Is Wokeism Civil Religion? | A Debate with Then & Now
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- A response to @ThenNow 's video. Is wokeism civil religion? What might be the other side of wokeism that doesn't get seen?
#Wokeism #Woke #CivilReligion
Is It Possible to Get Identity Right? (please go to 15:23-22:53 for "the general peer") :
• Is It Possible to Get ...
Paper on "The General Peer":
sci-hub.se/htt...
Then & Now's video (Is Wokeism Civil Religion?):
• Is Wokeism Civil Relig...
Reference:
Hans-Magnus Enzensberger: “Constituents of a Theory of the Media” in John Thornton Caldwell (ed.), Electronic Media and Technoculture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2000.
Hans-Georg Moeller, “The General Peer: The Public Sphere in the Age of Profilicity (Profile-based Identity).” Kybernetes 50: 4 (2021). 994-1003.
Jean Baudrillard: “Requiem for the Media” in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis: Telos, 1981.
Related videos:
Wokeism:
• Wokeism
Jordan Peterson: The Mirror of Wokeism:
• Jordan Peterson: The M...
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.
Prof. Moeller and his colleague Prof. Paul J. D'Ambrosio wrote a book on how "profilicity" works.
You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity (2021):
cup.columbia.e...
(If you buy this book, or any other by Hans-Georg Moeller, from the Columbia University Press website, please use the promo code CUP20 and you should get a 20% discount.)
Thank you, Dr. Moeller, I very much enjoyed this and appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'm now looking forward to reading some Enzensberger!
I have a couple of quick points:
I think the relationship between religion, ritual, and secularism is interesting, and the lines can often be blurred. For example, secular politics is often ritualistic (especially here in the UK with the royals and our odd customs) but not particularly religious. I think there would be many avenues to explore - the rituals of scientists, or even the way we secularly retain phrases like 'jesus christ! or 'oh my god!'
My main question to you, though (if you have the time, of course!) would be: Do you think we can ever escape the conditions structures impose upon us? I think, primarily, like a structuralist of kinds, so I largely agree with you. But I think we have to believe an independent space for moral action is possible, and I think its largely grounded in (as Zygmunt Bauman and Levinas argue) an ethical concern for the immediate other. What happens when injustice is suddenly immediately visible and ubiquitous on phone screens (ie the broadening of the public sphere)? I agree that the conditions are that produce the media, talking points, etc are, by and large, material and stracutural, but is there any possibility of recognizing moral concerns, at all? I think about Bauman's take on the Holocaust: as conditioned and distanced from the Other as German soldiers were by the structures they were raised in, they still felt immense difficultly - sickness, distress, skepticism etc - when presented with flesh and blood they were ordered to kill.
My own position (naive and nascent, admittedly), is that we are largely structurally conditioned but largely retain a kind of moral independence that's grounded in the type of empathy and moral sentiments David Hume discussed.
A large question, I know(!), but one I'm particularly interested in at the moment.
Many thanks! (Lewis)
edit: I just reread this and I seem to have a fondness for the word 'largely' today, which, largely, I regret.
(especially would like to revoke the use of 'largely' before 'a kind of moral independence' as its more ambiguous than that)
Morals have and always will ironically be more of a hindrence to positive social change than a help. Sure it might feel good to say "I care about the more aspect of politics" but how useful is mere compassion? It is often impotent at best (it can't be said that the vast majority of slave revolts did anything to overthrow the system, only changes in the means of production did that) or an outright obstacle that needs to be overcome ("This idealogy of voluntarism obscures the fundamental destruction of rights. It's not an accident that poverty grows deeper as our charitable responses to it multiply. The growth of kindness and the decline of justice are intimately intertwined."- Janet Poppendieck)
In a very daoist way if you're truly motived to change the world for the better (a tendency that is rare & often what looks like it is just a case of prestige chasing) than seeking to directly improve the lives of individual people or groups will often only result in projects that lack staying power. "In doing battle, you achieve victory by irregular means."- Sun Tzu
So what's the answer? In the case of achieving the supposed goals of wokism you need a classed-focused state run by the class that isn't self-defeating, ala the working class. Divergence in ethnicity & culture in a large society history shows requires a morally neutral pragmatist state to balance interests without adopting a mission of its own aside from the survival and maintenance of the state itself, something the imperialist white-supremacist states developed by capitalism are the antithesis of (see historical materialism/dialectics). This of course restricts communal projects to the realm of necessary material needs for a community like security and infrastructure. In turn all the side effects of a collapsing society (spectacle, violent tribalism, etcetera) shall wither away.
War (classed-based, racial, whatever) won't end when humanity collectively realizes the immortality of it, rather they can only do this once war has become obsolete.
I think it's funny that neither one of these channels are based in the US. lol
@@gh0s1wav the vast majority of Americans have niether the self awareness nor education needed to formulate these arguments so probability dictated that this would be the case
@@HxH2011DRA I feel like your take is over reliant on technology for change. I know you never mention technology but the structures you talk about are basically technologies that we use for human governance. Also the fact that you end your response in "obsolete" hints at the technological reliance.
I like the idea "the medium is the message" a lot but I believe that you forget that people use mediums in different ways. Your take reminds me a lot of environmental determinism ie. humans are only shaped by their environment. The main criticism of this approach is that humans continually prove that we can use our environments in different ways and even in a way "overcome" our environment such as to live in places that are completely uninhabitable to humans, such as the living facilities (albeit habitable for only a certain amount of time per year) in Antarctica.
I'd like to use the phrase: "If all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail." (If all you have is a certain technology (structure) you will look at the world in a certain way.)
I believe what most people think when they hear this phrase is that the person with the hammer will hammer down the nails he sees in the world but a hammer can also pull nails out. You can bend nails into odd shapes. You can even completely flatten a nail if you see fit.
So saying that war will only stop when it is "obsolete" misses the point that people can use seemingly peaceful technologies (structures) as instruments of war. Also by proposing that war will become "obsolete" proposes that war serves a singular function but if you think about it even for a second there are multiple functions that war can enable.
I believe that it is important to understand how and why technology influences our actions but I believe it's not all powerful.
Also when you talk about morality I believe you may miss the point that the goal (at least in the daoist point of view) is not to get rid of morals all together but to realize different people have different morals and to respect these different ways of living. Of course this is complicated when you have a society full of people with drastically different morals who interact with each other. I believe that a sort of group morality is necessary in a highly socialized system (although I would like to be proven wrong on that) but as an individual it may not be the greatest idea to conform to the groups morals, just like how it is not ideal for the group to conform to yours.
Massive respect for sharing the paper using sci-hub link 😂😂
Technically he has a freedom to provide his paper to whomever he wants, so he could just as well put it on any sharing site and provide the link.
Great shout-out to Adolph Reed. These concepts of capitalist appropriation of wokeism are critical.
Absolutely massive point. Without considering the hegemonic influence of capitalism, the rest of the conversation is irrelevant.
Out of all the channels I watch on youtube, this channel has the best audience of general peers!
This back and forth is so wholesome… “first of all my name is properly pronounced…”
These thinkers are AUTHENTIC debate bros 😘
In regards to the neoliberal version of Wokism I thought the Netflix series Bridgerton offered an interesting 'unconscious picture' of this by constructing a egalitarian fantasy world where racial division did not exist and yet all the oppressive class structures remained perfectly intact. I am left wondering how something like anti-racist colonialism might function in such a world.
Well. 0
The ultimate liberal aim, which is distopic in it's outcome is to have total state control over the public social affairs, and total private social freedom.
