable about it. Firebrand activists on the right can weave a narrative about university snobs trying to control your opinions. And if they then win the next election, it would put any talk of diversity or equity back a decade.
Yes, it is important that the far-right doesn't win elections. I don't know how center-left politicians should make outreach to voters, not only because that language crafting isn't my skillset, but because I don't know how many swing voters there are and if they are swung by polite, rational discussion or by something else entirely (e.g., whoever graduated from the same university, whoever lowers property taxes, etc.). Also, if a politician does make the effort to make a polite, rational comment, the media would have to cover that "story" and would have to stop covering other inflammatory gossipy things, or else the public doesn't know that the politician is actually a reasonable human being.
Re: ethical and lifestyle decisions that are adjacent to diversity topics, we can't pre-decide every possible choice we might confront, so I suppose we all decide as we go along. Sometimes we attempt consistency; other times, we try to grow and change. Personally, I — going on five years now — live in a country that is not the one I grew up in, where I've had to learn and speak a new language so that I can do anything whatsoever, so for me the question poses itself more frequently as "assimilation" than "appropriation." I'm not "stealing" the food at the grocery store (culturally or otherwise), I'm literally buying it, and the efforts I make are toward being able to navigate basic conversations and fit in so that people are not inconvenienced by me presenting as an awkward foreigner. It is a matter of understanding and empathy, as well as diversity and respect, but seen from another perspective. I'm going to be a foreigner every minute of my life no matter what I do, so I don't feel there's a real-life line of "mine"/"not mine" — it's all "not mine" — but rather a question of whether I am able, willing, and interested to participate in something, and if I can participate in a way that's convenient to others. Like not holding up the entire bus because I don't know the rules of the bus, don't recognize the neighborhood, can't count coins, and can't understand what anyone's saying (hypothetically). That is my work to do. That I would not board the bus in a culturally inappropriate costume is levels of obvious to me. (It wouldn't help me achieve my goals, for one thing.) I am working with my own set of perspectives, goals, and possible choices. Other people have very different lives so they ask themselves very different questions and make radically different decisions.
A friend with personal experience of the autism spectrum emailed. I won't paste the whole email to protect her identity. She says this: "Your piece today on triangulation was interesting... On autism, I don't 100% agree with your premise (though I can see it would apply to *some* people on the spectrum)... [She shares a personal anecdote about how social justice can appeal to people who are drawn to black-and-white thinking]... Anecdotally, it seems that extremism can also make sense to people on the spectrum due to the black & white thinking and also a desire for rules."