Clinton Tankersley, Guest Essay: Woke?
Guest essay, Wednesday, 25 September 2024
Last Spring, Keith Parsons gave us two Letters related to being Woke (links to both at the end of this Letter). Today I’m posting a detailed reply to those (mostly the first of them) from Clinton Tankersley:
How Woke is Your Parachute?
Clinton Tankersley
Hi Dr. Parsons. I am just now reading your piece and I have thoughts.
First, thank you for having the courage to even write about this topic. Public discourse in this arena is way too frothy and prone to societal "cancellation," as you alluded to in your piece. I commend you for that.
Second, I learned a lot about postmodernism, and its critiques, so thank you for that as well. I do not feel a need to pick sides in this, though, as I see it as a false choice -- postmodernism and liberalism (or whatever you are arguing is the superior school of thought) all have much to offer and either need not be dismissed out of hand.
Overall, I will say that my experience reading this essay was quite the rollercoaster. I am a proud proponent of social justice and you say that social justice is bad because it comes from postmodernism, which is bad (I am oversimplifying here with "bad," but you catch my drift).
But before you, or anyone else, attempts to label me with the right wing epithet of "social justice warrior" or "SJW," I would like to inform you that you, too, sir are a proponent of social justice. Furthermore, your attempt to categorically discredit all of social justice by essentially framing it as "fruit of the poisonous tree," a descendant of wackadoodle postmodernism philosophies, falls short, in my never humble opinion.
I have often struggled to find a satisfying definition of social justice, as I understand it. Now, I have a great one and it is from Dr. Keith Parsons, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Emeritus, University of Houston-Clear Lake. For me, promoting social justice is:
...to effect broad societal changes that empower and include those historically powerless and excluded. These changes involve revisions of law, custom, representation, and attitude. Concomitantly, the over-privileges enjoyed by some must be curtailed. The goal is equality, not absolute equality in every respect, but in essential respects: equality of rights, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and equality of respect and dignity. 'Equal rights for all; special privileges for none.'
This is social justice, my friend! Recall Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech (colloquially called, "the race speech"): https://www.npr.org/2008/03/18/88478467/transcript-barack-obamas-speech-on-race
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care and better schools and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans: the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
To equate absolute equality with the aims of social justice, as you seem to have done, is a gross mischaracterization and a straw man argument because no credible social justice activist is arguing for absolute equality. Show me one (1) extreme left "SJW" absolutist and I will introduce you to ninety-nine (99) hardworking, fair-minded social justice activists who are fighting for Obama's vision with not a single shred of delusional desire for absolute equality. My friend, nobody is saying, as right wingers like to imply, things like "The population is 50% women so women should have exactly 50% representation in every single aspect of society, and if they don't then that is sexism." No! Not even close. The goal is exactly what you said: equality, not absolute equality.
For me, social justice is about having a more perfect union as a global humanity, not some autocratic, neo-communistic obsession with exact proportionate distribution of everything everywhere all at once.
I would wager that you and I, if we were to have a one-on-one chat (which I would thoroughly enjoy and appreciate, in actual fact), would see pretty close to eye-to-eye on the many ways that the left has overplayed the so-called "woke agenda" (as right wingers term it; a term that I find to be mostly a slur that tends to curtail meaningful dialog rather than encourage it). For example, I believe that transgender people exist and they have always existed, I believe in trans rights, and I will flight for trans rights, BUT I don't believe that it is the human rights issue of our day and time -- that is, unequivocally, the issue of Climate Changed (that "d" is not a typo--we are already in it, so let's face it for what it is). This is not the hill to die on for the cause of liberalism and societal progress, and continuing to push it hard in academia and society has already caused (and continues to cause) a right wing / independent backlash that is harmful to much more important causes. As you say, the left should be "leading the fight against Trump"; I would only quibble that I would have preferred something like, "leading the fight against Trump because he rejects Climate Changed, the most dire threat that humankind has ever faced."
I would also like to address your attempt to make it seem as though language is unimportant or insignificant in the cause of equality. You stated,
Because of their emphasis on the near-omnipotence of language, Theorists see oppression as pervasively encoded in language. They do not mean just the invidious stereotypes built into language.