This is precisely what I think is going. Wokeism is fundamentally depoliticizing in the sense that it is not concerned with fundamentally changing oppressive power structures, but rather the changing of power relations within that system.
@@andreioarcea7784 state control of "public social affairs"? Professional football, Disney, Facebook, Twitter, schools, universities, hospitals? "Private social" cocktail parties, sex lives, family life, family reunions, church, amateur sports?
@@johnstewart7025 I don't think I understand what you mean if you answer me with multiple questions made up of a series of words and binoms relating to everyday life. I think liberalism started against state and now is against both state and private economic actors, which is paradoxical, come to think of. They support individualism and private economic endevours, but end up at the end of the cicle with instilling regulations on the private economic sector, while being the government that imposes the regulations. Again, on the social plane, they recognize moral pluralism and disagreements in political life and the rejection of quests for certainty and truth, they think people are failable and morally corrupt and corruptible, and while practicing this system of self-limitation, they end up impossing things like equality of outcome, demanding, exercising the opposite of stoic restraint, paradoxically.
I saw the Then & Now video and I thought it was a good critique even If I liked your video too.
Really amazing that you responded! Keep on the debate with good thought-out arguments!
The word "general peer" struck me immediately as accurate. It's what I think of when I look at online discussion of popular music. There I see distinct groups who talk with each other and often agree with each other largely and for the remaining part are very strict in what they allow to be debatable. Of course I do not pretend that I'm not part of this myself, but I generally keep my distance from these groups and notice how much I'm going with their flow when I engage with their narrative more, even though at the start I found them comically unaware of their own herd mentality. You either choose a group, or don't participate at all, or become a social paria. The online discussion is not so free as people think; there is a lot of friction - so to say - going on. Anyway, the word "general peer" finally gave me a word for this phenomenon. I hope I didn't interpret it too superficially.
Reddit.
Love the videos, have a quick bit of feedback for the producer :) I think when color correcting, you can up the contrast (or lower the mids/gamma) on the bits when the Professor is talking - will make things look a bit crisper. Far from a professional myself, so do play around with things yourself of course. The cutting has been getting quite good in recent videos!
Surprised to see this channel commenting here. Thanks for the cooking guides.
Omg I literally used your satay beef fried rice recipe yesterday!! So cool to see you here
Two of my favorite channels in conversation with each other. Amazing
Chad Cooking Demystified
wild crossover
Imagine sitting in this guy's college course. I would just love to hear the engaging discussions that probably take place on a daily basis in his classroom. I'm almost certain that the students don't want to leave at the end of class. I love the effort to present your ideas in a transparent way. The way you dismantle the capitalist motives of the very platform that you're on is also very awesome. I always walk away from one of your videos with a sense of contemplation about the affair of things. Just a fan showing some love. Please don't stop making videos. Also you should consider making a Patreon. This is the first channel that I ever looked at that made me wonder if there was a way to support it. It's not very ofen that I find a smaller (in the grand scheme of things because you still have many thousands of views) content creator where I feel like my contribution would go a long way toward amplifying their voice.
A clear and inviting video. One of the credits to HGM is that he makes it easy to disagree with him. That's in itself a healthy contrast to Wokeism.
Completely agree - also really enjoying your contributions sir
@@ordersoahc Thanks Michael - we are all swimming around in a broken public sphere, but the more people swim around responsibly, the better.
@@VladVexler Wokeism is just a made up term, that means nothing. The right wing makes up terms like "Woke", and "Cancel Culture" in order to play the victim.
Just discovered your channel sir, courtesy of Vlad Vexler (which I discovered courtesy of John Campbell). Thank god a few points of light remain in our darkening public discourse. I appreciate your taking youtube seriously AND respectfully.
This debate and discussion about Wokeism has been more honest and well thought out than practically any other I've seen on this platform. Much respect due to both channels.
I'd like to see both Professor Moeller and Lewis (Then & Now) address channels and videos that seem to operate in bad faith, especially some lesser known channels like Ryan Chapman.
Wokeism is just a made up term, created by the right wing. You can't debate something that does not exist.
Very nice conversation between two very serious channel. Thank you guys very much for doing the work in such a calm, researched, and positive manner.
Kneeling hasn’t always been linked to protesting racial injustice in the modern era. Originally Kaepernick sat during the national anthem which caused a wave of criticism saying he was disrespecting the flag and country. He actually took these initial remarks very seriously and reached out to veteran green beret Nate Boyer for guidance. During their meeting Kaepernick asked if the critics were right and if there was a better way to protest without his message being misunderstood.
It was then Boyer who recommended kneeling/genuflecting to the flag to signify respect to country but also a sign of prayer to make the world better. So at least in this specific case, the religious imagery was closer linked to American patriotism, then an ideology based around wokeism.
But it was appropriated and heavily comoditized by wokeism (ex: Nike ads), which is the important part; and what actually speaks about wokeism itself.
@@Mkeyvillarreal Yeah because it’s easier for corporations to make meaningless virtue signaling instead of making a meaningful improvement to the world.
@@l4ndst4nder i agree, the important fact for me here is that the woke movement openly embraced this comoditization instead of reacting against it, and became part of it in the process.
@@Mkeyvillarreal That’s more 80% of the DNC and media. The economic left is more skeptical of corporations, and while they believe people are being systematically oppressed, talk is meaningless unless you do something.
@@l4ndst4nder i also agree. But it has to be said that the most powerful voices en current leftist public discourse are (sadly) not those of the economic left; but those of the identitarian left. It hurts class issues because it replaces them with a comoditized version of identity issues.
good faith and polite debate! holy moly. so happy it's like seeing the light!
Finally a philosophy channel I can relax and learn from. When you get swamped by woketivists and alt right places, this place feels like treasure island.
You are so right. I am so addicted. Thank you for that warning and your content!
happy to be part of your general peer here! please make another video about this notion. It seems like a fresh point of view of how we socialize today, and it is a confusing socialization to be 'just a number', as it seems you are hinting at, while still be able to write what I think and even be heard as an individual...
When you have to pass through sci-hub to share your own article... I did not expect the sci-hub link 😅
copyright = owner right
Kneeling as a gesture may originally be secular in origin. It is a recognition of political superiority to kneel before your lord or king and the physical dichotomy is apparent. This is appropriated into religion where it is a gesture of respect to an invisible supernatural deity. Its reappropriation back into secular protest seems to change its meaning, where it is intended as an act of defiance, perhaps borrowing from the MLK or Gandhi non-violent ethos. I think its power to inspire and infuriate comes from this. An act of defiance disgused as an act of respect. To object to it casts the objector automatically in the role of suppressor.
perhaps, but given political submission often was implicitly or explicitly linked to religious submission, the causality would be hard to trace.
love the way you approach making content on youtube, most creators at most mention their motivation for making a video; but rarely also address the limitations they encountered in the process of making it.
its so simple yet really informative, mentioning that it is essentially impossible to express something in a way that cannot be misunderstood in some way; im sure many people who watch those types of videos (even many creators) arent even aware of it, they just watch and form an opinion without considering that they could potentially just be wrong about what the creator of the video tried to convey and end up arguing against something that the creator doesnt even believe.
you simply mentioning this, with just one sentence, really solid advice for anyone who is not aware of that, and at the same time, knowing that you are, reminds anyone (like me) to not only focus on what you say, but also consider what your thoughtprocess behind it is.
which is key to understanding what you say, rather than just hearing it.
possibly the single best first minute of any response video i have ever seen, had to come down here and write this; gonna watch the video you respond to, then possibly rewatch whatever video of yours he responded to and then the other 20 minutes of this one ;)
i already know it will be awesome though, like all your vids you made
Professor Muller is the best example of what we need in this day and age: people who enjoy having discussions and honestly don't give a fuck about political games.
