What Went Wrong with the Anti-Woke Movement

Let's go back to the basics and look at the philosophical roots again

Let's face it: The anti-woke movement has become a trainwreck. People are now confused about what 'woke' really means. Many are just sick and tired of any talk about 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' at this point. Meanwhile, right-wing culture warriors, many with religious-authoritarian motivations, have hijacked the anti-woke movement to target people and things that are not actually woke, such as Disney, Bud Light, and even the entire LGBT community. The biggest problem is that there is now almost no serious intellectual discussion on why wokeism is misguided, why we oppose it, or even what should be done about it. This is the beginning of a series where I will attempt to retrace the history of anti-wokeism, look at what has gone wrong, and what we need to do to fix things from here.

Let's start at the beginning. The reason why I started speaking up against wokeism is basically philosophical. In the past year, I have described wokeism, in its most pure and extreme form, as 'critical anarchism', in that it seeks to deconstruct and dismantle basically the entire cultural status quo, which wokeists believe is made up of interlocking systems of oppression. Some have disputed my characterization, saying that not all woke activists go to that extreme level, and I have to agree. However, generally speaking, I think wokeism, broadly speaking (that is when including the 'moderately woke' too), could be characterized as cultural systemism, i.e. an orientation towards seeing culture as primary defined by interlocking systems of dominance and oppression, rather than for example a battle between ideas, or a process of gradual moral refinement over time.

I think the conflict between woke and anti-woke is essentially a conflict between cultural systemism and those opposed to this worldview. On the systemist side are the woke, who believe that our culture primarily consists of interlocking and mutually reinforcing systems of oppression, and that to liberate women and oppressed minorities all these systems need to be deconstructed and dismantled. On the non-systemist side are liberals, conservatives (both libertarian and authoritarian), and even the progressive 'SJWs' of the 2010s. People on the non-systemist side have different and conflicting views of what culture is and what it should look like, but broadly speaking they believe that it is ideas, rather than systems of oppression, that create and influence our culture. Note that non-systemists don't always deny the systematic nature of some of the discrimination present in society, we just don't believe this is a good primary lens with which to analyze and change society. For example, for wokeists, 'white supremacy' is a system of oppression to be dismantled, while I see it as a bad idea that needs to be defeated in the marketplace of ideas. In the case of draconian abortion bans, wokeists see them as a product of the system of 'patriarchy', while I see them as the product of religious authoritarianism, an ideology rooted in unsound ideas and assumptions.

Non-systemists also have different reasons to oppose systemism. I believe that cultural systemism is bad because it inherently denies the power of ideas, the importance of free will, truth and morality, and ultimately our personal agency to make society better. My opposition to aspects of 'woke activism' like de-platforming and cancel culture also stem from my philosophical commitments. Since I believe that a free flow of ideas ultimately leads to more sound ideas winning out, I logically favor free speech. On the other hand, systemists might oppose free speech because they believe it favors speech and ideas that reinforce the systems of oppression. Of course, we who support free speech have objective evidence on our side, as seen in how we won gay marriage throughout the West in less than a generation using the power of persuasion. However, it would be difficult to convince cultural systemists using objective evidence, because many of them are highly influenced by postmodernism, and are skeptical of objectivity.

The problem with the anti-woke movement is that it is, and has always been, a coalition of people with different, and at times incompatible, ideals. Just because we all believe in the primacy of ideas and not systems in defining a society's culture, doesn't mean we can agree on what ideas we should uphold. There was a failure to acknowledge this right from the start, as seen in for example the IDW's early tip-toeing around their differences, which ended up tearing them apart just a few years later. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the anti-woke movement being a broad umbrella for anti-systemists, where different voices and perspectives are equally and fairly represented, and we agree to respectfully disagree outside of our common opposition to cultural systemism. I don't pretend that all anti-systemists are liberals or moral libertarians like myself, and I have never believed that we should seek dominance over other anti-systemists, because that would dilute and confuse the argument against cultural systemism.

The problem is, authoritarian conservatives, who are part of the anti-woke movement, obviously had different priorities. Unlike classical liberals, their agenda is not pluralistic and tolerant of diversity of thought at all. In fact, prominent 'postliberal' intellectuals have come out and openly criticized classical liberal thinkers, particularly John Stuart Mill, for defending the right of individuals to transgress against traditional social norms. While the classical liberal model supports free thought and free speech for all, and believe that the best ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas, authoritarian conservatives have the same fear and distrust towards the marketplace of ideas as the woke. While we are anti-woke because we believe in defending the marketplace of ideas and the individual liberty required for it to work, they just oppose wokeism because they want a different, more traditional kind of authoritarianism. We have no trouble being in an alliance with libertarian conservatives, because of our shared commitment to classical liberal values. But authoritarian conservatives, who want governments to ban transgression against traditional-religious norms, are actually our biggest ideological enemy historically, and being in any alliance with them is selling out the core values and heritage of classical liberalism.

The trouble right now is that, it appears that authoritarian conservatives are more powerful than classical liberals, in terms of things like money and connections. Many well-funded and well-connected anti-woke media outlets have taken a more authoritarian conservative stance on various issues, or at least given authoritarian conservative voices a bigger platform than classical liberal or libertarian conservative voices. I think this also reflects the recent shift towards authoritarianism seen in the Republican Party and right-wing American politics in general. The increasingly authoritarian tone found in anti-woke media has served to support increasingly authoritarian policies and legislation from the Republican Party, and we classical liberals simply can't in our good conscience stay silent any longer.

Moreover, since the authoritarian right hijacked the anti-woke movement, there has been less and less space to discuss the shortcomings of cultural systemism. Instead, they have muddied the waters of what 'woke' means, making anything they don't like 'woke' (as in 'Disney is a woke corporation'). This has done great disservice to those of us who want a real intellectual debate on cultural systemism. My hope was that the anti-woke movement could build and promote the case against cultural systemism, by pushing back on the cultural systemist claims and associated behaviors of woke activists. But it seems that the authoritarian conservative voices that now dominate anti-woke media prefer to make anti-wokeness all about picking fights with Disney, banning drag performances, and banning books from libraries, all of which are things classical liberals, and even most libertarian conservatives, would instinctively oppose. The kind of anti-woke movement seen in the 'mainstream' anti-woke media is an authoritarian one, with very little space for more libertarian voices these days.

Which is why it's time to split up, and build an alternative. An alternative that is committed to individual liberty and the marketplace of ideas, and opposes wokeism on these grounds, rather than pseudo-populist reactionary sentiment. An alternative that wants to have serious debates about cultural systemism, rather than starting culture wars about Disney and drag queens.