Then you listed several common English phrases with discriminatory origins, appearing to long for the days when you could still use them without being called out for your discriminatory language. You then continued,
According to Theory, even the most seemingly innocuous discourse can be an oppressive imposition by a dominant group.
Frankly, I am having trouble believing that "someone deeply imbued with scientific/rationalist/realist assumptions" (as I believe I am as well) such as yourself cannot fathom how the use of language -- whether termed "a common vocabulary" or "propaganda" or "marketing" -- can and does have real-world impacts, for better or worse, on the cause of equality.
Or is there some other reason for why we Whites no longer use the N-word?
I would also like to address your discussion of "cancel culture." I completely agree that it has gone too far. We need space in relationships, in families, and in society for forgiveness. Everyone errs from time to time. Everyone gets heated and says and does things that they later regret. Every human deserves the dignity of not being reduced to nothing more than your worst mistakes. For example, if someone is found to have behaved badly and they take sincere steps to make amends (see, e.g., James Gunn and Kevin Hart), then you (partner, family member, fellow citizen) need to nod with respect and move on. On the other hand, if someone is found to have behaved badly and they take no sincere steps to make amends (see, e.g., Harvey Weinstein and Andrew Tate), then I am 100% onboard with their complete and utter cancellation.
Finally, I would like to comment on this:
Activists seek to undermine the whole conceptual scheme that classifies people according to such categories as able/disabled or thin/fat. 'Disabilities' are, in fact, to be accepted and even celebrated; the 'disabled' are actually 'differently abled.' The autistic should celebrate their difference from the 'neurotypical.'...Is a disability something to celebrate? In my experience, definitely not. Losing my hearing has been a major hassle and has no upside. Being hearing-impaired is something that has happened to me; it is no part of who I am and does not constitute an identity I would wish to embrace.
I will set aside the "fat studies" issue because that is a total red herring, in my view, and will focus just on the disability part.
I would like to offer you a different perspective, from a fellow "disabled." I actually have never once described myself as "disabled" until now and still don't want to own up to it, because it is just who I am and I would not change it even if I was given the option. I want to learn how to better manage it, but I don't want to make it go away because there are many benefits that come with my disability. If a genie popped up and offered me a wish to "cure" my disability, then I would politely decline, as without it I would stop being me. I probably wouldn't be as funny without my disability. I would certainly not be sitting here obsessively replying to your post. I would not be the passionate lover of art and serial nonprofit founder and volunteer. I would not have deep, beautiful relationships with my fellow disabled. I would not have my same level of grit and perseverance in the face of adversity. So, yes, my disability is something to be celebrated, but that does require a degree of acceptance on my part, which has taken time.
What's my disability, you say?
I am autistic.
Dr. Parsons, there are many advantages that come with your disability as well, if you will take the time to look and consider them. I do not know you, but I will venture to say (forgive me for my bluntness--that is an autistic trait) that I think you may need to work on the acceptance part first before you will be able to see the good in your disability (don't get angry, please, I know that this is hard to hear, especially from a complete stranger; just my speculation based on your writing below).
If you would sincerely like to interrogate that part of yourself, I recommend this (I "read" the audiobook, which is 40 hours and 37 minutes long, and is read by the author): Far From the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity (2012) by Andrew Solomon, a deeply moving and insightful look at many "conditions," from being gay to being deaf to being autistic, and many others (each chapter covers a different state of being, drawing on personal case studies and scientific research); you may come away with a whole new outlook on your own and others' "disability." (No judgement either way! Apologies for being overly forthright with my opinions on this very personal topic.)
To sum up where you got it right, I think that you are correct to critique the left for pushing too hard on some human and civil rights issues (I find so much of their zeal to be incredibly counter-productive -- for example, literally stopping the production of a cohesive left because certain zealots require every single human-to-human introduction to begin with a pronoun request and disclosure.) I am teaching my four (4) kids to be kind, respectful, and loving to all people, including trans people, but I am not teaching them to say, "My name is Clinton, he him his" every time they meet someone and they should not be made to feel illiberal or socially deviant for not doing so.
To sum up where I think you got it wrong, it is mainly your assertion that social justice aims for absolute equality. It does not. I also am of the opinion that cancel culture has gone too far, but I do think that it is good for unrepentant bad actors to face consequences for their actions.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, if you do end up reading this tardy comment to your thought-provoking essay. Thank you very much.