Accept what you don't like, so you can do what you like better: that's what I'm getting from this channel, and that's the message people need to hear.
Yes, getting beyond 'us vs them'
"Accept what you don't like, so you can do what you like better"
What do you mean by that? What would that look like irl?
I do enjoy HGM's videos, they are fresh, esp. considering the stale current discourse. I'm also getting his latest book. However to expect he does not give a fuck about political games is naive. His moves are just much more subtle than that the average Western culture warrior would notice. For example you will not hear from him any criticism or even analysis on what is going on in China or the political rulers there, for the obvious reason that he is a professor there and thus can't afford this. Expect in this field bullshit and whataboutism instead, albeit very verbose one.
He has no idea what he is talking about, he sounds like another Jordan Peterson. People kneel during sporting event to show support for racial injustice and people kneel at church... that means people that people kneel during sporting event are religious.....LMAO. This guy has no idea of the historic context, just see's basic similarities, so they must be the same? Just Bizarre
@@bipslone8880 Did you seriously just compare and equate this genuine philosopher with the pseudo-intellectual Peterson? LMAO. Not even close, my friend. Maybe you should actually watch this video above and criticize and argue the actual points that were made in the video rather than the straw man that you made up in your head. 🤣🤣
Massive respect for this channel
In the UK this summer, taking the knee was certainly not "universally acclaimed in the media" response was broadly divided down the usual left/right side.
True
I love to see reasoned, thoughtful debate like this on UA-cam. These responses were a good example of J. S. Mill's precept that a good debate brings both sides closer to the truth.
I like the characterization of Jordan Peterson's views better because he's a specific person whose statements can be quoted. The notion of "wokeism" is still too vague for me. I can't agree about taking a knee, however, because the playing of the Star Spangled Banner at a sporting event already has all the elements of a civil religion. People stand at attention, face the flag, and often put their hands over their hearts and sing. What Colin Kapernick was trying to do was to make a gesture that would emphasize difference without being sacrilegious in context.
I like your point of the kneeing emphasizing difference without being sacrilegious. Maybe it is just me, but always considered that in a way the kneeling protest only makes sense IF YOU KNOW THE ETIQUETE for the anthem (standing, hand over chest) and is only offensive and radical if you do. Compared with the black power salute equivalent that most of the world then understood because it was internationally understood as a radical and leftist action (so it was not just a sacrilegious action but one communicating a point in itself), I see that many people outside a US or similar historically republican civil religious context (I would say maybe the only other country who quite understands that sort of etiquete and would find kneeling for the anthem incredibly offensive is maybe France, and even there most athletes listening to the anthem just stand waiting for the anthem, without hand over chest, and sing along with it or don't). I see that people doing the knee protest outside the US are mostly doing it because the US movement is, but it draws no similar sacrilegious reaction from the local audience.
Doesn't the fact they are strategically usurping an act of civil religion with a woke substitute precisely demonstrate how wokeism is trying to become the new civil religion itself?
@@AerysBat Wokeism isn't a person. It's useless to try to answer that without more specificity about who "they" are.
I'm about new to this civil religion stuff so I may be mistaken, but aren't nationalism and patriotism also civil religions? The acts of standing up for the national anthems, putting hands over hearts etc does seem to make sense as nationalism is a civil religion. It seems to have slowly taken the place of Christianity in uniting and dividing people slowly throughout modern Western history. It seems to have slowly started replacing Christianity as a civil religion (although they need not always be in contrast and Christianity still serves as one of the major civil religions).
Again, I may be speaking crap here cuz I just accidentally stumbled upon here and I'm not well versed in philosophy and stuff.
@@anonymous_4276 you are mostly right but nationalism would be a tad bit to far but a civil religion would basically follow the main tenets of a religion like a leader symbols a book, songs and other literature as well as a unifying belief about ones self and their views on foreigners or people who break these rules a simplified and international version would be the handshake of the pre-covid era when most people would find you weird and dangerous to an extent if you just stared at their open hand and leave them feeling uncomfortable
I quite like the description of Buadrillard's observations as being accurate and yet exaggerated. Like the not-quite-contradiction within the concept of hyperreality by which it is (almost) defined.
In other words, he is wrong.
@@MrCmon113 No, that would be an exaggeration.
Religion is politics and politics is religion. I’m a hard atheist and I reject the psychological effects religion has on people. But I have come to realise that politics and almost any ideology can be contorted into a religion, running on the same mind sets and arguments but manifesting itself differently. Hence wokeism is definitely an extreme view of left wing politics, so much now, that it’s become a religion. Doesn’t mean it can’t work the other way of the spectrum, but for now, this is the big one.
Thanks for your videos and please keep making them! They are the most non-partisan analysis and discussion of current topics that I've come across and are very valuable.
One thing Then and Now mentioned briefly that I would have liked to see you touch on was that critiques of "wokeism" give ammunition to those wishing to criticise the social causes it champions. "This Academic DEMOLISHES Wokeism" etc.
This is definitely not to say that criticism or analysis of "wokeism" should be taboo or something, just that you might want to be aware and careful of bad actors taking you out of context.
I think the unsubtle understanding of the algorithm, which puts this very measured and partial critique of wokeism in the same category as 'JP *DESTROYS* WOKE LIBTARDS', may be for the best; it might be overoptimistic, but there's a chance someone leaning alt-Right may actually listen to it and realise that the 'general peer' of online leftism is not entirely hegemonic and reflexive.
This is an absolutely excellent response video!
Just here simulating a response within a constrained structure to promote a profile within a capitalist media channel.
Have have two main critiques of this, and both have to do with the examples you’ve provided.
1. Marxist rhetoric feels hollow if it does not include the voices of those oppressed in ways that are not specifically capitalist in nature. I do believe that many liberals are calling for “more diverse oppressors” rather than a fundamental relational change between people and production, but I do not believe that a millionaire using their platform to call attention to racism is by necessity pro capitalism. Even Marx himself admitted that members of all classes can feel sympathy with the cause. While Kaepernick and others could perhaps be putting their accumulated resources to better use through leftist mutual aid networks, this seems to me to be a separate critique. It is an unfortunate fact also that the rich and powerful are in the best position to shine a light on injustice by nature of them having more access to the media.
2. Kneeling does not need to be religious appropriation. I had no notion that it was considered a religious behavior before this video. I thought 2 things about it.
A. Kneeling specifically breaks the behavior of standing under the status quo in a way that draws attention
B. There was a story that Kaepernick asked a military member what a respectful way to protest the flag would be and followed it. While this is again it’s own problem due to things like American imperialism, I think it’s clear that those who knelt were not necessarily intending to mirror religious behavior, even if the soldier they talked to felt it was.
What other connotations do you have with kneeling? Religious contexts and proposing to a woman are litterally the only circumstances i associate with this gesture?
The Injustice here is denying racial and cultural differences. Which account for a lot, but not all of course.
@@alexanderleuchte5132 I wasn't really raised traditionally religious. Do you kneel at church or during some other practice?
@@owenspalding2045
Kneeling is commonly done in Christianity and has a long tradition all over Europe in religious rituals - when praying at the alter, when recieving communion, when being Knighted, when being Crowned by the clergy, when prostrating yourself before the victor of battle, when swearing allegiance.
I'm actually kind of surprised that kneeling before the flag is considered disrespectful in the US, given that prostrating yourself in front of the flag like that in any other socio-cultural and historical context would usual indicate prostration before the flag, not an objection or rejection.
@@owenspalding2045 You kneel in church and some kneel even when praying in private. Aside from catholicism, muslims for example kneel to pray too and even drive the gesture further by bowing down to symbolize their devotion
What’s difficult to watch about this video is that the author clearly spent considerable time trying to understand and conceptualize a movement based on Civil Rights.
Players in America didn’t spontaneously start taking a knee to draw attention to quality in our country. It was first started by Colin Kaepernick, Quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers in the 2010s.
He wanted to make a statement during the national anthem that would draw attention to the plight of millions of Americans, Who are subject to sometimes unfair treatment and not being protected by the constitution.
Caln Kaepernick spoke to a long snapper for the Seattle Seahawks who was just drafted and was a former member of the US special forces. Colin Kaepernick asked this football player X special forces personnel how they could make a statement during the national anthem without being disrespectful to US service men and women .
The long snapper replied by telling him that in the military we take a knee during the national anthem to show respect to fallen comrades.
After this conversation Colin Kaepernick began taking any during national anthems and created quite the controversy.
The right wing narrative is that he is doing it because he hates America and is promoting communism.
Even though there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate either of these claims. The right tends to project🤷♂️
I object to the use of the word “religion” to describe an ideology not involving the divine. The dilution of the word “religion” renders it meaningless and stifles discussions about actual religion.
What of religions that lack any sort of divine concept? In my mind, if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it at the very least can create a discussion surrounding how similarly it behaves like a duck.
It doesn't stifle conversation in my mind, but it certainly makes some uncomfortable to consider the idea that civil ideologies they adhere too are simply modern replacements for the great faiths.
@@calmexit6483 Believing in something divine or “supernatural” is the defining characteristic of religion, as far as I’m concerned.
Many of the replies to your videos highlight that because it shares some elements of religiosity - namely and mainly the actual physical act of taking the knew - wokeism is as morally questionable as religion itself. There's a sort of equivocation. But because a system has some elements of religiosity it shouldn't be equivocated with all others that share these features, nor equivocated with religion itself. Humanism, animal rights, wokeism, - any movement could be argued as having religious characteristics. And of course, it's impossible for them not too - read someone like John Gray who highlights the religiosity in any movement.
Movements should be evaluated on their own moral merit, which requires a incessant interrogation using all moral systems and empirical realities - but they shouldn't be devalued out of hand because they share some religious aspects, nor should they be equivocated.
I would for example also say - so do many scholars - that Nationalsozialismus had a strong "religious" core, would you disagree with that too?
@@alexanderleuchte5132 Movements should be based on their own merit of their empirical and moral realities. The nazi party had some religous-esque rituals yes. This alone doesn't make them morally abhorrent though. Their beliefs and actions - which again - you can interrogate and evaluate are obviously morally abhorrent. But it's also worth noting the nazi party had beliefs that were specious and absurd, like religion (a much harder claim to make for wokeism), like World Ice Theory or their race theory.
@@xazax2641 It's not just the obvious "religous-esque rituals", the whole believe system is more religious than political. It's a transcendentally rootet salvation story of the chosen people under the lead of the messiah fighting and winning the eternal war against evil to fullfil the plan of destiny and to bring paradise on earth.
"Movements should be evaluated on their own moral merit".
This sentence implies there is an objective measurement of morality, which the professor has rebuked in other videos. There is no moral truth, no absolute right or wrong in a cosmic way.
Ein überaus ausführliches Video ! Es würde mich freuen falls sie eventuell ein Video über die Habermas-Rawls Debatte machen könnten. :)
What about you? What do you see in wokeism?
I see a despising opposition the current status quo, and as you always say, as everything really does, even opposition to the neoliberal capitalist order is commodified and co-opted by the neoliberal capitalist order. It might be too optimistic of me, but I don’t think too many people buy the rebranded cooptation of the opposition, a la woke cia officer ad and the infamous Pepsi protest ad. There is no concrete identification of the causes for the social symptoms wokeism opposes in the broad public sphere, but there is also no bitter passive acceptance of it as “that’s just how the world is” as was common a decade ago. I don’t see it as a good tool for analysis and overcoming of the current situation, but I do see it as a progressive moment in the unfolding of the Geist, with its lacks and faults to be eventually overcome through.
Not very sophisticated but my recurring thought is “means to an end”. I’m glad it’s around as a phenomenon insofar as I feel a tangible and positive impact (alongside its downsides as well). Having grown up insulated, the pervasive mindset of “I don’t see color” had to go because all the data shows we clearly DO as a result of growing up and living in our time and place in the historical chain. The 90s fantasy was a universe removed from this link, freed from historical bullshit thanks to capitalism and it’s “bounty”. Perhaps you’re not seeing as much of what I see, that “wokeism” when used as an insult from the right, means in 2021 “communist/socialist/marxist”. There’s a left leaning, even far left leaning assumption of being “woke” built in now because so many people are expanding their minds on capitalism as it intersects with other social problems. I do hope for a future where our identities can be as free and clear as we choose, where “wokeism” isn’t really necessary, but to get there we still need a lot of people to, well wake up!
I hope Endgame would land us somewhere close to your concept of “genuine pretending” where people are aware of their heritage and place in society and genuinely care about it through ACTION, but also not so consumed in their identity or take it too seriously and start causing problems, nationalism etc etc. idk!!
@@benzur3503 You’re referring to a specific phenomenon, ‘interpassivity’.
@@deadboy276 I’m unfamiliar with the term, to which of the things I’ve described does it apply?
Great job! Much needed perspectives as usual. Scholarship at its best.
The technology of "debate" or "discussion" on issues which are controversial also seems to function as an amplifier of antagonism between the general peers of different civil religions (or sub-sects/denominations). This seems to generate group identities which are defined by their opposition to other identities, leading to very bitter civil religious warfare and crusades. Balkanised traditional media and social media bubbles seem to function as the pulpits of these civil religions.
Excellent observation. Just commenting to convey my thanks to u for expressing this. Coz I have lately been disheartened by exactly what u have just said - bcoz as someone who is from a different academic background (I've studied literature) with an intetest in philosophy & theory, I was trying to get some free short lecture or concept discussion type lessons from youtube channels with much enthusiasm, but everyone just gets into a loop of reaction/response videos eventually - which is great for them as they can have direct discussions, I guess - but for me it seems to boil down slightly different interpretations of phrases and concepts (which is bound to happen in fields of academic studies which have a subjective element) that people get fixated on & keep dissecting, in the videos and the comments section, and the youtube debate becomes bigger than the original purpose of the channels (which I presume was discussion of concepts and theories of philosophers & theorists, and not discussion of other youtuber's interpretation of those concepts). And for people like me trying to benefit from free (sort of) lectures, it feels disheartening, coz u r stuck with the same topic for a string of videos with essentially people with different interpretations/perspectives going on further elaborating and illustrating and clearifying their positions, which u know will never get resolved to one single conclusion that statisfies everyone, coz they have different interpretations in the first place.
P.s. I have tried to express myself without using any technical terminology as far as possible, coz I don't want this to start another debate on such debates on youtube. Nonetheless, I know once u put out something on a social forum, u have no control over it & it will take a life of its own.
@@radioactivedetective6876 I’m not trying to be rude or anything but you seem like you have a well rounded mind and an opinionated one. Why don’t you create some videos and share what you believe. See what kind of feedback you would get. I would love to see one.