Keith Parsons: The Defection of the Woke
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again and again: My respect for Keith Parsons has always been high but keeps getting stronger. When he submits a fresh guest essay, it is always, like this one, a thought-provoking delight. Diane and I are delighted that he’s enlightening and educating you (and us), even as we marvel that he’s being published in
Note: Anyone may copy and publish what I or my guests write, provided proper credit is given, that it’s not done for commercial purposes, that I am notified of the copying (you can just leave a comment saying where the copy is being published), and provided that what we write is not quoted out of context or distorted.
Thanks again for reading Letters … . Subscribe for free (always) to receive new posts and support my work.
Clinton, first of all--thanks! I have appreciated the opportunity to post on Ed's wonderful blog, but my one wish is that I could have had more critical feedback. After all, I offer nothing as an ex cathedra pronouncement but only as (I hope well-substantiated) opinion.
I reread my two essays and I just cannot see where I made a blanket condemnation or dismissal of social justice as a goal or desideratum. Of course I want social justice, understood in the traditionally liberal terms of equality of opportunity, curtailment of special privileges due to wealth or status, equality or rights under the law, etc. My criticism was directed at the self-appointed and self-righteous champions of social justice who understand that term not as defined by liberalism but in terms of identity politics and "theory." For these latter, social justice is understood not in terms of equality or equity--concepts they regard as vacuous--but in terms of an inversion of power relations. After all, a la Foucault, it is all about power; there is nothing else it could be about.
I recently read someone make an excellent analogy: We all want public safety. That is, we want our police, fire, and ambulance services to function efficiently to serve the well-being of the community. That is an undisputed goal. However, we might have many criticisms of our local Department of Public Safety with respect to how it fails to adequately address these goals. Likewise, I might (and do) support diversity in the faculty of my university. This does not mean that I support all of the goals or policies of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at my university (recently disbanded by order of the Texas State Legislature). For one thing, I think that for a healthy intellectual community, diversity of outlook, ideology, or conviction is more important than diversity of race or ethnicity per se. Further, I might regard some of the policies of the office of DEI are deleterious, such as requiring a "statement" on DEI from all faculty position applicants.
I will ignore all passages where you offer personal admonishment. I never reply to any personal comments made in a public forum. For one thing, you cannot respond to such comments without sounding defensive or angry. For another thing, I just do not care. One of the great things about age is that you care a lot less about what others think of you. There are maybe, a generous estimate, two dozen sentient beings whose opinion of me matters. I care about what my family, friends, and cats think of me, but hardly anybody else.
We may define a "disability" as the diminishment or destruction of a natural faculty or function. One of my best friends in college was blind from birth. He was a brilliant scholar, captain of our college bowl team, and an outstanding musician. He clearly made great use of the gifts he had. Yet he was disabled. He could not see. Perhaps blindness prompted him to develop his intellect and talents in ways that he would not have done had he been sighted. However, this does not mean that blindness is not a disability. Similarly, I had a student in many of my classes who was on the autism spectrum. He was terrific student, making A or A- in all of the classes he took from me. He had insights and could make creative connections that none of my other students could emulate. Nevertheless, he undoubtedly had an impairment in his ability to effectively interact with people in a social situation., and this did create genuine difficulties for him.
I therefore think that it is distorting and unhelpful to insist that the disabled are merely "differently abled" or that they have no problem and the problem is that the rest of us don't respond appropriately to them. Evasion of reality is a bad thing, even if it is motivated by good intentions.
Is it a default assumption on the left that any inequality of outcome must be due to bias? Clearly, it is. How often have we heard it simply taken for granted that, for instance, any inequality in income between men and women must be due to the "glass ceiling" imposed by sexist assumptions and "good ol' boy" networks? However, the recent article by Marc Defant, "A Scientific Perspective on the Patriarchy: The Gender Pay Gap and Unequal Opportunity" in Skeptic magazine (Vol. 29, #2, pp. 60-66) provides copious evidence that the "glass ceiling" is a myth and that continued disparities in income are attributable to many other factors. One can only imagine the howls and shrieks of outrage and horror that this article would elicit from the social justice warriors.
So, thanks for the commentary. I doubt that we will settle much of anything here, but I think we can further the discussion.