@@ashtonmilkyway Sorry for the delay... I do not know enough to make videos. I have studied English Literature, and with that one studies a bit of 20th Century "theory" (Fannon, Said, Bhabha, Gramsci, Althuser, the Feminist theorist, Foucault, etc) and gets acquainted with the some concepts of 19th & 20th Century philosophers. Besides, I had history and political science as my minor subjects. Through these subjects I have gathered some surface level understanding of some of the "key" ideas/theories of the big names like Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and the very basic idea of Existentialism. I genuinely hoped to get a better grip on concepts I sort of know. Eventual lesson: youtube isn't the medium for that. Which, to be fair, is sort of the message of the disclaimer of this channel.
The gesture is not universally acclaimed by the media, plenty of British media were critical of the taking of the knee by the England team during the Euro.
A very vocal and mainstream part of the media is, but there are more and more platforms that do not heavily favor that movement and its gestures, you are on one of them by the way, as long as we don't get profilicitized into submission by UA-cam.
and since UA-cam is an American corporation, if it chooses to censor such critic, it will ironically prove that wokeism has American religious if not dogmatic element.
It's interesting, because I can see how the roots of wokeism certainly lie in a 'genuine mass movement for social justice' as Then and Now said, but I completely agree with your analysis of it in context of civil religion. Personally, I think Baudrillard's simulacra provides a nice framework for how such mass movements can gain pseudo-spiritual aspects and twist into something like wokeism. It's almost as if the symbology of religion- the kneeling, reverence, moral perfectitude- was "copied unfaithfully" into the civil culture of American/Western politics, and lost its grounding in the actually spiritual. Now, as a simulacra, it simulates a world in which actions in the public social spheres have the same kinds of ethical impacts and outward context as actions in the religious sphere. Such that people are willing, in their pursuit of social justice, to apply standards of religious and spiritual purity to the social sphere.
Proffesor, would you consider making a video on Occupy Wall Street? I think that was the last movement in America with an actual leftist potential, and its failure led to a disappointment that set the stage for identity politics and wokism to lead "public discourse". I love the General Peer concept also.
More like Wokeism was created to counter act Occupy Wall Street.
It's such a relief to see a channel like this that offers criticism across all corners of the political spectrum that doesn't simultaneously attract extreme right-wingers to the audience.
When I first discovered that this channel made a video criticizing wokeism as a concept, I was afraid that the audience would quickly be flooded with alt-righters, but I'm relieved to find myself in good company among my fellow commenters :)
Keep up the good work!
Please do a video on The General Peer.
Love Baudrillard, didn't expect to see him here
Please don't get too enamored by Baudrillard. Most of what he wrote - and by his own volition he was never a political writer - was sheer and utter bullshit. His central thesis concerns the point that by studying things scientifically we always destroy them. A cursory glance into Roy Bhaskar and Critical Realism would set you right here, but generally the idea that there are no facts about physics', for example, other than what is squeezed through the ontological needle is just plain stupid. Time to forget Mr B, I feel
@@Ba-pb8ul nah, he still has some important insights regarding postmodern culture, should one be a 100% Baudrillardian? No. Should we pick from him useful tools to understand our condition? Yes
@@Ba-pb8ul Bit of a misreading of his philosophy. He never said that there is no physical reality, or no facts about physics, but that we have abolished the metaphysical principle of reality. It would be a more correct portrayal of his idea to say that our reality IS physics and nothing but. Where in past times things tended to aim beyond themselves, today they only aim to be themselves, and that's what physics is to metaphysics. Although he does talk about the irony of scientific inquiry and its unfortunate characteristic to destroy what it studies, that's a minor tip of an otherwise gigantic ice berg. As before, it is about the creation of a simulation in which scientific facts about the world REPLACE the world to the point where you can no longer tell one from the other. But for him, there is no world to begin with. He is a Nietzschean in that sense ``En bas avec tout les hypothèses qui font croire en un monde réell.`` What does he mean then, when he says that metaphysical reality has disappeared, if he doesn't even believe in it to begin with? That's where the roller-coaster ride that is his thought begins. Hot seduction, cold seduction, eternal return, reversibility, all of them attempts at answers to a problematic that very few people have even begun to comprehend. He was right when he said that he is a metaphysician and not a sociologist, and to suggest one forget about him would mean to forget one of the most relevant thinkers for today. Even though he exaggerated a lot, he did so for good reason, all self-aware in the attempt to preempt reality before it manifests. For instance, in ``The Transparency of Evil`` from 1990, he writes about viruses, and the fact that they will one day determine our lives because the once distant domains of life have come so close to each other that immunity is practically nonexistent. One domain infects the other through sheer contiguity. I would think the relevance of that is obvious.
Reducing the American conservative backlash to kneeling as mostly due to religious appropriation is disingenuous.
The backlash was mostly due to having it interrupt their “safe space” of sports that they perceived was free of politics. And also American conservatives don’t like being told that police treat black people differently.
Do you not view it as equally disingenuous to characterize conservatives as knowing police treat black people differently and also dont want to hear it because they agree with it?
This is the most interesting video I have seen in a while
So I've been watching/ reading a lot of Slavoj Žižek. Pairing his views of marxism/Hegelianism and your views of identity and wokeism has majorly influenced my new view of the Left. I don't believe wokeism to be the Left. I feel that the Left has mostly been abandoned. The Left has not been 'de-radicalised'; it still sits in the corner, waiting to topple the economic right. However, people who consider themselves progressive have, as you point out, become addicted to capitalism, and are trapped, fractured, responding to smaller problems which are the result of capitalism, rather than tackling Capitalism itself.
I can’t watch that guy he needs to do something about his Nasal problems.
People used to do such protests by turning their backs. This was seen as wholly disrespectful. Switching to knelling embodied no such disrespect until the right decided to rebrand knelling as disrespectful. Under no circumstances was knelling seen as disrespectful prior to this newly fabricated interpretation.
That has more to do with knelling than does religion.
That and standing on one leg in protest would look very silly.
Kneeling is an act of supplication while taking the knee is an act of defiance. The two are not analogous. How is this not obvious?
Thank you for your work!
If you discuss Habermas, is it possible you also discuss Laclau&Mouffe in the future? I used to find left populism as a cure-for-everything solution, but now it strikes me as tactics with no strategy and just another brand/esthetics to identify with. Would be extremely interested to hear your thoughts about it.
Woke is code word for black issues am very concerned about black issues is like saying demanding justice and accountability is woke so I must be woke
I don't see the point in trying to prove, that kneeling is a religious gesture.
The mimicry of an authentic personality in line with wokeism is notably marked by an increase in one's social capital and is in this way problematized.
One must be cautious to note the relationship fostered between those limiting economic equality and the movements that are ostensibly in opposition.
I am reminded of Rick Roderick's notion that advertising had appropriated the space of metaphysics, and for this reason, we should come to expect Nike et al. to align themselves with religious or humanist ideology. After all, they themselves are a major agent in the cultivation of the socio-ontological soil that such movements then grow out of!
Wokeism to me is all about appearances. Lets appear to care about everything so that i can continue to live in my bubble. Movies are the best example appearing to be inclusive but then when you look closely all characters are complete egotistical psychopaths with zero substenance.
I feel like the way you speak will be lost on the people who lean right.
Like if I take a knee at my job no one is going to see it, I'm just a tree falling in the forest. If a soccer player does it before a match they aren't doing it because of how much they get paid, they are doing it because they know millions of people will get a message.
I don't think commodification has much to do with it for them personally, certainly the media commodifies it as a way of discussing the issue and generating traffic. But the media does that to literally everything, it's not a fault in the message.
As opposed to someone like Peterson who likely does not speak in public unless he's being paid. Which is something he will freely admit. The likelyhood he might be influenced by a system of circular rewards is nearly 100%, he repeats things quite often that are just factually not true. Two good examples are the 13/52 myth and the idea that eating only red meat is healthy. Those two claims discredit him almost entirely.
I thought Colin Kaepernick's original gesture was meaningful, admirable, justified, and in its context, very brave. He was initially alone in a stadium full of hostile sports fans, and that hostility was directed both at his cause and at him personally. It took genuine personal courage.
The gesture cannot be as meaningful now that it has become -- not just sanctioned, but almost mandated. We cannot judge the sincerity of the gesture anymore. It does not take courage. We don't know whether the athletes are kneeling because they care deeply about racial injustice, or just because they don't want the drama of being accused of racism. The very embrace of the gesture by the mass media has rinsed it of any meaning.
Why is taking a knee purely a religious gesture? It has more to with general showing of respect on my opinion (see knighting ceremonies). I guess you could say monarchies generally have a religious element but at that point it seems like everything ever used by religion is arbitrarily off limits because of the association as opposed to the actual ideologies in question.
Just noticed the Blame! volume in the background. Good taste
taking the knee is popular in the media but massively unpopular among football fans, in roughly mirrored proportions (80%-20% or so)
In your way of seeing it, you use some concepts like "discourse", and "civil religion", these concepts are from a given "academic" context.
If you start from more basic assumptions, and other premises, by observing other patterns of reality(like neurology, evolutionary psychology, systems&information-science, cybernetics), you can replace words like "discourse" with survival-replication-strategy as seen from a gene-centric -view.
The context that created concepts like "discourse" were not including our pre-conscious cognitive patterns, and thus their axioms are not correlating to obervable consistent patterns of reality. Of cognition, emotional resonance and interpretation.
Concepts like "civil religion" are also in a similar way, disconnected from other consistent underlying patterns of reality.
I see it as you are starting from faulty, ill informed basic assumptions and axioms, because you lack clear and consistent definitions, references and context of some of the topics you discuss.
Absolutely incredible as always. I love your deconstruction of the wokeism phenomena - and giggled when you pre-empted your points as "I see something else, but also makes me uncomfortable" and showed various SportsBall™ figured adorned with big, famous brands and sponsorships. Surprisingly, despite obviously not putting high amounts of budgeting into your videos, you're quite adept at getting a point across through the mediums you're using. Bravo.
Still, a critique if I could offer it - I have a general disdain of the terms "left" and "right" because it so often relegates almost all (if not outright all) political discussion into what feels like a one dimensional chamber. It often disregards more nuanced philosophy and viewpoints - such as those critical of capitalism, yet critical of marxism as well - and it'd be nice to see, if you're willing, to delve into the general philosophies behind the left-vs-right dichotomy. I won't lie, I have personally begun having a near physical revulsion at the terms "left" or "right", but am willing to see your perspective on it, especially if you feel it's important to uphold this dichotomy.
Again, appreciate your work, and hope to see more of it. It's certainly a glimmering bit of light to be found within the otherwise dark caverns of UA-cam. Big kudos to Then & Now, who's been incredibly mature about something that very much, in The Current Year™, would cause feuds and often juvenile responses or non-responses (that is to say... a slight disagreement and debate).
Seemingly unrelated event: In 2015 a scientist Gus speth, after a series of failures of his efforts to push environmental reforms, said:
"The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
In my opinion this was the turning point, when the US' universities began engaging with politics more and eventually created this religion. They reached this cultural and spiritual transformation that they wanted, but because power is not being handed to ideas but to people holding these ideas, environmentalism wasn't the only topic that this religion included. In this package of beliefs, together with climate orientation came focus on racial and sexual inequality.
Just gotta say that toaster-pop-timing at 13:56 was exquisite
Wouldn’t you say that now “anti-wokeism” has also become exploited by capitalist entities (like yourself)? There is a lot of money to be made these days by being loud and anti-woke.
My argument isn’t then that capitalist appropriation of Wokeism is then fine, but that any new angle that enters our marketplace of ideas will have grifters ready to exploit it. And therefore, you focusing on wokeism is missing the larger issue.
You touch on on the larger issue when you talk about structures, but you deliver that concept through a critique of wokeism which attracts the anti-woke market. And therefore based on your own arguments, you’re no better than your woke-counterparts.
I point out this hypocrisy because I actually agree that wokeism has elements of dogma/religion in it that need to be called out, but I just didn’t like your argument.
What he is against is the moralization of social activism, which turns it into a movement of good vs evil, right vs wrong.
Because this leads to black and white thinking that doesn't allow the navigation of nuances. Just like how you think professor Moellor is hypocritical because he works inside a capitalist system and produce these videos via it.
But Moellor never claims capitalism is an evil system, nor does he claims a rightous person should't make money within such system. He is simply saying the commodification and religious elements of wokeism distracts the priority of wealth redistribution and American social cooperation, therefore it needs to be supervised and re-adjust, become more grounded and secular, but not outright destroyed.
Funny how, whenever I search up this string of videos, google sends me to Carefree Wandering and not the Then & Now channel.
I would really like to hear Dr Moeller go into more detail about the pitfalls of over identification with the authenticity paradigm. I am just old enough (33) to have been raised to full consciousness prior to the paradigm shift into profilicity and am admittedly biased but the problems or pathologies of the other two frameworks are extremely obvious to me whereas the problems with authenticity are less so. I don’t relate to feeling pressured to be unique or original, and frankly the stress from that seems like small potatoes compared to the nightmare scenarios on offer as a result of the other two paradigms. I’m a bit chilled by the relativist/realist non-judgement Dr Moeller offers in regards to their respective merits (shades of McLuhan?) but again that’s my authenticity bias… in that spirit though, would love to hear more material devoted to a critique of authenticity. Thanks!
Professor Möeller with the fresh cut 💯
I love that you quoted Adolph Reed
Basically the short answer is athletes do this because it’s a way of showing respect to fallen heroes, just like they do in the military to show respect to fallen heroes who died fighting for justice and for freedom.
It first began as soldiers would take any and hold hands so they could pray for fallen comrades while national anthem is being sung.
,,,I take it Carefree Wandering doesn't know why dude was kneeling (rather than just sitting--hint, it started with just sitting). What has made it something of a 'sacred' gesture is the result of the interplay between the initial protest, and the protest of the protest; that it, it 'evolved' to kneeling, because the of the cries of those that just couldn't stand to see him sitting.
The point is that this isn't just an instance of 'wokism' but rather 'wokism' at interplay with reactionaries, which is very much NOT the same thing.
The 21st century Chomsky-Foucault debate.
Although the frame of this discussion is a capitalistic one because it takes place on youtube, i disagree on the characterization of Then & Now as a capitalist. While Then & Now may own the computer and camera he uses to produce his videos, he is in fact more akin to an uber driver in the gig economy, at the merci of the larger capitalist frame. I doubt that Then & Now intends to desiminate a pro-capitalist message.
I don't think the intent matters
@@caspar_gomez My point is that he doesn't intend and doesn't actually produce a pro capitalist message..
A cult--absolutely.
But a religion technically is a social framework dealing with some type of supernatural beliefs in agency or interaction--so, no. Not a religion.
Fantastic! Left a subscription. Philosophy was my fave subject at school in.... the 80s. 😅
I think you don’t even need to go as far as you do in your rebuttal. It’s not simply the gesture of kneeling for racial justice itself that encapsulates the religiosity of the woke movement (I agree there are parallels, but at its most basic level, I think it’s simply a more apparent way to NOT pledge allegiance than to just bow your head, put your arms behind your back, etc.). It’s the reception of and context within which the gesture is made. People have spiritual impulses. The extrapolation of such is not / should not be, then, that religion is right, true, whatever (more or less the argument the wokeism defender was making)
Most other people feel the same discomfort. The media doesn't remotely represent what the populace feels in the UK. Most people loathe wokeism.
There are so many sounds in the english language, that most germans can't pronounce, like in the word "pull" the "u" and the dark L at the end or every word beginning with "w". As a non-native speaker, I'm still struggling with these sounds. So it's kind of hypocritical to complain, that a british person can't pronounce your name properly.
I learn so much about how to have a constructive respectful argument from watching this channel.
My biggest problem with wokeism is that you are expected to perform it, or else. There are several good things in woke ideology, but the moment you disagree with any aspect of it you can be labeled as being phobic, or racist, or whatever.
There are no good things in woke ideology that aren't way better represented by other more moderate ideologies.
@@solonyetski Well, I agree with that. I guess it's the sort of cultish enforcement, adversity to debate, and intolerance to disagreement that ruins it. It's more about appearing woke than being woke. I hate the repetition of mantras. I hate the notion that shouting about injustice on Twitter is the same as doing something about it.
@@MandyJane123700 it do be like that
It's fascinating that one has to disagree but agree with Baudrillard both at the same time. His style is just something else, I find. It screws with everything that is considered logical or rational, operating almost entirely in the domain of intuition. The exaggeration is necessary for one to see the pattern emerge, for otherwise it would remain obscure. And it manages to be entirely superficial, with no detailed analysis of any sort, while being one of the most deeply layered philosophies I have ever encountered. It is the manifestation of the ``superficial abyss``, if I were to characterize it with one of his own concepts. I think Nietzsche once said that ``to perfect a style is to perfect ideas`` and Baudrillard is a stellar exemplar for that.
I love your videos, but the responses they elicit make my blood pressure shoot up. I consider myself a socialist, so it angers me when I hear a self-proclaimed leftist say that today we enjoy a broadened - not a narrowed - public sphere and that social media is what enabled this. Social media subjects domains of life that used to belong to the public sphere to market logic, essentially turning them into the private sphere. It amounts to a "privatisation" or a "restructuring" of the town square - just like neoliberalism seeks to privatize healthcare and other public utilities. The fact that he's cheering on this development leaves me no choice but to say that Then & Now is a neoliberal falsely parading as a leftist.
What he's saying is ridiculous in exactly the same way that saying Tinder has "broadened love" is - it's ridiculous if said in earnest in a debate context, but depressingly normal and corporate-cringe if said in a marketing context. And that's what his philosophy regarding and understanding of wokeness amounts to: regurgitating marketing corpo-logic but in earnest.
“onlyfans helps sex workers”..to assemble them on a private platform & control it to maximize company profits from them.
Yes!!! Nothing to add
@@priapulida 🥱 it's so predictable and tiresome how liberals always condemn ideas they don't like with such grand language ("shattered glasses", "flat earth") with no substance to justify the grandeur.
I'll address your sole argument and say that just because something is politicized doesn't mean it now occupies the public sphere. The private, the personal and the public (unless you have a better way of dividing up the different social domains which people engage with) have all been at different times and to various extents politicized. Politicizing private enterprise, for instance, does not magically make it public.
@@propkid Flat earth is grand language now?
Privatization of public utilities is good though.
When it comes to the shift from 'the public sphere' to 'the general peer' can we analogize it as a move from a somewhat idealistic 'league of nations' (all together, striving for the common good) towards a 'balkanization' of sorts?
At least, the terminology of ' _the_ public sphere' implies it's a singular thing shared by all,
whereas 'the general _peer_ ' is more speciated. One's general peer can strive against another's general peer.
I think wokeism indeed functions just like a religion.
Because like religion, the "critical theories" they come from have central ideas that explain everything yet are fuzzy or even paradoxical by design so as to side-step criticism. We see this in the unfalsifiable character of many core concepts: privilege is invisible, bias is implicit, discrimination is systemic or unconscious, and so on. Due to the strong reliance on personal experience and a profound skepticism of objective truth, push-back against the religion of wokeness is often judged not so much as true or false, but as being a moral failure.
Here's a quote from the book _Cynical Theories_ (Pluckrose & Lindsay):
"This can be seen in the fact that disagreement is often regarded as, at best, a failure to have engaged with the scholarship correctly, (...) and, at worst, a profound moral failure. This kind of claim is more familiar from religious ideology - if you don't believe, you haven't read the holy text properly or you just want to sin." (p. 198)
Could you maybe one day make a video where you define exactly what wokeism is, at least your own personal definition anyway? That would help all the other videos on the subject. As it stands I don't even know what the word means.
he did, look a couple of videos back.
Thanks Hans!
One of your best videos.
I feel like such a dork for immediately recognizing that journal in the video (Kybernetes) xD
Thanks this is a good chanel. Much recommend.
Originally, the term “woke”, meant-to be awake; a sort of mini-enlightenment or attainment of Satori. Recently, the Usurpers of Language have tried desperately to appropriate the term “woke” and commit an act logocide upon it. Logocide, is when the Usurpers of Language take a word and change its meaning in order to demoralize, demean, or dehumanize the supposed members of the group which the word is meant to describe. Ultimately, there are no “woke” people; “woke” is an abstract, imaginary classification, which is not inherent in nature. In any case, logocide is an act of hatred-and anyone who participates in it, is a goddamn fool. Whomever creates the meaning of words, controls the people who must use them. Language is a prison-and in order to transcend it, you must know it well; or else not speak at all. Carl Jung warned us against identifying with archetypes. You are not a noun. Static labels can never describe fluid objects-and since every atom in the universe is in constant motion, words can never suffice to explain the objects within the universe. So long as you continue to identify with your ideas, you will be bothered and angered when you encounter the opposition of those ideas. When you realize that you are not your ideas, labels, or nouns, you can free yourself from the Prison of Language.
“Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know.” -Lao Tzu
Dr Moeller, you seem to be essentialising gestures. There is no religious essence to a gesture. Put another way, gestures cannot be fundamentally religious because taking a knee is not a culturally universal signifier of religious prayer, it is highly contextually and culturally dependent. Another example: If I clasp my hands together, it does not always mean that I am praying, sometimes I am expressing gratitude, or simply pointing at someone with both of my palms together. In Islamic cultures, one prays by prostration: that does not mean that someone prostrating is always praying.
Gestures are polysemous (have many meanings). Gestures are a language of the body (or body language): Saucerre's structural linguistics posits that signifiers and signified have no essential relationship to each other, and that meaning is characterised by difference (a negative relationship): an elm is different to an oak, but both are trees. Derrida and the postructuralists argue that meaning is so slippery as to render linguistic and cultural semantics a difficult task; words and gestures meaning many things to many people in the late modernity. Consider that your reading of a gesture is creating or misinterpreting meaning. You are a scholar interested in civil religion. You probably see the world in a unique way because of this, and interpret social reality in a unique way. This does not mean that taking a knee during a sports game: whilst increasingly ritualistic, is necessarily religious - civil or otherwise.
Wokism has appropriated some symbolic trappings, but it is not primarily about the issues of concern to religions, which are appeasing the Gods, the afterlife and how to get in it, along with personal spiritual development. All social organisations use some symbolic behaviour, whether it is saluting in a certain way, the wearing of distinctive clothing, a certain manner of speech, all used to show solidarity and belonging. That does not make all social organisations religious, it just means that organised religion is one kind of a broader set of social organisations that share these features.
Wokism is primarily political, in that it demands redistribution of status, wealth, power. It demands that political rights and economic benefits accrue to people based on their caste, not on their economic class as traditionally understood, according to caste rules determined by a self selected elite. There is nothing inherently religious about this, or the strict demand for conformity in speech and behaviour that wokism has developed and attempts to make legally compulsory. Nor is there anything particularly religious about wokism's flight from scientific empiricism and reason: or even the notion of objective truth. I know that wokism sometimes demands that people believe things that are not merely untrue but absurd: but that has been true about entirely secular political systems as well.
Hence I am unconvinced that the wokism is religion line adds very much value. If you do not like the degree intolerance and coercive conformity that wokism demands - well neither do I. Those elements should be resisted, but resisted because while a level of conformity is required for human society to function, too much intolerance and coercion stunt human flourishing.
Wokism is primarily religious in that it demands redistribution of status, wealth, power according to it's moral code based in it's ideology. It demands justice for the weak and the poor just like the catholic church does for centuries because it's the morally "good" position and therfore you believe that and do a little symbolic action here and there. Not to actually change anything but to firm the status quo. Their "heaven" is "fully automated gay space communism"
@@alexanderleuchte5132 We will just have to disagree about what "religious" means. There are plenty of systems that demand worldly outcomes according to a moral code based on an ideology. Communism, for instance. Also capitalism. Calling these forms "religious" strips the term of any useful meaning.
@@unreasonable3589 As i understood the discussion of "wokism" so far on this channel that term specifically describes a cult of ideas and mostly symbolic action for the sake of cultivating a personal identity and a sense of belonging to a community. You can fight the devil by being a good christian, you can fight "patriarchy" by "breaking gender norms". You can also fight capitalism by "going to church" in form of watching the right YT channels and see that as "activism" etc.
I also think that religion is much more about values and stories than about gods and the afterlife. Gods are also just characters in mythical stories and the afterlife is pretty specific to Christianity/Judaism.
@@alexanderleuchte5132 I agree that is the message the channel has transmitted: what I am saying is that this is a false analysis. The very idea of "secular religion" is unhelpful. If something is religion, by definition it is not secular. Figurative speech is not useful in philosophy. It is true that that wokism shares some characteristics which we associate with religion, for instance, ritualised actions. So what? As I said earlier, almost every human social interaction contains ritualistic elements. Also those of many non-human animals.
Wokism is clearly not merely a personal performance with no real effects on society. When people risk genuine punishment for using the wrong pronoun, or women get raped in prison because some male sex offender declares that he is a woman, real people face real consequences. Wokism has genuine and profound social effects: which ones are harmful and which beneficial is another matter.
I don't think I really agree with your emphasis on the religious aspect of taking a knee, I think there are lots of contexts for kneeling down for some non-religious reason, but I think in this context of how every US citizen is expected to stand for their flag and anthem and what it represents, kneeling is/was simply a strong symbol of protesting that. Being “woke” includes realising the struggle and suffering of the native peoples and black slaves that the United States Of America is built on, and these young black American athletes used their public platform and made a powerful statement. Then the symbol gained extra significance in the wake of George Floyd's death, after the policeman Derek Chauvin took a knee on George's neck and killed him, really lighting the match for the BLM movement - drawing attention to a problem that had been rotting for a long time. I kinda think "wokeism" is just like the new buzzword for the same revolutionary spirit humans have always had against the white capitalist system in power.
I do agree it's hilarious how, as usual, the spirit is co-opted by corporations to sell stuff, and also how people so often focus on the gesture, how the message is given, instead of the message itself
"I think there are lots of contexts for kneeling down for some non-religious reason" can you name a few examples other than proposing?
@@alexanderleuchte5132 Not the person you commented to, but since I saw your comment on another comment, kneeling is done during knighting, and it's just a stationary position someone can assume, even for something of no symbolic meaning such as when tying shoelaces. The meaning comes from the context and the intent to give it meaning (in this case, to have a position that is notably different than standing up).
@@trawrtster6097 Knighting is done by the king who got his power from god. Of course i thought about feudalism but at least in europe that was founded in the christian believe, the kings power only got legitimacy from god. For example:
"The "Walk to to Canossa" , was the ritual submission of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV to Pope Gregory VII at Canossa Castle in 1077 during the Investiture controversy. It involved the Emperor journeying to Canossa, where the Pope had been staying as the guest of Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, to seek absolution and the revocation of his excommunication.
According to contemporary sources, he was forced to supplicate himself _on his knees_ waiting for three days and three nights before the entrance gate of the castle, while a blizzard raged."
The emperor of europe had to beg on his knees for forgivenss from the pope, the deputy of god
@@alexanderleuchte5132 So, what's your point? That kneeling for non-religious purposes are so rare that kneeling should generally be seen as a religious pose? Like I said, people kneel for all kinds of reasons (tying shoelaces, picking something off the ground, etc) , even if there is no particular symbolism behind it. If the athletes don't ascribe a religious meaning to it, it's not religious.
@@trawrtster6097 That is not how "symbolic meaning" works. In our cultural circle folding hands also symbolizes prayer and not cold hands. "If the athletes don't ascribe a religious meaning to it" they are just not aware of it
I appreciate your analysis and agree with pretty much all of it. However, I think there is something to be said for perspectivism. Colin Koepernick kneeling is (generally) going to take on a different meaning for the black community that not everyone who is white may be able to fully appreciate. The symbolic (or religious) gesture is more immediately connected to the reality of a cop's knee on your neck. So there is a more immediate connection to civil rights and civil disobedience. You wouldn't say MLK was woke, would you?
It was funny to hear the outlook email noise
I take your points about the crypto-religious dimension, but aren't they basically just saying "this is what I believe" and trying to use a shorthand that has become popular to convey an emotional message to a society that IS heavily rooted in bastardizations of Christianity and so will recognize the "goodness" of the attitude as a more properly moral act and one that the Almighty would endorse? In a society so mired in racist flavours of God-fearing, they are communicating their message using this idiom. Is that religion? (Not a rhetorical question.)
Perhaps what's missing from both arguments here is the Brechtian take on cinema/technology, and the auratic. Discussing Brecht's notion of critical distanciation, and address the parallel steps of early cinema and fascism, Benjamin notes how the edit and cut of a movie allows for the aesthetication and ontology of the mass leading toward the future, the aesthetication of politics generally, and the pleasure of destruction (in a Futurist sense). Technology, in general, where it facilitates a narrative, also amplifies and indulges the activity of the viewer as a media spectacle that offsets the political content itself. The aesthetic of its formation, organisation and cultural cues supercede any notion of political activity
@nigel_bd got you. Nova Scotia, zeroing down ..
@nigel_bd you can't do anything to influence archive Google, nige
@nigel_bd as you often say, "stupid algorithms"...
@nigel_bd enjoy your week
@nigel_bd hi chap. We are due to meet soon. Perhaps there's a coffee house to sit and talk a while? Let me know.
Growing up in Pittsburgh, we would take a knee when another player was injured on the soccer field
Doesnt negate the religious connotation of the gesture, but i thought it was worth mentioning
( In reference to 8:16 ish )
I never really had a strong opinion on wokeism but I would say that for a lot of people who identify as woke, it kinda does operate like a religion/cult.
There's this hyper-awareness of race, sex, sexual identity, sexual orientation etc. Sure for the vast majority of people, their goal is simple and that's to ensure that all groups are treated equally.
However, for many people, like those on Twitter and tiktok, it's hard to see it not functioning as a religion.
Why should everyone get treated equally?